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 people. 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.

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.

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 [ 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.