Thursday, May 28, 2020

Some Random Thoughts on Social Issues

Some Random Thoughts on Social Issues
Thomas Allen

Below a box of crayons is used to explain the difference between segregation and integration. Also, discussed are the praise of Blacks and women, the idea that all collectives are socialists at heart, Martin Luther King, the future of the American Negro, eugenics and dysgenics, and the rape of a transgender.

A Box of Crayons
A box of crayons contains unique colors: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple, etc. It is a representation of diversity.
A segregationist-separationist preserves the uniqueness of each crayon by keeping all the crayons apart. Although the segregationist-separationist has a reputation of animus for diversity, his policies preserve diversity by protecting the unique color of each crayon.
An integrationist-amalgamationist destroys the uniqueness of each crayon by mixing them together. Although the integrationist-amalgamationist has a reputation of adoration for diversity, his policies destroy diversity by reducing all colors to a monotonous oneness of motley gray.

Praising Blacks and Women
The way some people, especially White progressives, liberals, and Democrats (almost a redundancy, but not quite) fawn over Blacks and women for performing tasks that Blacks and women do not normally perform is insulting to Blacks and women. These people act as though Blacks and women are incapable, or at least have great difficulty in performing such tasks. Moreover, these people behave like people who see an animal performing tricks — especially tricks that are unusual. In short, these people degrade Blacks and women, while in their minds, they think that they are praising them. (Such sycophancy is especially noticeable during Black history month and women’s history month.)
Also, most of these people speak with a Janus-face — thus, showing their hypocrisy. With one face, they preach “judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” With the other face, they praise Blacks for performing tricks, tasks, that they seem to believe that Blacks are not capable of doing or do with great difficulty. They reveal this belief by the way that they emphasize that the person is Black. (Their view of women shows the same thing.)

Are All Collectivists Socialists?
Some claim that “racists,” nationalists, and others who believe that their membership in certain groups or collectives is important and valuable and that such collectives should be protected and preserved is a socialist at heart. They are all collectivists. Is this assertion true? Yes, they are collectivists, but their collectiveness is social and not economics. However, such collectivism does not make one a socialist.
For example, some people identify themselves as Americans and believe that the United States and Americans are important and should be protected and preserved. Consequently, they are collectives. According to the “all collectivists are socialist” proponents, Americans who believe that the United States and Americans are important and worthy of preservation are socialists. If true, how do the “all collectivists are socialist” proponents explain why the more socialist a person is, the less likely he is to believe that the United States and Americans are worth protecting and preserving?
Likewise, Christians who believe that Christianity is worthy of protection and preservation are collectivists. Are these Christians socialists? They are if the “all collectivists are socialist” proponents are correct. Yet, most socialists want to destroy true Christianity.
Furthermore, Blacks who believe that the Negro race and the American Negro are worthy of protection and preservation are collectives. Are these Blacks socialists? They are if the “all collectivists are socialist” proponents are correct. (If these Blacks truly believe that the American Negro and Negro race are worth saving, they would oppose miscegenation and interracial mating and support people of other races who also opposed interracial mating.) However, except as a tool to advance their Marxist agenda, most socialists do not care about the Negro race or the American Black.
Because one believes in noneconomic collectives, such as country, nation, religion, and race, does not mean that he believes in a collective economic system, such as socialism, fascism, and communism.

Martin Luther King
A liberal friend once told me that King’s assassination was the best thing that happened to him. Being assassinated, King died a martyr. If he had lived much longer, most people would have recognized him as the rabble-rouser, scumbag, and hustler that he really was. Instead, his martyrdom led to his deification, and now he is revered more than Jesus, the Son of God.
By 1968, the illuminists, ruling elite, insiders, establishment, or whatever one calls them knew that they had ridden the King horse as far as it could go. They concluded that King was more valuable dead than alive. Therefore, they sent out the word, most likely indirectly rather than directly, that King needed to die — and, thus, he was murdered. His death, they used to provoke race riots. Moreover, they martyred him and then deified him to bring down Jesus, the heart of Christianity, which they despised. Now, almost everyone, from the far right to the far left worships King.

The Future of the American Black
Why do common Blacks continue to follow their self-appointed leaders, who promote open borders and unlimited immigration? Is it because nearly all these immigrants (or, more correctly, colonists) are “people of color”? Do common Blacks believe that these “people of color” will support the cause and agenda of the Black man? If so, their ignorance deceives them.
Nearly all these people of color are from Latin America, East Asia (Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Filipinos), and the Indian Subcontinent (Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis). Rare is any of these people who care anything about Blacks. For the most part, they despise Blacks, and many consider them subhuman. Most esteem Blacks less than the stereotypical Klansman does. (Even the Melanochroi of the Horn of Africa and along the Sahara have an extremely low opinion of Negroes.) They only ally themselves with Blacks when convenient to advance their cause.
After they have driven the pariahlike White Americans into insignificance, one of these three major factions (Latinos, Asian Indians, and East Asians) will rule the territory of the former United States. Most likely, after the Whites are driven to the status of the American Indian, these three factions will divide the country among themselves — probably, after a bloody war. Regardless, the American Negro will fare far worse than the remnant of Whites.
Blacks cannot and will not cower and control any of these people of color with guilt as they do Whites with white guilt. Smearing these people of color with the accusation of “racism” will not work because, unlike most Whites, they are proud of their race and believe that it is the best. Unlike Whites, people of color are not cowardly wimps who despise their race and want it to vanish. Indeed, having race consciousness, they defend the interest of their race, which is why Blacks will fare poorly when the Latinos, East Asians, and Asian Indians take over the country.
The few surviving Blacks will look fondly at the good old days of Jim Crow when they were at least allowed on the bus. If Blacks want to see their future, they only need to look at Los Angeles, which is a paradise compared with what is coming.
If Blacks want to survive and prosper with a relatively high degree of freedom and prosperity, they need to jettison their self-appointed leaders and demand real immigration reform. They need to demand that no more “people of color” be allowed into the United States until the racial composition of 1920 is achieved. Hopefully, most Blacks will realize that being 10 percent of a White dominated country is better than being 1 percent of a non-White dominated country. Unfortunately, most will not — and, thus, they doom their race. (Ideally, Blacks would govern themselves in their own independent country.)

Eugenics or Dysgenics
During the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, eugenics rose in popularity. In the forefront of the eugenic movement were the progressives. With the rise of Hitler, eugenics began to fade, and dysgenics began to rise. Today, dysgenics has completely replaced eugenics.
Based on their words and actions, nearly everyone from one end of the political spectrum to the other, from the far right to the far left, prefers dysgenics to eugenics.
Gene pools of races, ethnicities, nationalities, and other groups are not static. They are either improving, eugenics, or disimproving, dysgenics.
Since 1930, both the United States government and State governments have adopted policies that promote dysgenics. That is, they have instituted programs that degrade the gene pools instead of improving them. Examples are the welfare state and civil rights.
The welfare state subsidizes people with low IQ having large families while penalizing families with moderate to high IQ by requiring them to support not only their own families, but also the families of low IQ prople. Generally, low IQ families are larger than high IQ families. Thus, low IQ people are out breeding high IQ people. Low IQ people are also out breeding even moderate IQ people, who have even more difficulty than high IQ people, in supporting two families: their own and that of a low IQ person.
Civil rights promote miscegenation, which degrades the gene pools of both the White race and the Black race. In reality, from the progressive’s perspective, miscegenation is a covert form of eugenics for the Negro race because progressives believe that the Negro race can only be improved by a large infusion of White genes, which cause Blacks to cease being Blacks. More important, progressives see miscegenation leading to the destruction of the White gene pool, which is dysgenics, and will eventually kill the White race. As most progressives intensely hate the White race, they support the genocide of the White race, although most progressives are White. Unlike the progressives of the early twentieth century, who promoted eugenics, the progressives of the early twenty-first century promote dysgenics, and so do most conservatives and libertarians.

Raping a Transgender
Can a man rape a man who claims to be a woman without the rape being a homosexual rape? Would such an attack be more hideous than raping a real woman? After all, the attack is against a person with a double privilege status: female and transgender (triple, if the transgender is Black; quadruple, if a Hispanic; and quintuple, if also handicapped). On the other hand, would such an attack be considered a badge of honor for the victim because he has convincingly passed as a “she”?

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Wednesday, May 20, 2020

COVID-19 — The Political Virus

COVID-19 — The Political Virus
Thomas Allen

COVID-19 is not a biological virus: It is a political virus. It is being used to destroy the country by destroying its economy, and, by that, to bring down President Trump and especially the deplorables who support him.

Even worse, the Chinese Virus is being used to destroy the Bill of Rights. Political leaders and their owners are attempting to use this plandemic to establish a tyrannical, despotic regime modeled after Communist China — with the Democrats and their masters in charge.

As one commentator notes, if Trump wins the presidential election, the Chinese Virus will be attacking us until January 2025. However, if a Democrat wins, the Chinese Virus will vanish by January 2021.

Democrats like to present themselves as the party of the little guy. Only they care about him. Yet, they declare many little guys nonessential, that is, they are unnecessary. To Democrats, barbers, hairdressers, waitresses, bartenders, sales clerks, and many more little guys are nonessential and, therefore, of no importance.

Moreover, the Democratic party claims to be the party of the blue-collar worker and the union man. Yet, it declares many of their jobs nonessential, i.e., not necessary for the economy. Its deliberate destruction of the economy has caused many of these people to lose their jobs permanently.

President Trump and many of his supports are predicting a rapidly growing economy before the end of 2021. Others are expecting that the recovery of the economy will take years.

If the nonessential federal agencies and their programs were abolished, i.e., if 80 percent or more of the US government were abolished, the economy could recover within 18 months. Moreover, the world would witness an economic boom the likes of which has never been witnessed.

Unfortunately, the US government will follow the precedent of Presidents Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt and try to micromanage the economic recovery. (Yet, Hoover and Roosevelt managed to turn an economic downturn that would have ended by 1931 into a depression that did not end until 1946.) Thus, recovering from for the COVID-19 economic destruction will take years, if not a decade or more.

Worse than the deliberate destruction of the economy is the deliberate destruction of the Bill of Rights. Most political leaders took an oath to protect and uphold the US Constitution of which the Bill of Rights is the most important part. Nevertheless, most of these same political leaders have gone out of their way to violate their oath by destroying the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights prohibits governmental interference with the exercise of religion. Yet, most governors have dictated how religious services are to be exercised. Some have even prohibited religious gatherings and even baptismal ceremonies. What is even more reprehensible is that most religious leaders have not protested this destruction of religious liberty. Likewise, most Christians have cowed before the tyrants with hardly an objection. Muslims have been far bolder in defending their religious practices than have Christians.

Fortunately, a few brave pastors have rebelled against the megalomaniac political leaders and have held religious services in violation of the governor’s or mayor’s ukase — although most of these were outside the church building. Moreover, some Christians have protested the destruction of religious liberty. Regrettably, most have not.

Likewise, the political leaders have destroyed the freedom of assembly by limiting the size of gatherings to some arbitrary number that has no basis in science. Again, protests against this loss of liberty have been scant. At least, some young people are beginning to gather at beaches and without contracting the Chinese Virus, as political leaders and presstitutes claimed would happen. (If any had contracted the Chinese Virus, the presstitutes would have made it headline news for weeks.)

Furthermore, political leaders have interfered with the right of assembly with the infamous six-foot spacing rule. Where is the science that shows that 183 centimeters (about 6 feet) is safe, but at 180 centimeters, one is at high risk of contracting or transmitting the Chinese Virus? (In Germany, safe social distancing is 150 centimeters. The World Health Organization’s recommendation is 100 centimeters. What is the safe distance? Moreover, is the real objective behind social distancing to prevent Trump rallies?)

Besides freedom of religion and freedom of assembly, political leaders have violated many other provisions of the Bill of Rights. For example, they have violated the due-process clause and the taking-without-compensation clause.

Since World War II, two pandemics hit the United States harder than has the Chinese Virus. They were the Asian Flu (a.k.a. H2N2 or influenza A) and the Hong Kong Flu (a.k.a. H3N2).

The Asian Flu appeared in the United States in 1957. By the time it departed, it had killed about 116,000 people in the United States. Fatalities per million people from the Asian Flu were 674. (Fatalities per million people from the Chinese Virus  are about 225, and this is an overstatement because the deaths from the Chinese Virus are overstated.)

The Hong Kong Flu appeared in the United States in December 1968. When it left the following year, it had killed about 100,000 people in the United States. Fatalities per million people from the Hong Kong Flu were 500.

As with the Chinese Viruses, most of the people who died of Asian and Hong Kong flues were elderly, especially those with heart or lung disease. Both flues killed many more people per capita than has the Chinese Virus. Yet, unlike today, political leaders did not shut down their economies — business continued as usual. Even the Woodstock concert with more than 400,000 attendees was held in August 1969. Further, political leaders did not destroy the Bill of Rights by banning crowds and restricting religious practices.  (Before one claims that the lower number of deaths from the Chinese Virus is the result of the shutdown, he should remember that the proponents of the shutdown claimed that it would not reduce the number of deaths; it would merely spread those deaths over a longer period.)

Moreover, the press did not spend 24-hours per day terrorizing the people into hysteria. Instead, they sought to calm them and instruct them in basic hygiene. Also, unlike today, people did not seek a political solution to a medical problem.

The official COVID-19 deaths include pneumonia, influenza, and the Chinese Virus. Of these deaths credited to COVID-19, COVID-19 accounts for only about a fifth of them. Even this number is too high because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) encourages hospitals and doctors to overreport COVID-19 deaths by paying them more for COVID-19 patients and deaths. Moreover, with some hospitals facing bankruptcy because they can on longer do so-called elective surgery (surgery that is scheduled, such as removing kidney stones or nonemergency heart surgery), which accounts for most of the revenue of many hospitals, they overreport COVID-19 patients and deaths to stave off bankruptcy.

At least one good thing has come from this political war against the Chinese Virus, and that has been closing schools. However, not only do children not transmit the Chinese Virus, they have a low probability of becoming ill from the disease and even much less chance of dying from it. Consequently, closing schools was unnecessary. Nevertheless, closing schools has been one of the few good things to come from this plandemic. It has shown that expensive school buildings and busing are unnecessary. Most important, it has separate students from their indoctrinators, and, thus, making their socialistic indoctrination more difficult.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, the godfather of today’s liberal Democrats, said, “Only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Based on their actions, most Democrats and many Republicans have ignored Roosevelt. Fear leads them. Moreover, they have let political leaders and presstitutes terrorize them into total hysteria. Fear has become their god. As a result, most will have to learn to live in poverty, and all will have to learn to live in a tyrannical police state.

Appendix: Governor Cuomo of New York
To Governor Cuomo of New York goes the ignominy of the most despicable and reprehensible action taken during this Chinese Virus plandemic. Forcing nursing homes and kindred facilities to accept people known to be infected with COVID-19, he has greatly increased death from COVID-19. Thus, he has deliberately and knowingly exposed people who are the most vulnerable to COVID-19 and most likely to die of it to the Chinese Virus. He is responsible for their death and their blood is on his hand. He should be executed for murder. If Dante’s Inferno, is ever rewritten, it will have to have a special place in hell for Cuomo, which is below that of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Likewise, Michigan’s Governor Gretchen Whitmer deserves to be burning beside Cuomo for the same crime of forcing nursing homes to accept people infected with the Chinese Virus.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Tuesday, May 12, 2020

Some Random Thoughts on Political Issues

Some Random Thoughts on Political Issues
Thomas Allen

An explanation of how we got to where we are is summarized. Also, discussed are the beginnings of progressivism, compromise, socialist compassion, discrimination, education, forced vaccination, sanctuary cities, mental health and guns, and protective tariffs and piety.

How We Got to Where We Are
Augustine of Hippo, who was a father of Roman Catholicism, begot Calvin and Calvinism, who begot the Puritans of England. From the Puritans of England  came the Puritans of New England .
     In A History of the Christian Church (1870), Dr. Charles Hase describes the Puritans of England as follows: “In their morals and manners they were eminently pious, they looked upon all earthly pleasures as sinful, their own fancies were regarded as divine inspirations, and they thought that the state itself should be subject to their democratic hierarchy.” This description fits the Liberal Democrat of today, except what was considered pleasures then differs some from what is considered pleasures today.
The Puritan of New England begot the Yankee, who begot the abolitionist, who begot the Radical Republican, who begot the Progressive, who begot the Liberal Democrat. Augustine and all his philosophical and religious descendants to this day know how people ought to live, and they are determined to do everything in their power to make them live that way. Their god may differ, but their religiosity is the same. These are the people who have been controlling the country since 1860.

Progressivism: Its Beginnings
Progressivism began in the Washington administration with the struggle between the Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians. The Hamiltonians captured the Federalist party and imposed its version of progressivism with the First Bank of the United States being one of its gems. The Jeffersonians eventually drove the Hamiltonians from power, and the Federalist party died. Later, the Hamiltonians organized the Whig party whose version of progressivism included a central bank, high protective tariffs, and federally financed internal improvements. Finally, the Whigs amalgamated with several smaller parties to form the Republican party. Afterward, the Republican party put that great progressive Abraham Lincoln in office. Lincoln’s version of progressivism included driving the Southern States out of the union with the highest protective tariffs that the United States had endured to that time. Then, he denied the Southern States their right to secede and warred against them. To do this, he destroyed the Constitution. His war against the Constitution was so successful that the country has never recovered from it. When Woodrow Wilson entered office, he implemented his version of progressivism. Since then both the Democratic and Republican parties have been advocates of the Hamiltonian philosophy and progressivism.

Compromise Washington Style
The following is an example of what passes for compromise in Washington. Politicians who want to remove the people’s ability to defend themselves from despotic government propose to limit the capacity of magazines for semiautomatic rifles, which they erroneously call assault weapons, to ten rounds. Eventually, a “compromise” is reached with those who wanted no restriction. Finally, a restriction of 15 rounds is adopted. (One of my bosses said that he always asked for more than he wanted so that he could “compromise” back to what he really wanted.) The side that wanted a restriction has won; they gained a restriction. Conversely, the side that wanted no restriction has lost; they gained nothing.
With a true compromise, both sides receive something. For example, in exchange for limiting the size of a magazine, the restriction requiring the purchase of a mail-order firearm through a licensed dealer is removed.
As the above example shows in the first paragraph, O’Sullivan’s Law rules Washington. According to O’Sullivan’s Law, any organization that is not expressly right-wing will become left-wing over time. Thus, the United States government has implemented about 80 percent of the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto.
O’Sullivan’s Law is also revealed in what now passes as a “moderate.” Since the beginning of the progressive era, moderates have been drifting leftward politically, socially, and economically. Today, what is considered a moderate would have been considered a borderline communist fifty years ago.

Socialist Compassion
Socialists present themselves as compassionate — the ones who truly care about the common man and the little guy. Yet, the socialist president of Venezuela refused to allow food into the country for the starving masses, after he and the previous socialist president had destroyed the country with socialism. He proves that socialists care nothing for the common man and the little guy. Socialists just lust for power and want to control the common people and treat them worse than cattle. (At least they feed the cattle to keep them fat for the slaughter.) Of course, if anyone with a functioning brain cell would look at the best-known socialists of the twentieth century, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler, he would see the real compassion that socialists have for the common man and the little guy.

Discrimination
Today, people are allowed and even obligated to discriminate against two ethnicities. They are the Southerner and the Palestinian. At least, so far, the Southerner has not been dehumanized to the level of the Palestinian. Just as the British hunted and killed Tasmanians with impunity, Israelis can hunt and kill Palestinians with impunity.

Education
All politicians say that they favor education and want to improve public education. If they were honest, they would use the phrase “government schools” instead of “public education.”
How do they want to improve government schools? Do they want to make them better at indoctrinating pupils and teaching them what to think, which is what government schools currently do? Or, do they want to make them educate pupils and teach them how to think?
One can easily tell where a candidate stands. If he wants to spend more money on the current system, he favors indoctrination and the continuation of dumbing down pupils. However, if he proposes prohibiting all the school systems in the State from accepting federal funds and using any material or books offered or recommended by the US Department of Education, he favors educating and teaching pupils how to think critically.
Nevertheless, the public school system cannot be reformed because it is socialistic. Being socialistic, it breeds scarcity and mediocrity. It is the government telling parents where, how, and what their children’s minds are to be fed. Moreover, it is based on the premise that children belong to the government, and parents merely provide for the physical care of the government’s property.
About the governmental (public) school system, which the Puritans originated in the United States, James A. Bayard writes that “the Yankee school system . . . may stimulate the brain but it ignores man’s moral nature and produces discontent with their condition among the masses. God help the country in which the masses are merely stimulated and trained to act in combinations which are always, sooner or later, controlled by demagogues.”

Forced Vaccination
Pro-abortionists should be at the forefront of protesting against forced vaccinations — if they are consistent and not hypocrites. They argue that women should have control of their bodies. Therefore, the government should not tell women what they have to do with their bodies. However, forced vaccination is based on the premise that the government can tell women what they must do with their bodies: receive a vaccine injection, i.e., receive an injection of such toxins as mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde (embalming fluid), propylene glycol (antifreeze), nagalase (prevents the body from killing cancer cells and strongly associated with autism [http://www.thebigriddle.com/2015/12/ murdered-holistic-doctors-discovered.html]), and cells of aborted babies. Of course, they probably do not mind ejecting people with aborted baby cells. Since pro-abortionists grew out of the culture of death and since many pro-abortionists favor forced vaccination, they must expect vaccinations to be more harmful than beneficial.
Most of those who favor forcing all American children to be vaccinated favor open borders. As a result of the mass immigration of illegal aliens, unvaccinated people carrying all sorts of contagious diseases, are flooding the country. One would think that these forced-vaccination people would be at the forefront in demanding that all immigrants be coerced into taking the 36 plus vaccines that they want to force American children to take, before entering the country.
If vaccines are safe and effective, why has Congress prohibited people from suing vaccine manufacturers for injuries caused by vaccines? Moreover, why is information exposing the dangers and the ineffectiveness of vaccines being suppressed? Also, why do people whose children have been vaccinated fear their children playing with children who have not been vaccinated? Should not the vaccine protect their children from unvaccinated children if it is effective?

Sanctuary Cities
Anyone who opposes sanctuary cities would, if he is consistent, have opposed cities and counties of the 1850s refusing to aid the US government in enforcing fugitive slave laws. Both are philosophically the same. Under both, local governments attempt to nullify a federal law.
Unlike their State governments, local governments have no legal or lawful authority to nullify a federal law unless their States have given them that authority. Being the creation of their State, local governments can only do what their State allows and must do as their State directs. Likewise, the States created the U.S. government; therefore, they have the right and duty to judge for themselves, acting independently and individually, whether the U.S. government has exceeded its authority. Thus, a State may nullify a federal law, as it applies in that State, that it decides is unconstitutional. A local government cannot nullify a federal law unless its creator State authorized it to do so.

Mental Health and Guns
On a talk radio show some years ago, the host and his guest were discussing mental health. They wondered why so many people did not seek professional help for their mental problems. While I was listening, they failed to mention one major reason. What was this major reason that they did not mention? Unlike being diagnosed with diabetes or heart problems, when one is diagnosed with mental problems, he is at a high risk of losing his constitutionally guaranteed inalienable right to own firearms — usually, forever.

Protection Tariffs and Piety
Following are some comments on “Protectionism as a Path to Piety” by John Howting that appears in the May 2019 issue of Chronicles. Mr. Howting asserts, or at least appears to assert, that protective tariffs are acts of piety.
Where is the justice in the politically powerful forcing, ultimately under the penalty of death, the politically weak to subsidize the politically powerful, which is what a protective tariff does? Protective tariffs require politicians to pick winners and losers. When have politicians excelled at this job? They will always side with the politically powerful.
How is forcing someone, the weak, to support another, the strong, which is what a protective tariff does, piety? Furthermore, is not forcing someone to pay more for products protected by tariffs somewhat impious?
How does a protective tariff today honor one’s ancestors from 200, 400, or 800 years ago? Moreover, how does a protective tariff today, even honor one’s parents who are dead? How do one’s children honor their parents by paying tribute to the politically powerful?
If protective tariffs promote piety, would not outlawing grocery stores, butcher shops, farmers’ markets, and the like and requiring every family to raise its own food promote piety even more? Would not this be the ultimate in piety as Mr. Howting describes piety?
Would not the piety that Mr. Howting describes be best achieved and can only be achieved when people are convinced to buy locally produced products, even if they cost more and are poorer quality, than to import them from other countries or even other States?
[Editor’s note: Mr. Howting wrote a formal response to this letter. His response was in the July 2019 issue of Chronicles.]


Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Monday, May 4, 2020

Fundamental Christians and Evolution

Fundamental Christians and Evolution
Thomas Allen

Fundamental Christians attack evolution, Darwinism, as a false science. Then, with a few exceptions, these same fundamental Christians resort to Darwinism to explain the origins of the species (races) of man.

With rare exceptions, fundamental Christians are Darwinists, evolutionists. All have the various races descending from Adam and Eve. Since nearly all fundamental Christians believe that the Noachian Flood was global and killed all mankind except Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives, they believe that the species of man descended from Noah through his sons and their wives.

Consequently, like the Christian evolutionists, they ignore the biblical principle of according to its kind or after its kind, i.e., like begets like —at least so far as humans are concerned. Many believe in the fixity of every species except the human species. They reject Jeremiah’s teaching and believe that an Ethiopian can change his skin. Jeremiah declared the immutability of the races (species) of man when he said, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?” (Jeremiah 13:23a). The implication is no. Thus, Jeremiah testifies that fundamental Christians err when they maintain that all the species of man descended from Adam and Eve or from Noah through his sons and their wives.

According to the typical fundamental Christian, all the species of man descended from Noah’s sons and their wives. Nearly all of them hold that Noah’s sons were of the same race as Noah and his wife. Most seem to agree that Noah, his wife, and his sons were Aryans (Whites); nevertheless, whatever their race is, it is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion.

However, some fundamental Christians teach that Noah’s sons’ wives were of different races than their husbands. Many believe that Shem’s wife was an Aryan  (Homo albus) and Japheth’s wife was probably Aryan, although a few believe that she was a Turanian (Homo luridus). Most of this school contend that Ham’s wife was a Negro (Homo niger). Since the great sin that brought about the Noachian Flood was miscegenation (v. People of the Flood by Thomas Coley Allen, 2008), that Noah’s sons’ wives were of different races than their husbands is highly unlikely. However, if Noah’s daughters-in-law were of different races, then their races had to evolve sometime between Adam and Noah.

Most fundamental Christians believe that Noah, his wife, and his sons and their wives were of the same race. The typical fundamental Christian believes that the Aryan and probably Turanian came from Japheth. From Shem came the Hebrews, who are Aryans, and the true Arabs, who are Melanochroi (Homo brunus). The Negro came from Ham. Fundamental Christians are fuzzy about the origin of the Melanochroi — probably because nearly all of them fail to recognize this species. Usually, they lump the Melanochroi of Africa with the Negro. They lump the Melanochroi of the Middle East with either Shem, i.e. the Aryans, or the Negro of Africa. About the Melanochroi of India, nearly all of them are silent. As for the Khoisan (Homo khoisanii) and Indo-Australian (Homo australis) species, they usually lump them with the Negro.

Thus, fundamental Christians have a multitude of evolutionary occurrences. If Noah’s family are Negroes, then Ham’s family has bred true, if the Khoisans, Indo-Australians, and Melanochroi usually lumped with the Negro are ignored. Japheth’s descendants evolved into two species: the Aryan and the Turanian. Shem’s descendants also evolved into two species: the Aryan and Melanochroi.

However, if Noah’s family are Aryans, some of the descendants of Shem and Japheth have bred true; others have not. Ham’s descendants have not bred true; they have evolved into the Negro and probably the Khoisan and the Indo-Australian. Some of Japheth’s descendants have bred true as Aryans while others evolved into Turanians. Likewise, some of Shem’s descendants have bred true as Aryans while others evolved into Melanochroi. Why some of Japheth’s and Shem’s descendants remained Aryans and others evolved into other species is not explained.

If the fundamental Christians are correct about the origins of the species (races) of man, only a few generations are needed for one species to evolve into another species. If they are correct, why have no new species of man evolved in the last few centuries? Sufficient time has passed for new species to appear in the last thousand years, but they have not. Why have they not? Fundamental Christians do not explain. If the fundamental Christians are correct, new species (races) should be appearing frequently. (Racial crossing results in racial mongrels, hybrids, and not in new races.)

While fundamental Christians deplore evolution, they resort to it when it is needed to support their doctrine — although most would deny using evolutionary principles. Some may haggle over details, such as, they believe in microevolution, but reject macroevolution. (The difference between the two is the starting point and the time required for one species to change into another species. Microevolution usually starts at the family or genus level and requires only a few generations for one species to change into another species. Macroevolution starts with the first single-cell living entity and requires many generations for one species to change into another species. Both deny the immutability of a species, i.e., according to its kind or after its kind — like begets like. Consequently, they call Jeremiah a liar.) Thus, the fundamental Christian’s disagreement with the orthodox evolutionist is not one of principle, but the starting point and the time involved for a species to change to another species.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Sunday, April 26, 2020

Two Letters: The South and Secession


Two Letters: The South and Secession
Thomas Allen and Deborah Allen

[Editor’s note: the following are two letters sent to the Durham Morning Harold in 1988 addressing attacks on the South, Southerners, and secession by Mr. Curtis Frantz.]

Letter 1
    In his letter of March 25, 1988, Mr. Frantz is correct in that the South did provide an enormous, easily accessible market for the North. (Sounds like an imperialistic remark, doesn’t it?) That is a major reason that the North sought to subject the South even if it meant destroying the South. The North wanted a protected market and supported protective tariffs and import restrictions. The South wanted free trade. Tariffs were to raise revenue and not to limit imports.  (The more effective a protective tariff is, the less revenue collected.) Lincoln ran on a protective tariff platform, which benefitted the North at the expense of the South. In effect, the industrial North wanted to enslave the agrarian South. The protective tariff versus free trade issue had more to do with the South seceding than slavery.
    As for a democratic society, the majority rules. Numerical might makes right, as Mr. Frantz implies. If the United States were a democracy, the Whites, being a majority, could agree to exterminate all Blacks. Living in a democracy, Blacks, according to Mr. Frantz, could not object and secede, for the will of the people had spoken. If he were a good democrat, Mr. Frantz would abide by the will of the majority and accept the extermination as the proper, legal, and moral action to take.
    As for Northern racism, Indiana prohibited blacks from entering that State. The reason that the people of Kansas Territory opposed slavery was not that they abhorred slavery per se. They opposed slavery because slavery meant bringing blacks into their territory. They did not want blacks in their territory. This attitude was typical of the Free-soilers, who were predominantly Northerners.
    As for the abolitionist majority’s concern with the rights of all men, the abusive treatment that White Southerners received during Reconstruction refutes this claim. White Southern political and military leaders are the only group of people in the United States ever to be denied by constitutional amendment the right to hold public office.  The only concern that the abolitionists had about the rights of men was that which contributed to their Nimrodic dream (nightmare!) of universal brotherhood with its one world government, religion, economy, language, culture, and race. The abolitionists had to destroy the South because the South was the principal bulwark to their demonic goal.

Letter 2
    Mr. Curtis Frantz’s letter, which appears on the March 30 editorial page, needs some amplification.
    Slavery could have been abolished by law. But it was not except in the sense of laws enacted to carry out the results of the war. When the Northern States abolished slavery, Northern slaveowners generally sold their slaves to Southern slaveowners instead of setting them free. Many of the Northern emancipating laws had grandfathering clauses such that if the Thirteenth Amendment had not been adopted, there could have been slaves in some Northern States into the 1870s. If the North had desired to abolish slavery, it could have followed England’s example and emancipated slaves without bloodshed. The Northern industrialists, abolitionists, and reformers, however, wanted no part of a peaceful solution. They wanted to destroy the South and her agrarian way of life. And that is what they did. Slavery was just an excuse.
    As Mr. Frantz claims, the Confederacy did represent an antidemocratic movement. In a democracy the majority rules. The will of the majority is law. A democracy is a political system based on the concept that might makes right, where might is expressed in terms of numbers. Mr. Frantz implies as much when he writes that a democratic country cannot exist if any part thereof is free to withdraw. Hence, might makes right. In a democracy numerical might makes right.  (If the U. S. were a true democracy, the whites, being a majority, could agree to exterminate all blacks. Living in a democracy, blacks could not object and secede, for the will of the people has spoken. If he is a good democrat, Mr. Frantz would have to abide by the will of the majority and accept the extermination as the proper, legal, and moral action to take.) Yes, the Confederacy was an antidemocratic movement. The peoples of the Southern States fought to keep the numerically superior North from oppressing them and destroying their way of life.
    To the limited extent that he addresses the right of secession, Mr. Frantz shows his ignorance of the founding of the United States. The States existed before the United States. They created the United States. When ratifying the U.S. Constitution, several States, principally Virginia and New York, explicitly reserved the right to withdraw. Nearly all the leaders of any note of the United States, both North and South, until Lincoln became president acknowledged that States had the right to secede. Most of the Supreme Court rulings that addressed issues arising out of the war implied that the Southern States had the legal right to secede. The war did not prove who was legally or morally right. It did prove that might makes right, which is the lifeblood of a democracy.
    As far as racism is concerned  — and Blacks are as racist as Whites — the Negro has not fared any better in the North than the South. Have not nearly all race riots occurred in the North where Old Glory has always flown?
    I agree with Mr. Frantz that to display and honor the Confederate flag as a symbol of racist feelings is wrong. For the most part, Northerners fighting under the Stars and Stripes had the same, if not a lower, opinion of the Black man as Southerners fighting under the Confederate flag. Therefore, racism could not have been much of an issue or cause of the war.
    Being an antidemocratic person, I do believe that political and social minorities, as well as political and social majorities, should have the right to display their symbols.

Copyright © 1988 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

Saturday, April 18, 2020

The Chinese Virus

The Chinese Virus
Thomas Allen

Presented below are a letter-to-the-editor on the Chinese Virus, a.k.a. the COVID-19, a.k.a. the Chinese flu, and some observations about this virus.

LETTER

A disease far more dangerous and deadlier than COVID-19 is consuming America. That disease is the stupidvirus. At least 90 percent of Americans seem to be infected with the stupidvirus. With rare exceptions, all “our” political leaders and the presstitutes are infected with the supper stupidvirus.

According to https://www.worldometers.info, globally, between January 1 and April 7 of this year, there have been:
129,952 seasonal flu deaths this year.
11,359,394 abortions this year.
82,601 deaths of mothers during birth this year.
449,247 deaths caused by HIV/AIDS this year.
2,194,818 deaths caused by cancer this year.
262,131 deaths caused by malaria this year.
1,335,939 deaths caused by smoking this year.
668,391 deaths caused by alcohol this year.
286,574 suicides this year.
360,746 road traffic accident fatalities this year.
81,043 deaths from COVID-19.

The deaths from COVID-19 are inflated. It includes nearly every death associated with COVID-19 even if the real cause of death is something else.

If “our” political leaders were really concerned with saving lives, they would end abortions. Likewise, the presstitute would be urging ending abortions. Eliminating abortions would have eliminated two-thirds of the deaths since January 1 at no cost.

Unfortunately, “our” political leaders do not care about saving lives. They just want to concentrate all power in their hands, and the presstitutes are aiding them. Worse, most people are begging “our” political leaders to enslave them.

“Our” political leaders and presstitutes lie to us all the time. First, they tell us that wearing masks does no good. Now they tell everyone to wear masks, and some want to make wearing masks mandatory. Why should we believe anything that these known liars tell us? Regrettably, most people suffer from the stupidvirus. Thus, they can no longer think critically or rationally.

The presstitutes have done an excellent job of terrorizing the people into total hysteria. As a result, “our” political leaders have destroyed the economy and the US and State constitutions, especially the inalienable rights of assembly and religion. At least the people are learning to be good communist slaves. (My wife, who is a refugee from a communist regime, witnessed in her country under communism what is now occurring in this country.)

OBSERVATIONS
Some observations about the Chinese Virus plandemic follow.

– The presstitutes have managed to impress on the minds of a large number of Americans, the sheeple, that line from Zulu: “You are all going to die!”

– “Our” political leaders and the medical industry are stating more cases of the Chinese Virus than they are actually occurring. Anyone who dies who has a coronavirus or has been around someone who has or is suspected of having COVID-19 coronavirus is listed as dying from the Chinese Virus. (Coronavirus is one of the viruses that causes the common cold.) Moreover, the tests used to detect COVID-19 have many false positives, that is, these tests show more people infected with the Chinese Virus than there really are. Further, the tests do not even check for the Chinese Virus.; they check residue left by the virus itself.

– The models used to estimate the number of cases of the Chinese Virus and the number of hospitalizations and deaths from the Chinese Virus are extremely inaccurate. They grossly overestimate. These models are frequently revised, and new and lower estimates are projected. Thus, the projected deaths for the United States have been revised downward from 90,000 to 81,000 to 61,000. These are the models that “our” leaders, especially governors and mayors, are using to institute totalitarian controls to destroy the economy and enslave the sheeple.

– People should not believe anything that a high-ranking member of the CDC says. (1) High-ranking federal bureaucrats are notorious liars, and nothing that they say should be believed until verified by independent sources. (2) The purpose of the CDC is not to protect or promote the health of the American people. Its purpose is to protect and promote big pharma and the medical industry. Protecting health is incompatible with protecting big pharma and the medical industry as they profit from sick people and not from healthy people. (3) Members of the Deep State and its sympathizers and antitrumpers run the CDC. Good examples of why no one should be employed in the federal bureaucracy for more than 10 years are the power-hungry control freaks at the CDC.

– Big pharma, the presstitutes, “our” political leaders, and the sheeple are clamoring for a vaccine to protect people from the Chinese Virus. By the time a vaccine is developed, it may not be effective because the virus would have most likely mutated. However, the primary purpose of vaccines is not to protect; it is to debilitate and make people dependent on the medical industry with big pharma at the helm. (Some of the proponents of the vaccine anticipate that the vaccine will kill more people than the Chinese Virus.) More important, vaccinations can be used to inject tracking devices into people. Further, some of the vaccines under development are deigned to change the DNA of the vaccinated person.

– The symptoms of the Chinese Virus match those of zinc deficiency. Chloroquine, one of the drugs being used to treat people ill with the Chinese Virus, is a zinc isonophore and has been highly effective in curing people infected with the Chinese Virus. Is the disease credited to the Chinese Virus really a zinc deficiency?

– Of course, an inexpensive cure, such as zinc and chloroquine, must be rejected because big pharma cannot make a fortune from them. Moreover, being paid by big pharma, presstitutes pooh-pooh cheap cures and lobby for a vaccine. Big pharma and the medical industry do not want to cure the Chinese Virus. They want to manage it. Big money is made in managing instead of curing. Unlike curing, which requires short-term treatment, managing requires perpetual treatment.

– Next to micromanaging our lives, “our” political leaders believe that ever more debt will defeat the Chinese Virus. Their solution to the Chinese Virus is to increase the national debt by trillions of dollars and to encourage businesses to incur more debt. Since the national debt is so high that it will never be paid, adding more trillions of dollars does not matter. Actually, all this new debt is supposed to cover the deliberate destruction of the economy. It is a bribe to keep the sheeple from waking up and revolting.

– Since face masks interfere with facial recognition technology, how long will be before “our” political leader outlaw the wearing of masks in public? Further, the common appearance of people wearing face masks in public makes life easier for thieves. They can now enter a store or bank wearing a mask, and no one will notice them being out of the ordinary.

– If anyone wants to know how the German people allowed the National Socialists to gain control of Germany, all he needs to do is to look at how the people are letting their governors establish despotic police states in their States in the name of saving them from the Chinese Virus. Hardly anyone is protesting this despotic tyranny.

– When (if?) this war against the people in the name of protecting them from the Chinese Virus ends, the presstitutes, Democrats, and other antitrumpers will blame President Trump for the destruction of the economy. Yet, governors in collaboration with the presstitutes have destroyed the economy. First Democratic governors began shutting down their States’ economies. Then, the presstitutes scared many Republican governors into closing down their States’ economies. This deliberated destruction of the country’s economy seems to be a conspiracy to bring down Trump. Most antitrumpers hope that it does. (States whose governors have not shut down their States’ economies seem to have fewer cases of and deaths from the Chinese Virus than the States whose governors have aggressively attacked their economies. These noncontrolling governors have let the people and businesses decide for themselves what protective measures are appropriate. That is, they treat their citizens like adults instead of like children.)

– One thing that has received little attention is the likelihood of the Greatest Depression that will probably occur from the governors’ deliberated destruction of the economy. Most likely, millions of premature deaths will occur as a result of the Greatest Depression. Thus, possibly to save a few thousand lives today, millions of lives will be sacrificed in the future. (Adherents of the Chinese Virus plandemic claim that the destruction of the economy will not reduce the number of deaths credited to the virus; it merely spreads the deaths over a longer period.)

– Most governors and mayors are power-hungry control freaks, who care nothing about the constitution of their State or the US Constitution. Violating their State constitutions and the US Constitution, they have closed all businesses that they consider nonessential. (No business is nonessential. If it were, it would have no customers and would soon be out of business.) Nonessential is completely subjective. Some governors consider abortion clinics nonessential since abortion is by choice. Other governors consider abortions essential. (From my perspective, liquor stores and tobacco shops are nonessential. However, these businesses will be among the last that any governor would close. If they were to close them, they would have to contend with rioters violating their social distance ukases. Moreover, bodyguards, chauffeurs, gardeners, maids, butlers and babysitters including daycare are nonessential because people do these jobs for themselves. Likewise, takeout meals at restaurants are nonessential because people can cook at home.)

– Most governors consider churches as nonessential, and the sheeple and wimpy clergymen are letting them get away with it. Thus, most pastors resort to delivering their messages over the internet. (The internet can serve as an auxiliary, but it should not substitute for physically assembling.) At least, this makes separating pastors who follow God’s law from pastors who follow man’s law easy.

– The US Constitution forbids the US government from preventing the unalienable right of assembly. It provides no exceptions, including plandemics, for the government to violate this right of assembly. Using the fourteenth amendment, the US Supreme Court has extended this guarantee to cover State and local governments. Therefore, whenever a governor or a mayor interferes with the right of assembly, such as forbidding gatherings of more than 10 people, he violates his oath of office. All governors and local officials who have placed restrictions on assembly need to be indicted for violating their oath of office and removed from office. This will never happen because the sheeple prefer being treated like children instead of adults. They prefer safety to liberty. However, by abandoning liberty for safety, they will end up with neither —and rightly so, because they deserve neither.

– Most governors treat the people of their State as though they were children. They believe that people do not have enough intelligence to take action to reduce the likelihood of contracting the Chinese Virus. Perhaps, these governors are right. Most people are responding like young children by believing whatever the government tells them and submitting to all sorts of governmental tyranny with hardly a protest.

– This plandemic is being used as an excuse to implement every totalitarian idea conceivable. It is being used as an excuse to track everywhere people go and everything that they do. Governments are considering using cell phones to track everyone’s movements in real time. Moreover, progressives and other statist want to use the plandemic as an excuse to implement a social credit system similar to that in China to control people’s behavior (a Puritan’s dream). They want to require people to have the government’s permission to travel, work, and shop.

– “Our” political leaders and presstitute are striving to create distrust of one’s neighbors and even one’s family members. They are encouraging people to spy on each other. Thus, stupid sheeple whose lives are so dull and boring that they have to attend to other people's business report people who are four feet apart instead of six feet, crowds of eleven, and other violations of arbitrary unlawful edicts. Consequently, people no longer trust one another and society degenerates. Such is the modus operandi of communists.

– If the Chinese Virus plandemic is a psychological operation (psyop) as some speculate, then it has been highly successful. Those behind it never dreamed that they could have terrorized the masses so quickly and easily into total hysteria begging to be enslaved and begging to live in poverty as they beg to have their economy destroyed.

– Even if the Chinese Virus plandemic is not a psychological operation, control freaks in government and their presstitute coconspirators must be partying with great joy. With ease, the presstitute terrorized the sheeple into total submission to the control freaks in government — thus, enslaving themselves to the control freaks.

– The United States are no longer the home of the brave and the land of the free. Now, they are the home of the fearful and the land of the slave.

– At least one good thing has come from the Chinese Virus plandemic. Now, we know that we do not need all those expensive school buildings to educate children. Also, we do not need to bus children to and from schools. Unfortunately, the people who suffer from the stupidvirus have so destroyed their brains that they can no longer think critically or rationally, so they have not learned this lesson.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Friday, April 10, 2020

Think Tanks and Artificial Intelligence

Think Tanks and Artificial Intelligence
Thomas Allen

Under discussion now is how many jobs will artificial intelligence (AI) replace. Among the easiest jobs that AI can do is that of the “intellectuals” at the typical progressive-liberal-Democratic (PLD), neoconservative-establishment conservative-Republican (NECR), and libertarian think tanks. Their jobs are so repetitive and predictable that AI would have no problem duplicating them. A simple algorithm can do their jobs.

Progressive-Liberal-Democratic Think Tanks
PLD think tanks believe that nonwhites are good; Whites are so bad that they must be eradicated. Likewise, with Western Civilization, it must also be eradicated. However, the Southerner is so egregiously vile and evil that he must be terminated through all eternity. Needless to say, Southern culture, heritage, and traditions must be annihilated. Consequently, nothing good can be said about Whites and Western Civilization and especially about Southerners and the South.

As for religion, PLD think tanks believe that Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and all other religions are good or at least acceptable except Christianity, which is abominable. Secularism and atheism are exceedingly good. However, the primary religion of PLD think tanks is the worship of their idol, the state. They continuously feed the state, so it can grow unbounded.

As for economics, PLD think tanks believe that Marxism and statism in all their forms are good. Central planning is desirable: The more regulations, the better. An economy that depends on a free market and free enterprise is bad.

The welfare state and dependency on the government are good; independence is bad. Anything that makes people more dependent on the government, i.e., that enslaves them more, is good. Anything that frees people from the government is detrimental.

Because PLS think tanks distrust the people with weapons, they want to disarm the people. (When the people are disarmed, they offer much weaker resistance to despotism.) However, when these same people become governmental employees, i.e., politicians, bureaucrats, and soldiers, they become saints who can be trusted with weapons. Thus, PLS think tanks trust bureaucrats, soldiers, and politicians with weapons.

PLD think tanks claim that homosexual, interracial, and other illicit sexual acts are admirable while heterosexual sex within marriage is deplorable.

Furthermore, PLD think tanks maintain that integration and amalgamation are good. Segregation and separation are cataclysmic unless nonwhites segregate or separate from Whites, then it is admirable. Diversity is of upmost importance although their policies destroy it.

PLD think tanks are strong proponents of reform and promote change for change’s sake — but always in the direction of more governmental control.

Neoconservative-Establishment Conservative-Republican Think Tank
NECR think tanks are almost identical to PLD think tanks. The primary difference is that NECR think tanks want to implement the programs promoted by PLD think tanks more slowly and make them more efficient, i.e., more despotic and tyrannical. Moreover, whereas PLD think tanks are Zionists, NECR think tanks are staunch Zionists. Also, NECR think tanks are more addicted to war than are PLD think tanks. NECR think tanks never saw a war that they did not like. Thus, they are more enthralled than PLD think tanks with an ever-expanding American Empire. (PLD think tanks are also supporters of an expanding American Empire.)

Like PLD think tanks, NECR think tanks also hate Whites. Thus, they are hostile toward Western Civilization, although they usually conceal their hostility. Although they disparage Southerners and the South, they are not as venomous as PLD think tanks.

Though NECR think tanks elevate Christianity more than PLD think tanks, they subordinate it to Islam and especially Judaism.

While they give lip service to free-market economics, NECR think tanks support business-government partnerships and collaboration between businesses and government.

Although NECR think tanks often praise independence, they also seek to enslave the people to the government. Like PLD think tanks, they are proponents of the welfare state; they just want one that is more efficient. Nevertheless, they often attack welfare for individuals, except veterans. However, they are reluctant to criticize welfare in the form of subsidies, trade restrictions, etc. for businesses, especially big businesses.

Being Janus-faced, NECR think tanks defend the right of the people to possess weapons while they eagerly compromise such rights away. Their primary disagreement with PLD think tanks is about how quickly the people are disarmed.

While not as ardent supporter and promoter of homosexual and other illicit sexual acts, except miscegenation, which they fine admirable, they have no real problem with homosexual or most other illicit sexual acts. However, they are not hostile toward heterosexual marriages.

Like PLD think tanks, NECR think tanks maintain that integration and amalgamation are good. Segregation and separation are cataclysmic. Whereas PLD think tanks support nonwhites segregating and separating themselves from Whites, NECR think tanks do not.

Also, like PLD think tanks, NECR think tanks praise diversity, but not as highly. Moreover, like PLD think tanks, NECR think tanks advocate policies that destroy diversity.

The major difference between NECR think tanks and PLD think tanks is that the PLD think tanks rush forward into Marxist and statism and their concomitant despotism with abandonment while NECR think tanks cautiously move forward into Marxism and statism to make their despotism more efficient.

Libertarian Think Tanks
Like PLD and NECR think tanks, libertarian think tanks support anything that contributes to the destruction of the White man’s Western Civilization, which birthed libertarianism, and to the White man himself.

Libertarian think tanks believe that corporations, especially international corporations, and their leaders are innately good; governments and governmental leaders are innately bad. Political borders are bad.

For libertarian think tanks, homosexual, interracial, and other illicit sex acts are good. However, heterosexual marriages are not necessarily bad.

Religiously, libertarian think tanks are agnostic with a predilection toward human secularism.

Also, they oppose the welfare state and governmental control of the people. However, corporate control of the people is acceptable.

According to libertarian think tanks, the people should be armed and the government should be disarmed. Thus, libertarian think tanks trust the people with weapons, but they distrust governmental employees with weapons.

In agriculture, financial profit per acre and not production per acre is what is important. Moreover, money trumps culture, heritage, traditions, and similar intangibles. However, unlike PLD and NECR think tanks, libertarian think tanks abhor businesses collaborating with governments to gain economic advantage. For libertarian think tanks, free market and free enterprise are always good; governmental intervention in the economy is bad, i.e., Marxism and statism are evil. Consequently, libertarians never worship the state; they condemn it.

Conclusion
All three of these think tanks have several things in common. First, they loathe the White race. Being albusphobes, they look forward with joy to the day when the White race no longer exists. Consequently, they oppose any action, especially by governments, to preserve the White race. Second, these think tanks abominate the Southerner and the South so intensely, that they passionately strive to genocide the Southerner and to erase the South from the memory of mankind, except as the example of unadulterated evil — something so evil that it even makes Satan look holy. Third, all three advocate policies that will destroy Western Civilization. Fourth, these think tanks adore globalism and cosmopolitanism and abhor localism and provincialism. They favor open borders and unrestricted, unlimited immigration because such action is highly detrimental to the White race and its Western Civilization. (NECR, libertarian, and some PLD think tanks deny that they have such hatred of the White Race, the Southerner, the South, and Western Civilization and seek their destruction. Nevertheless, destruction is the result of the policies that they advocate whatever their motives, and, furthermore, that is how they act.)

One of the easiest jobs for AI to take over is that of the “intellectuals” of the typical PLD, NECR, and libertarian think tanks. Their thought patterns are so routine and predictable that even a mediocre programmer could write the program.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.