A Letter: Freedom American Style

A Letter: Freedom American Style

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1989 to the editor of The Franklin Times.]

    I hope that the amendments cited in Miss Simmons’ article, “Freedom, Our Most Precious Heritage,” was a misprint by the newspaper, and not in her original paper. The correct so-called “civil rights” amendments are the 13th, 14th, and 15th, which were adopted during Reconstruction. The latter two are hardly amendments to cite as expanding freedom considering that they were adopted at the point of bayonets. Such an adoption process is certainly not the substance of civil rights. Also, the legality of the 14th Amendment is highly questionable. The 15th Amendment expanded the franchise to Blacks, not the 24th, which eliminated the payment of taxes as a qualification for voting. [Contrariwise, the payment of a minimum direct tax should be a qualification for voting to assure that the voter is invested in the government.]
    Miss Simmons is correct in claiming that freedom is our most important heritage. However, she makes the common mistake of confusing freedom with voting. After all, the people in the Soviet Union voted. Only a true socialist would claim that they were free. Even the United States show that voting is no guarantor of freedom. The history of voting in the United States shows just the opposite. Freedom has declined as more people have been allowed to vote.
    If anyone doubts that freedom has been lost as more people have been given the vote, let him try to do the following:
    –    teach his children at home without doing it the way that the government approves,
    –    not support government institutions (public schools) that indoctrinate children with an ideology with which he disagrees,
    –    keep children without governmental approval,
    –    will his estate to his child if he never marries a person of a different race,
    –    divide his land among his children as he desires,
    –    use his land contrary to some governmental land use scheme (which has the effect of taking property without compensation),
    –    establish a scholarship fund for White Protestant males,
    –    buy a pistol without the government’s permission,
    –    carry a pistol in his pocket without governmental permission,
    –    put a mobile home on a lot in most towns,
    –    transport large sums of money out of the country without reporting it to the government,
    –    keep his financial affairs private,
    –    apportion representation in a State legislature on some basis other than representation of districts of equal population,
    –    make a living as a barber or doctor without the blessing of a government license,
    –    agree to work for someone for less than a governmentally fixed minimum wage,
    –    operate a business without one or more governmental licenses and permits,
    –    plant and sell more tobacco or wheat than some government bureaucrat allots,
    –    spend the 50 percent, which is five times more than God asks, of his income that the government taxes in the way that he thinks it should be spent.
And the list goes on ad infinitum. [This list was compiled in 1989. Today, the situation is even worse. For example, refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual “wedding” or having fewer rights than a common criminal when flying on a commercial airliner.]
    Our pre-civil rights amendment ancestors, with the obvious exception of slaves, enjoyed these and many more freedoms that we no longer have. As the history of the United States so adequately demonstrates, voting does not guarantee freedom. It does, however, show that after the privilege of voting extends beyond a certain point, it is extended at the cost of freedom. Freedom is no more secure in a democracy than it is in an autocracy or oligarchy.
    Freedom without the right to vote is infinitely preferable to the right to vote without freedom. Freedom is our most precious heritage, as Miss Simmons states, not voting.

Copyright © 1989, 2021 by Thomas C. Allen.

More political articles.

Three Schools of Thought on Salvation

Three Schools of Thought on Salvation

Thomas Allen

The three primary schools of salvation are predestination, unconditional salvation, and conditional salvation.

Adherents of the predestination school believe that God decided whom He would save and whom He would condemn before creation. Faith in Jesus, good works, repentance, baptism, etc. are irrelevant. Adherents of this school tend to place heavy stress on good works to prove to themselves and others that they are among the saved. Nevertheless, they do not know if they are saved until after they die.

Proponents of the unconditional salvation school claim that salvation depends solely on faith (or trust) in Jesus for salvation unto everlasting life. As for salvation, works are irrelevant. Works merely determine a person’s status or rank in the age to come. According to this school, a person is guaranteed salvation that cannot be lost — no matter what the believer does after believing in Jesus. Therefore, salvation is assured.

Proponents of conditional salvation believe that salvation unto eternal life depends on more than belief in Jesus. It also depends on works. To be saved unto everlasting life, a person must not only believe in Jesus, he must continue to believe in him until the moment he dies. Moreover, to be saved, a person must constantly live in obedience to the commandments of God. Only by continuously believing  and obeying the Gospel until death can one receive everlasting life. Thus, adherents of this school stress doing good works to assure their salvation. However, according to this school, a person does not know if he is saved until after he dies. Salvation is assured but not guaranteed.

To support their claim, adherents of the unconditional cite the following verses among others:

– John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life."

– John 3:18: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

– John 6:47: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."

– John 10:28: "and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand."

Unconditional salvation adherents read these verses literally. According to these verses, salvation depends solely on belief in Jesus. Once a person believes in Jesus, he is guaranteed everlasting life in the age to come. That is, he cannot lose his salvation.

However, proponents of conditional salvation do not read these verses literally. They add conditions to them. Thus, for example, they read John 6:47 as “he that believes on me [Jesus] has eternal life if he continuously obeys God and continuously believes in Jesus, that is if he preservers in his faith in Jesus and his obedience to the commandments of God until the moment that he dies.”

Likewise, predestinationists do not read these verses literally. They read John 6:47 as “he that believes on me [Jesus] has eternal life if God has predestined him to eternal life.”

Some of the verses that adherents of the conditional salvation school cite to support their doctrine are:

– John 15:10: "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love." 

– John 15:6: "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers."

– John 15:14: "You are my friends if you do what I command you." 

– Hebrews 3:14: "We share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end." 

– Colossians 1:23: "He has now reconciled . . . , provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the Gospel which you heard."

Conditional salvation proponents read these verses as requiring continuous obedience to the commandments of Jesus and God as necessary for salvation. However, unconditional salvation proponents read them as concerning a person’s status or rank in the age to come.

A major difference between the unconditional salvation school and the conditional salvation school is that the unconditional salvation school preaches salvation by faith alone, i.e., salvation by faith without works. On the other hand, the conditional salvation school preaches salvation by faith plus works, i.e., faith alone does not save a person. Consequently, the unconditional salvation school guarantees salvation, and, therefore, salvation is assured. The conditional salvation school assures salvation but does not guarantee it because no one knows if his faith and obedience will preserve until he dies or that his faith and obedience are sufficient to earn everlasting life.

To summarize, according to the predestination school, salvation depends solely on God’s arbitrary choice and has nothing to do with faith in Jesus or obedience to the commandments of God. According to the unconditional salvation school, salvation depends solely on faith in Jesus. According to the conditional salvation school, salvation depends on faith in Jesus and obedience to the commandments of God; moreover, a person’s faith and obedience must be continuous until he dies.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Bob Dole: Presidential Candidate

Bob Dole: Presidential Candidate

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1996 to the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party. It compares Bob Dole with Bill Clinton in the 1996 presidential campaign.]

It looks like Bob Dole is going out of his way to give the election to Bill Clinton, which is probably good for America. Dole as the Republican candidate is the best thing that Clinton has going for him in his reelection bid.

In the character department, Dole wins without a contest. (But then to find someone who could lose to Clinton in the character department would be difficult.) Unfortunately for Dole, character does not seem to carry much weight in American politics. As for policies, little distinguishes Dole from Clinton.

On issues, such as abortion, homosexuals, and immigration, to name a few, where Dole could gain support by distinguishing himself from Clinton, he fails to do so. Instead of comforting the social conservatives, who are the core of Pat Buchanan’s support and a large part of the Republican Party, Dole is ignoring, teasing, confusing, and antagonizing them. He is working hard to lose their support. Still, he is correct in that these people are unlikely to vote for Clinton. However, if he does not court their support, many will support a third-party candidate or stay home. Historically, Dole has been closer to Clinton on most issues than he has been to Buchanan.

During the campaign, Buchanan forced Dole to take a strong pro-life stance. Since Dole has secured the nomination, he has moved away from that position. He has become noticeably accommodative to the abortionists. (When voting on bills directly dealing with abortion, Dole has taken a pro-life stance. When voting on bills dealing indirectly with abortion, such as “family planning” legislation, he has generally backed the abortionist position. He has also supported nominees for the Supreme Court who are pro-abortion.) Little difference between Dole and Clinton exists on the abortion issue.

Moreover, he seems to have joined the enemies of the Second Amendment. For a number of years, he supported the right of people to own guns to defend themselves from a despotic government. In recent years he has joined those who seek to deny the people this right. He was instrumental in the passage of the Brady bill. Furthermore, he supported the crime bill that banned “assault weapons” and prevented the introduction of a bill to repeal this ban. Again little difference between Dole and Clinton exists.

Both Dole and Clinton are internationalists, i.e., favor using U. S. troops to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. Both pushed for the passage of GATT and NAFTA. (These “treaties” have nothing to do with free trade other than giving free trade a bad name. Their purpose is to transfer the control of trade to an international body and strip members of the pacts of their sovereignty.) Both favor most-favored-nation treatment for China, the greatest tyranny on the planet. No real difference exists between Dole and Clinton in foreign policy and foreign trade.

That Dole would abolish affirmative action programs is doubtful. He opposed Republican Reagan’s rescission of Democratic Johnson’s executive order that mandated affirmative action for companies doing business with the federal government. Also, he supported the 1991 “Civil Rights” Act, which is the quota law that now serves as the main federal affirmative action law. That Dole as president would push to abolish affirmative action is incredible. Once more, no real difference exists between Dole and Clinton.

When Clinton first started pushing for socialized health care, Dole was a supporter. He offered compromises that would increase the chances of the program passing the Senate. He only became an opponent of socialized health care when public resistance became widespread. Later, he promoted a bill that would increase federal regulation of private health care by regulating health insurance. This bill moves the country closer to Clinton’s goal to socialize health care. Again Clinton and Dole are the same.

Moreover, Dole has historically supported higher taxes. Newt Gingrich once described him as “the tax collector for the welfare state.” [Some have said that Dole never saw a tax that he did not like.] Tax reduction under Dole is no more likely than tax reduction under Clinton. Both favor heavy taxation.

Furthermore, Dole has been instrumental in getting enacted into law the food stamp program, Martin Luther King’s holiday, American with Disability Act, and other programs that Clinton supports. What difference is there between the two? No significant difference seems to exist in their policies.

In running for the presidency, Dole has followed the advice of Richard Nixon. Nixon advised Dole to run as a conservative to win the nomination and then as a moderate or centralists for the election. If Dole wins the election, America will get what it got with Nixon. The conservatives will get the rhetoric. The liberals will get the action. This would make a Dole administration much like most other post-World War II administration.

One of the great paradoxes of post-World War II American presidential politics is that the greatest growth in the federal government has occurred under Republican presidents. People who would like to see programs advocated by Clinton implemented should support Dole. Those who oppose Clinton’s programs should support Clinton. As shown above, there is not much difference between Dole and Clinton on the issues. However, Dole will be much more successful in implementing Clinton’s programs than Clinton. Clinton will face too much opposition from the Republicans and moderate Democrats in Congress to have much success in getting his programs approved. Moreover, his administration will be too distracted by scandal to do too much damage to the country. On the other hand, the only opposition that Dole would face in getting essentially the same programs approved would be from principled conservative Republicans in Congress of whom there are only a few.

Again the American voter is presented with a choice between the lesser of two evils. The apparent lesser evil, Dole, may be a greater evil because he will be more successful.

Copyright © 1996, 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political issues articles.

An Inquiry into the Amendments of the U.S. Constitution

An Inquiry into the Amendments of the U.S. Constitution

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1985 to the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party. Since this was originally written, another amendment has been added to the U.S. Constitution.]

Does the present constitution for the United States reflect the principles embodied in the original document approved by the States between 1787 and 1790? No, the amendments that have been added to it since 1865 have materially changed it. The amendments adopted before 1865 limited the powers of the United States government and preserved the rights [i.e., powers] of the States and the liberties of their citizens.

The first ten amendments, commonly called the Bill of Rights, protect the liberties of the people by limiting the power of the United States government. The Tenth Amendment is the States’ rights amendment. It reserves the powers not delegated to the United States government for the States. Unfortunately, this amendment is now almost forgotten.

The Eleventh Amendment, which was ratified in 1795, is another States’ rights amendment, but it is the last States’ rights amendment. This amendment prevents a State from being sued against its will.

The Twelfth, Twentieth, and Twenty-fifth Amendments are technical in nature. The Twelfth Amendment, which was ratified in 1804, changes the method of voting for President and Vice President. The Twentieth Amendment, which was ratified in 1933. changes the date on which the Presidential and Congressional terms begin. It also clarifies filling the office of the President and Vice President should they become vacant. The Twenty-fifth Amendment further clarifies filling of the offices of the President and Vice President should they become vacant. It also describes the procedures to be followed if the President is temporarily unable to discharge his duties.

The Thirteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1865, outlaws slavery and does change one of the principles in the original Constitution. However, slavery was a dying institution, and the economics of this institution would have soon ended it. Thus, slavery would have ended in fact even if this amendment had never been ratified. Therefore, this amendment has no real effect on the Constitution because the principle it removed, slavery, would have been voluntarily abandoned anyway.

The Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, is one of the three most pernicious amendments ever adopted. This amendment is rivaled only by the misconstrued commerce clause in Section 8 of Article I in destroying the States and the liberties of the people thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment is the foundation of most civil rights laws, forced integration, federal control of schools, and the other miscreant legislation that has extinguished the liberties of the people in their social and political affairs. This amendment legalized the concept of dual citizenship. Heretofore, a person was a citizen of a State and owed his loyalty to that State. Through this amendment, the United States courts have applied the first eight amendments to the States. (Actually, the United States courts do not apply the first eight amendments in toto. Whimsically, they sort of pick and choose what to apply. The guiding light seems to be using the first eight amendments to protect criminals from actions by the States while not protecting law-abiding citizens from encroachment on their liberties by the States.) Also, this amendment disenfranchised most of the loyal political leaders of the South. Moreover, it began the formal conversion of the United States government from a republic to a democracy. Perhaps more than any other amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment has undermined the basic principles of the Constitution. [Moreover, the Fourteenth Amendment was never lawfully adopted. Therefore, it should be given no weight in constitutional arguments.]

The Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-fourth, and Twenty-sixth Amendments are also blows to States’ rights and contrary to the principles in the Constitution. The Fifteenth Amendments, which was ratified in l870, eliminates race as a qualification for voting. The Nineteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1920, eliminates sex as a qualification for voting. The Twenty-fourth Amendment, which was ratified in 1964, eliminates the payment of taxes as a qualification for voting. The Twenty-sixth Amendment lowers the voting age to eighteen. [Ironically, an eighteen-year-old can vote himself into despotism, but he cannot legally buy a bottle of whiskey to celebrate his vote.] Heretofore, each State determined the qualification of its voters. These amendments deny the States this right. The qualification for voting in most States may comply with these amendments even if they were not part of the Constitution, but not all. Obviously, the voting qualifications of some States would be contrary to one or more of these amendments, or else they would not be needed, Thus, a majority of the States have coerced a minority into accepting their voting qualifications. The coerced minority has been mostly the Southern States. Not only does the doctrine of States’ rights suffer from these amendments, but these amendments add to the subversion of a republic to a democracy.

The Sixteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1913, has done much to destroy the liberties of the people and rob them of their  property. It is one of the three most pernicious amendments adopted. This amendment gives the United States government the power to levy income and inheritance taxes. It is contrary to Part 4 of Section 9 of Article I, which prevents the United States government from levying any direct taxes unless these taxes are levied in proportion to the population of the State. The enforcement of this amendment has virtually vetoed the Bill of Rights. The Sixteenth Amendment is of the envious, by the envious, and for the envious. It is obviously contrary to the basic principles of the Constitution.

The Seventeenth Amendments which was ratified in 1913, has done more than all the other amendments combined to destroy the Republic and convert it into a democracy. This amendment removes the election of Senators from the legislatures of the States and makes Senators popularly elected. Thus, the States are no longer represented. The last check against the tyranny of the majority has been removed. (The Electoral College ceased being a check long ago. It was supposed to be the best men in each State electing the best man in the United States to be President. Now it is a gang of party hacks electing another and bigger party hack who is often a demagogue.) Without a doubt, this amendment has utterly shattered the doctrine of States’ rights and has put the remaining liberties of the people at great risk. Clearly, this is one of the three most pernicious amendments adopted.

The Eighteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1919, is the prohibition amendment. It is contrary to the basic principles of the Constitution and has been repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment.

The Twenty-second Amendment, which was ratified in 1951, limits the term of the President, It makes mandatory the long-standing tradition of no one serving more than two terms as President. This tradition had been violated by a liberal Yankee Democrat. This amendment is in keeping with the basic Constitution.

The Twenty-third Amendment, which was ratified in 1961, gives the District of Columbia the right to participate in the Electoral College. The intent of the Constitution is to keep the District of Columbia out of federal politics since it is the seat of the United States government. This amendment violates this intent and is an affront to States’ rights. It makes the District of Columbia equal to the States in selecting the President and Vice President. Thus, it is another blow to States’ rights.

[In 1992, the Twenty-seventh Amendment was adopted; it had been proposed in 1789 as part of the Bill of Rights. Therefore, it is in accordance with the basic principles of the Construction. It delays laws affecting Congressional salary from taking effect until after the next election of representatives.]

The Constitution as it now stands with its amendments does not reflect the principles for which our forefathers fought in the 1770s and l860s. It does not reflect the principles for which most people  believed that they were fighting in the four wars of this century [that is, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War]. The amended Constitution is completely alien to the Constitution as originally adopted.

The amendments to the Constitution since 1865 have destroyed the basic principles embodied in it to the point that it is amazing that any remnants of republicanism, States’ rights, and individual liberty still exist. The only hope that Southerners have to regain these lost ideals of republicanism, States’ rights, and individual liberty is a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States.

Copyright © 1995, 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

More Random Religious Thoughts

More Random Religious Thoughts

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are eternal and immortality, Lucifer, Revelation, Saul’s age when he began his reign, Mariology, a time without the Moon, and the Philippines and the Baptists.

Eternal and Immortality

Many people confuse “eternal” with “immortality.” They are different. An eternal being has no beginning and no end. An immortal being has a beginning but no end. Once born or created, an immortal being never dies or ceases to exist.

Are humans naturally immortal? Daniel 12:2 suggests that they are not. Daniel 12:2 reads, “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” According to this verse, only many dead are awake, resurrected; the others remain asleep, dead, in the grave. Those who are not resurrected appear not to be immortal. Once they die, their bodies and souls appear to remain dead forever.

Furthermore, the Hebrews believed that the body and soul were so intertwined that when the body died, the soul died with it. Consequently, the soul is not naturally immortal. It remains dead and unconscious until God resurrects it to immortality.

Lucifer

Many theologians teach that Lucifer, Satan, the Devil, is a pure spirit being. Therefore, he is indestructible and must live for all eternity. First, Lucifer is a created being. Since he is created, he has a beginning. An eternal being has no beginning. Consequently, he cannot be eternal. Second, to claim that he must live forever declares that God is not omnipotent. If God is omnipotent, can He not uncreate (annihilate) what He has created? Third, God is omnipresent. Therefore, wherever Lucifer is, God is also. (Being omnipresent, God fills every particle, wave, frequency, or whatever Lucifer is made of.) How can a being as holy as God tolerate the eternal presence of a being as evil as Lucifer? At some point, God must terminate and annihilate Lucifer. Fourth, God is omniscient. Therefore, God always knows the existence of Lucifer. How can His Pure Holiness tolerate knowing the existence of Lucifer, who is pure evil, forever? What God does not know cannot and does not exist. Consequently, at some point Lucifer must vanish because God ceases knowing him, knowing about him, and knowing of him. Contrary, to what most theologians teach, Lucifer is not indestructible and does not live forever.

True Luciferians, such as Albert Pike, consider Lucifer to be Yahweh’s, Jehovah’s (Adonai or Adonay as Luciferians call Him), equal. Lucifer is their god, and Satan, who is a different being and Lucifer’s subordinate, is the prince of the world. Luciferians believe that Lucifer is the God of Light and the God of Good; Adonai (Yahweh) is the God of Darkness and the God of Evil. Lucifer is or was the highest, brightest, and most intelligent of God’s creatures and held the highest office in heaven next to God Himself. They also believe that Satan is the elder brother of the Archangel Michael and that God sent Michael to earth as Christ Jesus. (Jehovah’s Witnesses also believe that the Archangel Michael and Jesus are the same person.) Both Satanists and Luciferians believe that Jesus failed in his mission when he was crucified. Unfortunately for the Luciferians and Satanists, but fortunately for the followers of Christ, Lucifer and Satan lose.

Another Look at Revelation

In Mysteries of Ancient South America, Harold T, Wilkins cites H. S. Bellamy, who argues that Revelation is the history of a great cataclysm caused by a pre-Lunar satellite of the earth coming to close to earth and being destroyed by the earth, which caused large parts of the satellite to crash into the earth.

How Old Was Saul When He Began to Reign

How old was Saul when he began to reign? The number is lacking in the Hebrew text, so many translators guess at the number. The American Standard Version and several other translations guess 40 years.  The New International Version and other translations guess 30 years. Several translations, such as the Revised Standard Version, leave the number of years blank. A few follow the King James Version and claims that Saul reigned one year; thus, they avoid giving his age when he began his reign.

Mariology

Mariology is the body of beliefs or dogmas concerning the Virgin Mary. It is a set of doctrines that Catholics accept and advocate, which Protestants reject.

Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Mary is the mother of Jesus. Moreover, except unitarians, both agree that Jesus is God. Therefore, if Mary is the mother of Jesus and if Jesus is God, then logically Mary is the mother of God. However, Protestants reject the idea that Mary is the mother of God. Therefore, Catholics are logical, and Protestants are illogical. (For unitarians, this issue is not a problem since they reject the notion that Jesus is God. Thus, they hold that Mary is the mother of Jesus, but she is not the mother of God because Jesus is not God.)

When Jesus was promoted to God, his office as the mediator between man and God became vacant. Catholics promoted Mary, the Mother of God, to the office of the mediator. Since Protestants reject the notion that Mary is the mother of God, they logically have not recognized her as the mediator. Consequently, they had to find another solution. For the most part, they use mental gymnastics to explain this problem away by making God the mediator between God and man.

Thus, both proclaim that Paul erred when he wrote, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Both covertly claim that Paul was too ignorant to understand and express deep theological ideas. Whereas, the Catholics assert that Paul should have written “the woman Mary” instead of “the man Christ Jesus,” Protestants believe that Paul should have written, “the God Christ Jesus.”

If Jesus is God as both Catholics and Protestants maintain, then Catholics believe logically about Mariology, and Protestants believe illogically about it. Moreover, both disagree with Paul about who is the mediator between God and man. Is the mediator Mary or God? Both concur that the mediator is not the man.

Was There a time without a Moon

Some allusions to the time before there was a Moon may be found in the Scriptures. In Job 25:5 the grandeur of the Lord who “Makes peace in the heights” is praised and the time is mentioned as “before [there was] a moon and it did not shine.” Also, in Psalm 72:5 it is said: “Thou wast feared since [the time of] the sun and before [the time of] the moon, a generation of generations.” A “generation of generations” means a very long time. Thus, much time elapsed between the appearance of the sun and the appearance of the moon.

The Philippines and the Baptists

One good thing came from President McKinley’s war to steal the Spanish empire from Spain. He stole the Philippines and, thus, gave the Baptists a retirement home. Where else can a good Baptist retire and have maids, cooks, gardeners, and other servants and live a lifestyle that he could not afford if he remained at home in the United States and have all of it paid for by the folks back home? As long as he tells them about the great missionary work that he is doing, they gladly and gracefully support him.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Some Comments on Democrats and Republicans

Some Comments on Democrats and Republicans

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are Trump-haters’ attitude toward guns, Democratic hypocrisy, and Republican shills.

Hating Trump and Gun Confiscation
Most ardent Trump-haters are convinced that Trump wants to make himself president for life and become an absolute despotic tyrant. Yet, most of these same people want to disarm American civilians, which means disarming themselves, and give the US government an absolute monopoly of firearms. Once these Trump-haters are disarmed, how do they propose to protect themselves from Trump’s tyranny?

Democratic Hypocrisy
Democrats reached the pinnacle of hypocrisy for impeaching President Trump over his telephone conversation with the Ukranian president. They accused Trump of extorting the Ukranian president into investigating Biden's and his son’s corruption. Biden publicly admitted that he extorted the previous Ukranian president to dismiss the prosecutor general who was investigating his son. Now, according to a treaty that President Clinton made with Ukraine, Trump asked the Ukranian president to give the United States information about Biden’s and his son’s corruption, and the Ukranian president asked Trump to give him information that the United States had about their corruption. Thus, Democrats impeached Trump for what they imagined he may have done while ignoring Biden’s extortion and even defending him when he actually did what they accuse Trump of doing. This is hypocrisy!

Republican Shills
About the accusations against President Trump, Rev. Dr. William Barber, former president of the NAACP’s North Carolina chapter, said, “Republicans are now asking what they should do with Trump. Here’s an idea: What would you have done if it were Obama? Do that.”

For the most part, Republicans did and continue to do what they did when Obama was President. They did and continue to do mostly nothing except an occasional complaint. For the most part, they shilled for Obama.

President Obama committed more impeachable offenses than President Trump has. Republicans had a good deal of evidence to remove Obama from office for not being a US citizen. If he were a US citizen, they had good evidence to remove him from office for fraud.

Obama never produced a birth certificate to prove that he was born in the United States. The one offered the public was a fake. Moreover, Hawaii prevented everyone from obtaining a copy of Obama’s birth certificate that it was supposed to have. Also, he traveled with an Indonesian passport, which means that he was an Indonesian citizen.

Further, he attended college in the United States as a foreign student. If Obama were a US citizen who attended college as a foreign student, then he is guilty of fraud. If he qualified as a foreign student because he was a foreigner, then he was not a US citizen and, therefore, not qualified to be President. In either case, he committed an impeachable offense. Yet, the Republicans did nothing. By doing nothing about the accusations against Trump, they are acting the same way that they did about the accusations against Obama.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

More Thoughts on Social Issues

More Thoughts on Social Issues

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are dysgenics and the welfare state, debt to society, abortion and vaccination, and how major corporations react to Black communities.

Dysgenics
From the late nineteenth century to after World War I, most Progressives were eugenists and pushed their eugenic programs through governments. With the rise of Hitler, eugenics began to fade in popularity. By World War II, most Progressives, who by now were becoming Liberal Democrats, had become dysgenicists. Now, dysgenics dominates the United States, and eugenics is vigorously condemned — from one end of the political spectrum to the other. Dysgenics is a leading cause of the deterioration of the United States, Europe, and many other parts of the world.

Since the days of President Franklin Roosevelt, Progressives have been promoting dysgenics by their promotion of the welfare state. Under dysgenics, low-quality people, nonproducers, are rewarded for breeding, and high-quality people, producers, are penalized. High-quality people are taxed, i.e., forced, to support low-quality people through various welfare programs. Thus, high-quality people must not only support their own families with what the taxman leaves them, but they must also support the families of low-quality people. The more money that low-quality people receive through various welfare programs, the less money high-quality people have. Because high-quality people must support low-quality people and their children, they have less money to support their own families. Therefore, they have fewer children. While the population of low-quality people, nonproductive people, is rising, the population of high-quality people, productive people, is declining. A larger percentage of Blacks are on welfare than any other race. Therefore, dysgenics is working for the survival of their species, while it is leading to the extinction of the White species. (The only thing that has served to check the growth of low-quality people is another progressive program — abortion.)

Debt to Society
One often hears about a criminal paying his debt to society. A criminal’s debt is to the victim of his crime, that is, to an individual or group of individuals. It is not to an amorphous abstraction called “society.” (Society is the aggregate of the people who cooperate to improve their individual and collective circumstances through production and exchange.) Society has not suffered from his crime; individuals have. Consequently, his debt is to individuals and not to society.

Moreover, the way the system has been set up, the victim helps pay for the punishment of the criminal. Taxpayers, which include victims of crime, pay for the punishment (or rehabilitation for the more progressive) via tax-supported incarceration. Punishment should focus on requiring the criminal to pay the victims of his crime with penalties. Instead, currently, the victim pays for the punishment of the criminal. Unless the court orders the criminal to pay restitution at the time of sentencing, the victim can only recover his loss through a civil suit against the criminal.  Even then, the victim ends up paying for the punishment (prison time, supervision while on parole or suspended sentence, etc.) of the criminal via taxation.

Abortion and Vaccination
Progressives and their kindred declare that the government should not tell a woman what she can do with her body. Therefore, abortion should be legal: A woman has the right to an abortion. (Pro-life adherents are not objecting to what a woman does with her body. They object to what she and the abortionist do to the body of another person: her baby.)

However, when vaccination is the issue, most of the pro-abortion people favor the government telling women what they must do with their bodies. That is, they favor forced vaccination. Thus, a woman should not have the right to control her body by refusing a vaccination. Further, denial of the right to refuse a vaccination extends to young females. Parents should not be allowed to refuse vaccinations for their daughters. Consequently, the government has the right, or even the obligation, to tell a woman what she must do with her body with respect to vaccinations.

Another argument used by the pro-abortionists in favor of abortion is that the government does not tell men what to do with their bodies. Yet, this claim is not true. The government forces males to be vaccinated to attend public schools and often even private schools. Moreover, the government forces men to be vaccinated when it forces them to war and die for the politically powerful.

A major difference exists between antivaccine people and pro-vaccine people. With rare exception, antivaccine people do not want to forcibly prevent people from being vaccinated. They want people to be informed about vaccination, its pros and cons, and to decide for themselves whether they and their children are to be vaccinated. They favor freedom of choice. On the other hand, most pro-vaccine people want to force people, especially children, to be vaccinated. Preferring coercion, they do not favor people making an informed decision. Accordingly, they oppose freedom of choice. In this respect, they are like Marxists and Puritans. Thus, antivaccine people favor freedom while pro-vaccine people oppose freedom.

Racial Actions of Major Corporations
Companies are falling all over themselves to fund radical Black racist groups in the name of fighting White racism, which is systemic, in the name of helping Black communities. If these companies really wanted to help Black communities, they would build their plants and offices in these communities and give the inhabitants of these communities priority in working in these plants and offices. Moreover, they would use the inhabitants of these communities to build the plants and offices. To show their commitment to these Black communities, they would require the managers and supervisors of the plants and offices to live in that community — and not live in a gated segment of the community.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen

More social issues articles.

Some Comments on People and Organizations

Some Comments on People and Organizations

Thomas Allen

 

Discussed below are the difference between terrorists and defenders of freedom, what Lincoln and King have in common, Limbaugh and conspiracy, the firing of Khrushchev, the Logan Act, the American Institute of Economic Research, and the Abbeville Institute.

Terrorists Versus Defenders of Freedom

What is the difference between a cowardly terrorist and a courageous defender of freedom? A cowardly terrorist wears a bomb on a bus and blows up himself and a busload of people. A courageous defender of freedom sits in the cockpit of a multimillion-dollar fighter jet and fires missiles from a hundred miles away into a crowded street.

What do Lincoln and King Have in Common?

What do Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King have in common? Both were assassinated. If they had not been assassinated, they would have gone down in history as scumbags. Assassination deified them. Consequently, assassination was the best thing to ever happen to them.

Limbaugh and Conspiracy

Rush Limbaugh used to call conspiracy theorists, most of whom are conspiracy scientists, kooks and implied, if not claim, that conspiracies do not exist. Now, he describes the Deep State, which he often calls a cabal, the way that most conspiracy scientists describe the conspiracy that controls the United States government and works to create a global state with a one-world government. Since he describes the Deep State as a conspiracy, although he does not use the word, does he now believe in conspiracies? If so, does this mean that he is a kook?

The Firing of Khrushchev

Nikita Khrushchev goes on vacation to a Black Sea resort. David Rockefeller goes to Moscow while Khrushchev is on vacation. Khrushchev returns from his vacation to learn that he has been fired as the primer and as First Secretary of the Communist Party. Coincidence or causation?

Accidental historians, i.e., establishment or orthodox historians, fail to see any connection between Rockefeller and the dismissal of Khrushchev. Most accidental historians claim that Leonid Brezhnev led a coup against Khrushchev. (Curiously, many accidental historians consider Brezhnev’s action against Khrushchev a conspiracy, although they assert that conspiracies do not exist and condemn historians who write about conspiracies.) Did Brezhnev need Rockefeller’s approval before overthrowing Khrushchev? Or, did Rockefeller order Brezhnev to fire Khrushchev?

Logan Act

The Logan Act, which was enacted in 1799, prohibits a private citizen from corresponding with foreign governments or governmental officials without the approval of the United States government. It reads in part:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

How do the American members of the Bilderberg Group avoid violating the Logan Act? The Bilderberg Group is a group of international globalists (illuminists) who gather to discuss international and national policies and the implementation of these policies in their home countries. During meetings of the Bilderberg Group, private American citizens are communicating with officers of foreign governments. The answer is that these private American citizens are the rulers, the real government of the United States. They own the politicians and high-ranking bureaucrats.

American Institute of Economic Research

I have been following the American Institute of Economic Research (AIER) off and on for nearly 50 years. AIER has deteriorated when compared with the early 1970s — the days when its founder Edward Harwood ran it. In recent years, AIER has adopted a strongly anti-South position. Such an attitude is strange since the South has historically been a staunch opponent of protective tariffs, which AIER ardently opposes. Its hostility toward the South is indistinguishable from that of the Puritan Yankee, who until recent years, has always been a strong proponent of protective tariffs.

Abbeville Institute 

Abbeville Institute produces many great pro-South articles. It is a leading defender of the South and the Confederacy. Unfortunately, many (some?, most?) of its writers are like most other Whites: They are racial nihilists, who have abandoned the old morality of preserving the races for the new morality of sacrificing the races, especially the White race, on the altar of humanity. 

Moreover, like most conservative Whites, they have exalted Martin Luther King as the greatest paragon of American conservatism and the epitome of conservative values. Instead of being a communist sympathizer and a frontman for the Communist Party, he has become an advocate of all the virtues and values that conservatives hold dear. Moreover, he loved Southerners and did not seek their destruction although everything that he advocated has led to their destruction. He is presented as a great uniter of the races, although he promoted policies that have led to a great hatred of and hostility toward the White race. So great is this hatred and hostility that most Whites, including many writers at the Abbeville Institute, support policies designed to kill the White race. 

These writers at the Abbeville Institute need to adopt a racial attitude similar to that of most of the writers of the American Renaissance. Only by openly supporting and promoting the preservation of the White race can the Abbeville Institute hope to save Southerners and the South. (For a start, they can cease lumping Whites and Blacks who live in the South together as “Southerners.” “Southerner” properly identifies an ethnic group of Whites whose ancestors were born and reared in the South and White who have lived in the South long enough to become indistinguishable from native Southerners. Blacks who live in the South are properly identified as Southern Blacks, which is a different ethnic group than Southerners. Moreover, they can identify King as a Communist sympathizer who advanced the communist agenda and not one of the great fathers of American conservatism.)

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

The Soul

The Soul

Thomas Allen

Is the human soul immortal or mortal? Does the soul continue to exist consciously after the body dies? Or, does it die when the body dies?

There are two views of the nature of man. One is the dualistic view, which is the popular Christian view and the pagan view. The other is the holistic view, which is the Hebrew and Biblical view.

Greek, Egyptian, and other pagan philosophers claim that the soul is immortal and continuous a conscious existence after the body dies. According to the pagan Greeks, the soul is trapped in a material body. When the body dies, the soul is liberated and continuous a conscious existence elsewhere because the soul is immortal and, therefore, indestructible. Consequently, a person cannot really die; he merely transitions to another form. Death is merely the separation of the soul and the body.

The Hebrews claim that the soul is mortal and dies with the body — that is, its conscious existence ends with the death of the body. Since the soul animates the body, it dies (ceases to have consciousness) when the body dies; it not a distinct substance. When the body dies, the soul ceases its function of the animating life-principle of the body, and, therefore, it also dies. Furthermore, according to the Hebrews, the soul and body are an indissoluble unit. Moreover, man does not have a soul; he is a soul.

While the pagans teach a dualistic nature of man (the soul is immortal and the body is mortal), the Hebrews in the Old Testament teach a holistic view (both the soul and body are mortal). The pagan view asserts that the body, which is mortal, and the soul, which is immortal, are two different substances that coexist within one human being. Nevertheless, they are two characteristics of the same person. Thus, human nature consists of two entities (a body and a soul) that function independently — the dualistic view of man.

Contrasting with the pagan idea is the Hebrew. The Hebrew idea is that of an animated body, and the soul animates the body. When one dies, the other also dies. Both the body and the soul are mortal. Consequently, human nature is an indissoluble unity where the body and soul are different aspects of the same person — the holistic view of man.

For the Hebrews of the Old Testament and the early Christians of the New Testament, immortality is a gift from God given at the resurrection. Immortality is not an innate human possession as the pagans and orthodox Christians teach.

Tertullian and Origen introduce the Greek notion of an immoral soul into Christianity. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas expounded this pagan dualistic view of human nature. Consequently, the pagan dualistic concept of man became the orthodox Christian doctrine.

During the Reformation, Calvin, Luther, and most other Protestant leaders maintained that the soul was immortal. According to Calvin and Augustine, when the body dies, the souls of believers enjoy blessings in heaven while the souls of unbelievers suffer torments in hell. (However, the Anabaptists preached the Hebrew holistic concept of the soul, i.e., the soul is mortal and ceases conscious existence when the body dies.)

Adherents of the pagan dualistic nature of man believe that death is the separation of the immortal soul from the mortal body. At the resurrection, the immortal soul is reunited with the body. Today, most Christians believe in this dualistic doctrine.

Conversely, adherents of the Hebrew holistic nature of man believe the soul like the body is mortal and, therefore, dies with the body. At the resurrection, the whole person, body and soul, is resurrected.

What Is the Soul?

What is the soul? The soul is the life-giving force; it is man’s consciousness and awareness. Consequently, the soul is that part of a being that interprets the outside world through the senses. It interprets what one sees, hears, tastes, smells, and feels. Therefore, the soul and not the brain is what sees, hears, tastes, smells, and feels. It is what perceives and evaluates. (Further, the soul is what gives all living creatures their life, consciousness, and awareness.  Consequently, all animals, plants, fungi, protists, and monerans have souls.)

Moreover, the soul is the seat of one’s emotions, personality, intellect, and memory. As such, it is what makes a human being human. It is that part of a person that believes, decides, reasons, judges, rejoices, sorrows, loves, hates, doubts, and the like. Furthermore, from the soul come man’s moral and religious attributes.

The soul is the mind as opposed to the brain. (Some theologians claim that the spirit of man is the mind instead of the soul. [See the last paragraph for a discussion on the spirit of man.]) Through the soul does a person perceive and understand the material world. However, the soul does not reside in the brain and has no corporal nature. On the contrary, the soul is distinct from and independent of the brain.

Although signals received from the senses are analyzed in the brain, the soul is what understands and gives this information meaning and significance. The brain merely serves as a vehicle delivering information to the soul. The soul observes and interprets the information formed in the brain.

The existence of the soul refutes materialism, and, therefore, it repudiates Darwinism and evolution. Materialists believe that the movement of chemicals in the brain controls a person’s thoughts, emotions, and actions. Blind, unconscious atoms and electrical signals cannot be the source of awareness, perception, thought, beliefs, emotions, and the like.

Some theologians distinguish between the soul of man and the spirit of man. For these theologians, the soul of man is identified with the secular exercise of an individual. The spirit of man is that part of human nature that allies with God. Also, some identify the spirit of man as what makes man a rational being. However, many treat the soul and the spirit as two names for the same entity. This article does not distinguish between the two.

Reference

Bacchiocchi, Samuele. Popular Beliefs: Are They Biblical? Berrien Springs Michigan: Biblical Perspectives, 2008.

Davis, John D. The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible. Revised by Henry Snyder Gehman. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1944.

Douglas, J.D. et al., editors. The New Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids: Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Jacobus, Melanchthon W., Edward E. Norse, and Andrew C. Zenos, editors. A New Standard Bible Dictionary. New York, New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1926.

Martin, William C. The Layman’s Bible Encyclopedia. Nashville, Tennessee: The Southwest Company, 1964.

Tenney, Merrill C., editor. The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids: Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1967.

Yahya, Harun (Adnan Oktar). Darwin’s Dilemma the Soul. First English edition. Editor Tam Mossman. Translator Carl Nino Rossini. Istanbul, Turkey: Global Publishing, 2008.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

 

Gutzman on the Constitution

 Gutzman on the Constitution

Thomas Allen

In The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to the Constitution (2007), Kevin Gutzman provides some interesting information related to the US Constitution. Some of this information follows.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” appears in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Most people believe that this phrase means various types of homicides and thefts and other indictable crimes. It does mean these things, but it also means more than these.

When the States ratified the Constitution, this phrase was understood to cover physical disability and mental and psychological impairment. However, the complete meaning of this phrase was forgotten, and it became limited to indictable crimes and petty corruption. Consequently, the impeachment process has become a highly ineffective means to remove judges and other civil officers from office. (The twenty-fifth amendment establishes a procedure for removing the president, but not other civil officers or judges, from office because of physical disability and mental impairment.)

Vetoing State Laws. The Constitutional Convention rejected giving Congress the power to veto State laws, which implied that the judiciary, which is the least responsible institution of the federal government, also lacks such power. However, the US Supreme Court soon usurped this power. 

First, it used the Contract Clause (Article I, Section 10: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . . .”). The purpose of the Contract Clause was to prohibit States from adopting laws preventing lenders from collecting debts for a stated period. This clause was not intended to prohibit States from enacting economic regulations. However, federal courts have used it to veto State laws that regulated the economy.

About 130 years later, the Supreme Court replaced the Contract Clause with the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”) to veto State laws that the Supreme Court did not like.

After World War II, the Supreme Court began using the Incorporation Doctrine (applying the first nine amendments, the Bill of Rights, to the States) to veto State laws that it did not like.

(Federal courts seldom veto State laws because they are unconstitutional; most are constitutional under the original intent of the Constitution. Federal judges veto State laws because they do not like them; they conflict with the personal prejudices, preferences, and biases of the judge.)

Eleventh Amendment. The purpose of the eleventh amendment is to reassert the independence, sovereignty, and supremacy of the States. Specifically, it denies federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits initiated against a State by a citizen of another State or country.

Its original intent was to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts to those specifically named Article III. The Supreme Court has circumvented the intent of the eleventh amendment by allowing people to sue State officials who carry out the policies of the State in lieu of the State itself.

Two Views of the Nature of the Law. Gutzman describes two views of the nature of the law: Thomas Jefferson’s and John Marshall’s, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (1801–1835). “For Jefferson, law was the framework of rules by which the people agreed to be governed; a judge's role was simply to apply the clear meaning and original understanding of the Constitution (or other legal document)” (p. 98). Jefferson’s view is republican in nature.

However, Marshall believed “that law required judges who could see beyond the written law to the ‘natural law’ that was superior to it” (p.98). (Abolitionists also claimed that natural law as they interpreted it was superior to the Constitution and all other laws.) Marshall’s view is aristocratic and clerical in nature. The fatal flow of Marshall’s view is that “no two men agreed about the particulars of the ‘natural law’; instead, they tended to use ‘natural law’ as a justification for their own policy preferences” (pp. 98-99).

Two Types of Due Process. The Supreme Court has created two types of due process: “procedural due process” and “substantive due process.” Due process appears twice in the Constitution: once in the fifth amendment and once in the fourteenth amendment. Due process as used in the Constitution is procedural due process (according to pre-established procedures). Substantive due process is used as an excuse for judicial usurpation. (Substantive due process is the doctrine that legislation is needed to carry out fairly due process in the fifth and fourteenth amendments.) When the Supreme Court legislates under the banner of due process, it is using substantive due process.

Gutzman’s The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to the Constitution is an excellent book on the Constitution. He focuses on how the Supreme Court has subverted the original intent of the Constitution, has usurped the legislative authority of Congress and the States, and has prohibited authorities of the States that the Constitution allows.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen

More political articles.

Some Comments on Blacks

Some Comments on Blacks

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are judging people by their character and not their race, comparison of antebellum Blacks to today’s Blacks, the Jim Crow Era.

Judging by Character and Not by Race
Most White libertarians, conservatives, liberals, and progressives like to boast about not noticing a person’s race. That is, they like to boast about being racial nihilists. They cite M.L. King’s statement: “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

However, in noticing a person’s race, White liberals and progressives far exceed libertarians and conservatives in their hypocrisy. White liberals and progressives are quick to notice a person’s race when elevating a nonwhite above a White, when praising a nonwhite race, or when castigating the White race. Most White conservatives seem to suffer from some kind of disassociation disorder. They want to be politically correct and not notice a person’s race. Yet, they also hesitate to dishonor their ancestors and commit racial genocide. Having a suicidal ideology, libertarians are most consistent at being racial nihilists.

Most nonwhites do not have the racial problems that inflict Whites. They acknowledge that they are a genetic people, and most still believe that their genetics are worth preserving. Many Whites are torn between considering themselves a genetic people or a propositional people where race and, therefore, genetics are irrelevant, and the White race is not worth saving. Regrettably, for the White race, many Whites, especially neoconservatives, libertarians, liberals, and progressives have decided that they are a propositional people.

Now, let us return to judging people by character and not by race. While one of these White people is walking down the street in Detroit, for example, he encounters a group of Black teenage boys heading toward him. On the other side of the street is a group of White teenage boys. (1) Is he going to hurry toward the Blacks and interview them and then cross the street and interview the Whites so that he can discern their character? To carry out this approach, he has to command the Whites remain where they are while he interviews the Blacks and the Blacks remain where they are while he interviews the Whites. (2) Is he going to continue to walk toward the Blacks to prove that he is not a racist, not prejudice, not bias, and does not judge people by their race? (3) Or, is he going to play the odds by crossing the street where the White boys are, thus showing that he judges people by their race? Be honest, which would you do?

Blacks Then and Now
In antebellum times, the plantation owner provided his Blacks with free housing, free food, and free medical care. Today, the United States government and State and local governments provide their Blacks with free housing, free food, and free medical care. Moreover, they outdo the plantation owner by providing their Blacks with even more free stuff.

However, some important differences exist between the two. By requiring his Blacks to work for their keep, the plantation owner gave his Blacks some sense of dignity. Moreover, he paid for their keep with his money. Governments do not require work from their Blacks; thus, they make their Blacks parasites. Furthermore, governments reward their Blacks for not working. Even worst, they reward their Blacks with other people’s money.

Fortunately, some Blacks have freed themselves from the plantation mentality. Unfortunately, many Blacks have not freed themselves from the plantation mentality. For them, freedom means freedom from work.

Jim Crow
Most commentators harshly condemn the Jim Crow Era of segregation for its cruelty, injustice, discrimination, etc. Little is said or written about that era that is positive.

The primary difference between Jim Crow in the North and the South is that in the North restrictions on Blacks was by custom. In the South, they were by statue. These restrictions on Blacks were also restrictions on Whites; thus, these restrictions worked in both directions. (One Black noted that Jim Crow in the South was better than Jim Crow in the North. At least in the South, a Black knew in which restaurants he could and could not eat. However, in the North, a Black had to endure the embarrassment of not being waited on to know that he was not allowed to eat there.)

Nevertheless, the Jim Crow Era did have a positive effect on Blacks. It gave them independence and taught them to rely on themselves — collectively and individually — and not to rely on whitey. Unlike today, when Blacks receive preference for welfare to Whites, under Jim Crow, Whites received preference. Therefore, Blacks had to rely more on themselves during the Jim Crow Era than now.

Moreover, the Jim Crow Era created a growing Black middle class. For that reason, the Communist strove to replace Jim Crow with civil rights and integration. They were highly successful. After the Civil Rights Era of integration supplanted the Jim Crow Era, Blacks became ever more dependent on the government. Via the welfare state, they became slaves of the great White plantation master in Washington and his overseers in the State capitals.

During the Jim Crow Era, Blacks had a higher moral standard than they have had under the Civil Rights Era. Then, they had more families with both a father and a mother than now. They had a lower percentage of children born out of wedlock than now. Also, Black sacrificed far fewer of their children to Lucifer at the abortion clinics than now. Moreover, the rate of crime for Blacks then was lower than now.

During the Jim Crow Era, few Americans suffered from the mental illnesses of Confederaphobia, Dixiephobia, albusphobia, and racial nihilism. Nearly all adhered to the old morality of racial preservation, especially the preservation of one’s own race. In the Civil Rights Era, a large and growing number of Americans suffer from Confederaphobia, Dixiephobia, albusphobia, and racial nihilism. Although most nonwhites still follow the old morality, most Whites now follow the new morality of sacrificing the races, especially the White race, on the altar of humanity.

Whereas Jim Crow laws gave Whites advantages over Blacks, Civil Rights laws give Blacks advantages over Whites. Further, Civil Rights laws give Blacks more advantages than Jim Crow laws ever gave Whites. Jim Crow laws never sought to destroy the Black society, culture, and race; they even protected them. However, an objective of the Civil Rights laws has been to destroy White society, culture, and race — especially Southerners and their society and culture.

The Jim Crow Era ended with the last major White resistance to forced integration, which occurred in Boston in the mid 1970s. Thus, ended Jim Crow.

Nevertheless, contrary to the popular myth, Blacks had many advantages and benefits under Jim Crow that they have lost during the Civil Rights Era.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

COVID-19 and Its So-Called Vaccine

 COVID-19 and Its So-Called Vaccine

Thomas Allen

The following discusses whom to trust; the benefits, safety, effectiveness, and necessity of the COVID-19 vaccines; and masks.

Whom Are You to Believe

Whom are you going to believe about the COVID-19 gene-therapy drugs erroneously called vaccines? Are you going to believe known liars who relentlessly push the vaccines and who benefit financially and otherwise from people being vaccinated? Or, are you going to believe people not known as liars who have nothing to gain from opposing the vaccines except condemnation, ostracism, and unemployment? While the drug pushers lust for power, wealth, and death, the opponents of these drugs only want to save people’s lives.

Who Benefits from the So-Called Vaccines and Who Does Not

Three major factions are behind pushing the so-called COVID vaccines. They are big pharma, governments, and population reductionists.

Money drives big pharma to push these gene-therapy drugs. It makes a great deal of money selling these drugs. More importantly, it stands to make even more money selling drugs to treat people whom these gene-therapy drugs have maimed.

Power drives governments to push these gene-therapy drugs. Governments stand to gain a great deal more power over the people with vaccine passports, forced vaccinations, and the like.

Narcissism and hatred drive the reductionists. Their narcissism and hatred of others drive them to cull the herd. They hope that these gene-therapy drugs will kill billions of people in the next few years.

The goals of big pharma and the reductionists seem to conflict. Big pharma wants a large number of sick people to whom to sell their drugs. On the other hand, the reductionists want dead people as long as they are not among the dead. Maybe, they have compromised and have designed the vaccines to sterilize people and to maim people with debilitating diseases for several years before they die.

Who does not benefit from these so-called vaccines? People who have received the shot. They risk a shortened life span and the deleterious effects from the shot.

Beneath the level in Dante’s hell where the likes of Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, and Hitler reside will be the presstitutes, politicians, and health officials who have vigorously promoted these so-called COVID vaccines while suppressing the truth about them.

Safe and Effective

Contrary to the government’s, medical industry’s, and presstitute’s false indoctrinating propaganda, these so-called COVID vaccines are neither safe nor effective. Proving that these so-called vaccines are not safe is that more people have died of these vaccines than of all the other vaccines administered over the last 50 years. When corrected for the underreporting of deaths, between 90,000 and 900,000 people have died in the United States of the so-called COVID vaccines. (When corrected for overreporting, about 63,000 have died of COVID-19 in the United States. Additionally, less than 12 percent of the population has tested positive for COVID-19, and of these about 0.2 percent actually had COVID-19.) 

Further, if these so-called vaccines were effective, vaccinated people would not be contracting the virus in such large numbers that the vaccinated people are now being forced to wear masks. Moreover, if these vaccines were effective, vaccinated people would not be contracting the virus in ever-growing numbers.

Also, if vaccinated people thought that these vaccines were effective, they would not fear the unvaccinated. Yet, many vaccinated fear that the unvaccinated will inflect them with the coronavirus. On the contrary, the vaccinated are more likely to contract the virus from the vaccinated than they are from the unvaccinated. Likewise, the unvaccinated are more likely to contract the virus from the vaccinated than they are from the unvaccinated. Generally, the viral load of vaccinated individuals is much higher than that of the unvaccinated, and vaccinated people are known to spread the virus. Furthermore, some (many, most?) of the vaccinated may have gotten their infection from their own bodies.

Contrary to the propaganda, getting the coronavirus from unvaccinated people is highly unlikely. As the almost ten-million-person-Wuhan study shows, asymptomatic unvaccinated people do not transmit the virus even if they are infected. (Only a racist Sinophobe would disagree with this study.)

Is the Vaccine Needed

Is a vaccine even needed? No, a vaccine is not needed because 98 to 99 percent of the infected recover from the disease, and only about 15 percent of the infected have serious issues with the disease. Moreover, a large percentage of the population is protected from the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 because of the immunity they have acquired from previous coronavirus infections. Also, several highly effective and safe treatments are available to treat those who become ill. However, governments, big pharma, and their presstitute collaborators suppress these effective treatments.

Thus, the so-called COVID vaccines are not needed, not safe, and not effective. Moreover, being around unvaccinated who are not showing symptoms of COVID-19 is far safer than being around vaccinated individuals.

The Difference Between the Forced Vaccinators and Their Opponents

Forced vaccinators want to coerce everyone to be vaccinated — especially people who do not want to be vaccinated. Like all good Puritans, forced vaccinators have seen the light. With their inter voice guiding them, forced vaccinators seek to inject their poisonous vaccines in all. Of course, they claim that they are doing it for the good of the victims. If a victim resists, then the victim is selfish for not wanting to sacrifice his life and the lives of his family to satisfy  power-hungry, micromanaging, narcissistic, selfish Puritans in their lust for power.

On the other hand, people who oppose the agenda of the forced vaccinators are altruistic. They preach freedom of choice: Individuals should choose whether to be vaccinated. (If the vaccines work, the vaccinated have nothing to fear from the unvaccinated.) Vaccination opponents just want to live their lives and go about their business without restrictions or interference. That is, vaccination opponents just want to be left alone. However, the forced vaccinators are determined not to leave them alone.

Masks

The masks that most people commonly wear have pores that are 25 to 250 times larger than the coronavirus with larger gaps around the edges. How is a mask with such large holes going to stop the virus? Moreover, most people do not even wear masks correctly or discard or wash them frequently. Obviously, politicians and bureaucrats who are forcing people to wear masks are not concerned with their health. They are concerned with power — bossing other people and controlling their lives.

Appendix. Calculations.

The following is an explanation of how the numbers in “Safe and Effective” are calculated. These calculations are based on the information that I had available at the time that I wrote this article. The numbers have been rounded.

Vaccine Deaths. The number of deaths from the vaccine is reported to be 9,000. Since only about 1 to 10 percent of the number of deaths are reported, 9,000 has been multiplied by 10 and 100 to get 90,000 to 900,000 deaths.

COVID Deaths. According to the CDC, only about 6 percent of the COVID-19 deaths reported are from the coronavirus. The remaining deaths are from other causes where the coronavirus was or may have been present. The reported number of COVID-19 deaths is 630,000. To err on the high side, 630,000 has been multiplied by 0.1 (10 percent) to get 63,000 deaths.

Cases. The number of cases of COVID-19 is 38 million. However, the primary approved test used to measure COVID-19 yields 98 to 99 percent false positives. That is, only 1 to 2 percent of the people testing positive for COVID-19 have the disease. To err on the conservative side, 2 percent or 760,000 (38 million times 0.02) of those testing positive are identified with COVID-19. The 12 percent of the population testing positive is derived by dividing the number of cases (38 million) by the US population (331 million), which yields 11.5 percent —thus, the less than 12-percent. The 0.2 percent who actually had COVID-19 is derived by dividing 760,000 by the number of cases (38 million).

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

A Letter: Southern National Party

A Letter: Southern National Party

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1986 responding to an article by Mr. Vanover in the Southern Partisan magazine.]

    As a member of the Southern National Party, I can inform Mr. Vanover that it is still alive. If he had read the party’s newsletters of the past five years, he would have discovered that most writers who address the race issue do not advocate “White supremacy.” They advocate the solution offered by Thomas Jefferson.
    I am sure that Mr. Vanover would consider me a “racist” because I advocate Jefferson’s solution. However, I do not believe that the Jeffersonian solution is a “racist” solution in the sense of degrading or destroying a race. It is racist only in the sense that it preserves the races that God created. The new South integrationist is the true racist. Integration leads to interracial marriages, which lead irrevocably to the destruction of the races. At least it has in all other societies that have tried it. I see no reason that the South would be any different. Because of its total destructiveness, racial integration must be based upon racial hatred. Racial destruction seems to be the position advocated by Mr. Vanover.
    Following Mr. Vanover’s logic (one “who truly loves the South loves it for what it is”), one must love and perhaps even advocate “White supremacy.” Historically and traditionally, Blacks generally have been subordinated politically, economically, and socially to Whites. [The same was true in the North.] At least this has been true up to the Second Reconstruction when State governments were prohibited from enforcing segregation and were required to enforce integration. White supremacy, segregation, and geographical separation are not necessarily motivated by racial hatred. Even if they were, there is less hatred in them than in integration. Integration has always led to the destruction of the races, which are God’s creations. Unlike advocates of the aforementioned three, the integrationist is consumed with self-hatred, for he seeks to destroy himself and his kind. In the long run, integration is a highly unchristian principle.
    [Historically and traditionally, not only did Southerners segregate Blacks, so did Northerners. However, unlike the South, which segregated Blacks by statute because of their large numbers, the North segregated Blacks by custom, because their small numbers did not require laws to segregate them. Moreover, the typical Northerner had a lower opinion of Blacks than did the typical Southerner. While Southerners saw Blacks as real persons, Yankees, especially the abolitionist types, saw them as abstractions.]
    Those in the same wing of the Southern National Party in which I am, advocate the preservation of the Negro race without White supremacy. We believe as Jefferson believed that this goal can only be achieved by geographical separation of the races. This position can hardly be considered antiblack — at least not by rational thinkers.
    Mr. Vanover never really answers his question: “Is the White Southerner ready for equality?” He implies that the answer is “yes.” He may be correct. However, if he is, the White Southerner is ready for something that is contrary to nature and the Bible. We may all be equally guilty of sinning, but that is about the end of our equality. What can be more unequal than some going to paradise while others do not? Or, as Calvin would put it, some are predestined to heaven; most are predestined to hell. Because every individual and every race is unique and innately different, they can never be equal. The closest man has come to achieving equality in recent times is in the Soviet Union, communist China, and Cambodia. I doubt that many Southerners desire such a society, but if they desire equality, this type of society is what they will achieve.
    The prevention of “mongrelization” and the preservation of “White civilization” is only one reason for an independent Southern Republic. (I suspect most Southerners prefer these goals to Mr. Vanover’s nebulous egalitarianism. I also doubt that most Southerners feel the same contempt for White civilization as Mr. Vanover seems to exhibit.) An independent Southern Republic would greatly improve our chances of preserving our Southern culture, heritage, and traditions for our great-grandchildren. Political boundaries can control immigration; thus, retard the influx of carpetbaggers and their socialistic, democratic, miscegenous, egalitarian Yankee ideology. Those values advocated in the Southern Partisan can best be preserved and regained with an independent South. In fact, I believe that is the only chance that they can be. An independent South would greatly improve our chances of regaining the liberties that our pre-Statue of Liberty antebellum ancestors enjoyed. Regaining these lost liberties in the present union is virtually nil. An independent South would free us from a federal court system, presidency, and Congress controlled by Yankeedom. Who knows, it may even end new South style progress and reduce the quantity of hazardous waste dumped in South Carolina.
    About the only thing that Mr. Vanover and I may agree on is our opposition to groups like the White Patriot Party and the Klans desecrating the Confederate flag. However, I do find myself in agreement with most of what the Southern Partisan advocates. Where we depart is to how to best achieve these goals. The writers in the Southern Partisan, for the most part, believe that the present union can be reformed and Southern values can thus be preserved, and those lost, regained. I am convinced that the present union cannot be so reformed and that these goals can only be achieved in an independent South. Of course, Southerners have been in this predicament before. In 1770 most Southerners believed that the union with England could be reformed. By 1776, many were convinced that their only hope lay in independence. In 1855, most Southerners believed that the union with the North could be reformed. By l861, most were convinced that it could not.
    For your erudition, several recent issues of the Southern National Party’s newsletter are enclosed. For your edification, I have marked the articles that I have written. Perhaps Mr. Vanover can peruse them to discover why someone not in prison would support Southern independence. I am sure that he will conclude that I am a member of the right-wing lunatic fringe. [If so, he would be wrong; according to Pam Dunn, I am a “a totally moronic left winger idiot.”] However, I suspect that if I were transported back to April 1776 when my ancestors, John Bradford and Jeptha Atherton, voted for the Halifax Resolves, I would be in the mainstream. [Later, I learned that Atherton was not a member of the Fourth Provincial Congress, which adopted the Halifax Resolves. He was a member of the Fifth Provincial Congress, which approved the first North Carolina Constitution, along with a “Declaration of Rights.”] I doubt if my Uncle Nathaniel Macon (an article about him appeared in an earlier issue of the Southern Partisan) would disagree with too many of my positions. I also suspect that my great-grandfather, who shed his blood at Chancellorsville, and his brother, who left an arm there, and a host of their comrades would be more inclined to agree with my position on race, equality, and Southern independence than with Mr. Vanover’s position.
    I have written numerous articles for the “Southern National Newsletter” over the past five years. Only two of these articles were on race per se. So there are other reasons for desiring Southern independence — namely, liberty. As John Randolph said, I believe that it was he, “I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality.” In other words, man can have liberty. Man can have equality. Man can have neither. But man can never have both.
    I write this letter not as an official or spokesman for the Southern National Party, for I have no authority to do so. I merely write to inform Mr. Vanover that the Southern National Party still exists and to let him know why one person who is not a convict would consider joining it.
    [In 1999, if I remember correctly, the Southern National Party dissolved. Sometime later, a new Southern National Party was formed. I have had no relations with the new party.]

Copyright © 1986, 2019 by Thomas C. Allen.

More Southern issues articles.