Sunday, January 30, 2022

Some Comments on Doctrines

Some Comments on Doctrines
Thomas Allen

Discussed below are what makes the best doctrines, orthodoxy and heterodoxy, Old Testament Christians, Calvinism, and some views of Jesus.

Best Doctrines
Usually, most Christians seem to believe the Christian doctrines that have the weakest Scriptural foundation. Moreover, when verses seem to conflict, they believe that the many should be understood in light of the few instead of understanding the few in light of the many. Furthermore, some, if not many, doctrines seem to start with the premise, and then the Scriptures are forced to fit a preconceived conclusion. Calvinism and Catholicism are good examples.

Orthodoxy or Heterodoxy
Most Christians ignore, fail to realize, or refuse to accept that what one person considers orthodoxy, another person considers heresy. Likewise, what one person considers heresy, another person considers orthodoxy. Protestantism and Catholicism are good examples: Protestants consider Catholics heretics, and Catholics consider Protestants heretics.

What is the difference between orthodoxy and heterodoxy? My doxy is orthodoxy, and your doxy is heterodoxy. In other words, one person’s orthodoxy is another person’s heterodoxy, and one person’s heterodoxy is another person’s orthodoxy. Therefore, a heretic is someone who disagrees with another’s doxy. Heresy is perspective.

Old Testament Christians
A segment of Christianity teaches that the Old Testament laws apply to today’s Christians. Therefore, Christians are obliged to follow all the Old Testament laws with one exception. The laws related to animal sacrifices are the only exceptions since Jesus fulfilled them. Furthermore, nearly all Old Testament Christians believe the principle that Christians are forbidden to do anything that the Bible does not command or expressly allow. If the Bible is silent about a particular activity, that activity is prohibited. Do the Old Testament Christians sincerely practice these doctrines?

If an Old Testament Christian has a skin disease, does he seek a Levite priest, to heal his disease, or does he seek a capable physician? If his house has a problem with mold, does he turn to a Levite priest or a person skilled in removing mold to eliminate his mold problem? If he uses a physician or a professional house cleaner instead of a Levite priest, he is violating Old Testament law and is consequently sinning.

Further, the Bible does not specifically or even obliquely allow the use of computers, radio, television, telephones, etc. or even the use of any device that uses electricity. Do these Christians who believe that Christians are forbidden to do anything that the Bible does not command or authorize, use any electrical devices? If they do, they are sinning.

Moreover, Old Testament Christians would not use credit money of any kind, because nowhere does the Bible authorize the use of credit money. That is, they would not use banknotes (e.g., federal reserve notes), government notes (e.g., US notes), checks, cryptocurrencies (e.g., bitcoin), or a script of any kind. Instead, they would use gold, silver, or another commodity.

Calvinism
In Common-Sense in Religion: A Series of Essays (Boston: James R. Osgood and Company, 1874), James Freeman Clarke gives an interesting description of Calvinism (pages 68-69), although a Calvinist probably would object to it. Calvinists call God their father in heaven. However, according to Clarke, “their real god is not a Father.” About the god of the Calvinist, Clarke writes:
Their real god is an almighty power. He is an inflexible will. He is one who acts, not according to wisdom and love, as a good father acts, but according to some personal whim of his own. He has his favorites, whom he elects and chooses to make happy forever. He has those whom he dislikes for no reason except that he has taken a prejudice against them, and so rejects them and sends them to perdition. This is the essential idea of Calvinism according to Calvin; and Calvinism has another god before the God of Jesus Christ. Jesus worshipped [sic] a Father; Calvinism worships an infinite, arbitrary will.
(Years ago, I either read or heard someone describe how people view God as the heavenly Father. If their earthly father was harsh, stern, cruel, arbitrary, etc., then most likely, they see their heavenly Father as harsh, stern, cruel, arbitrary, etc. However, if their earthly father was kind, loving, caring, understanding, etc., then, most likely, they see their heavenly Father as kind, loving, caring, understanding, etc.)

Some Views of Jesus
Several views of Jesus follow (also, see “Some Christologies” by Thomas Allen):

Orthodox trinitarians (three equal Gods are one God), modalistic trinitarians (one God consists of three manifestations), and tritheistic trinitarians (three equal Gods): Jesus is a human God and a Messiah who is a God-man (Jesus is 100 percent God and 100 percent human).

Apollinarians: Jesus is a human shell that God inhabits.

Paleo-unitarians (Traditional Unitarians, Biblical Unitarians): Jesus is a divine man (the expression of God) and a human messiah.

Neo-unitarians (Modern Unitarians, Rational Unitarians), liberal Protestants, and secular humanists: Jesus is a good man, a wise man, a great teacher of ethics and morality, a reformer, a philosopher, and in the same class as Zoroaster, Confucius, Buddha, and Mohammed.

Jehovah’s Witnesses: Jesus is the Archangel Michael.

Talmudic Jews: Jesus is a blasphemer, a sorcerer, and a bastard.

Muslims: Jesus is a great prophet.

Gnostics: Jesus was God Himself and only appears to be human.

Other views of Jesus include that he is a myth, that he is a fraudster, or that he is a mushroom or some kind of hallucinating drug.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Friday, January 21, 2022

Coulter on Race — Part 2

 Coulter on Race — Part 2

Thomas Allen

According to Coulter, Republicans are the friends of Blacks, and Democrats are their enemies. Republicans have been ardent supporters of civil rights for Blacks and integration. Historically, Democrats have been opponents of civil rights for Blacks and supporters of segregation.

During the Jim Crow Era, segregationist Democrats were responsible for all the problems of Blacks. Now, during the Civil Rights Era, liberal Democrats are responsible for all the problems of Blacks. Liberal Democrats have crippled and retarded Blacks with leniency toward criminals and the rewarding welfare state. [Yet, Blacks continue to support liberal Democrats. But then, Blacks are never responsible for their problems and actions.]

The Democrats expelled the White segregationists from their party and began to attack White segregationists because the segregationists were causing the party to lose too many votes. [Now, Democrats not only support but also encourage segregation by nonwhites. Republicans like Coulter oppose segregation by both Whites and nonwhites.]

Coulter is highly critical of Democrats for “denying blacks the right to vote, to go to school, to sit in nonsegregated diners and to use the same water fountain as whites” (p. 163). [She is referring primarily to the Southern Democrats. Unless they failed to meet the qualifications for voting, which were the same for both Whites and Blacks once the grandfather provisions faded away, Blacks were not legally denied the right to vote. Moreover, no one prevented legally Blacks from going to school; Whites heavily subsidized Black schools. Also, she has a low opinion of Black diners since she implies that White divers were superior to Black diners. Now, Blacks are allowed to segregate diners, but Whites are not. If Blacks could not drink from White fountains, Whites could not drink from Black fountains.]

Coulter claims that Democrats have always favored racial discrimination. In the 1960s, however, it switched from discrimination against Blacks to discriminating against Whites. [Since World War II, Republicans have always favored Blacks over Whites. If not, when Republicans held power, they would have repealed all the laws and executive orders that discriminated against Whites in favor of Blacks. Moreover, discrimination shows discernment; Republicans seem to lack discernment.]

If liberals, the Democratic Party, and the media would cease poking the fires of racism, the flames of racism would be reduced to dying smoldering coals — so Coulter implies. [However, more than this is needed. For example, studies on racism, consciousness-raising sessions about racism, articles denouncing racism, and other actions against racism, all of which Coulter seems to endorse, need to vanish.] 

She writes, “Democrats’ commitment to civil rights has always been directly proportional to how much it helps them politically.” [The same is true of Republicans.] 

[While condemning Democrats, Coulter overlooks that most Blacks are Democrats. Consequently, she condemns her beloved Blacks with her attacks on Democrats.] 

While presenting Democrats as Negrophobes, she presents Republicans as Negrophiles. She brags that most Republicans were and are integrationists. In Congress, most Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [Therefore, most Republicans promote policies that lead to amalgamation and the resulting genocide of Blacks. Moreover, this act is the basis for progressive power.]

In addition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, she boasts about the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments that the Republicans ram through. [The thirteenth amendment did not free any slaves in the South; they were already freed before it was ratified. It freed slaves outside the Confederate States. The fourteenth amendment was adopted illegally. The fifteenth amendment did not give Blacks the right to vote in the South; they already had the vote before this amendment was proposed. It gave the vote to Blacks in the North where some States denied them the vote. Its purpose was to keep Northern State Republican —just as the Democrats want to give illegal aliens the vote because most of them will support Democrats.]

Furthermore, she vaunts about Republicans enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which conferred citizenship to Negroes after overriding President Andrew Johnson’s veto. Also, the Republicans passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867 and sent troops to the South to enforce it. [Thus, she displays her disdain for the South and Southerners and endorses oppression and tyranny if they are done in the name of promoting and protecting Blacks. The primary objective of these two laws was to finish destroying the South by stripping it of the wealth that Lincoln’s War had not destroyed and to use Blacks to humiliate and genocide Southerners. Aiding Blacks was only incidental to these laws. If the primary purpose of these laws were to aid Blacks as she claims, then upwards of half or more of the 1865-Black population would not have died during Reconstruction. Moreover, if Republicans were Negrophiles as Coulter maintains, their party platform would not have contained a clause to keep Blacks out of the territories.]

She does an excellent job of illustrating the hypocrisy of liberals. Correctly, she blames liberals for destroying the Black family.

Further, she blames the poor Black behavior on liberals because they did not punish Blacks for acting like redneck Southerners. Instead, liberals rewarded bad behavior and penalized good behavior. Such action has greatly harmed Blacks.

She identifies the beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Movement:

The only people who had ever benefited from the left’s lunacy on race were (1) professional blacks and (2) self-righteous white liberals, who congratulated themselves on their own ethnic sensitivity while moving heaven and earth to make sure their own kids didn’t go to school with black kids (p. 15).

[Since most conservatives echo the left’s position on race, they are just as loony and benefit the same as White liberals.]

She condemns Whites’ condescending to self-appointed Black leaders like Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Lewis Farrakhan.

Liberal reporters, most of whom are Whites, like to hurl the accusation of racism at conservatives and Republicans. Such accusations often destroy careers and reputations. [Instead of rejecting the accusation and attacking the accuser, most conservatives and Republicans accept the accusation and grovel at the feet of an unforgiving Black potentate and degrade themselves begging for forgiveness. Such reprehensible actions only cause loss of respect for the beggar and encourage future accusations.] Her advice for people who are falsely accused of racism is to declare: “You are a liar. That never happened” (p. 244). 

According to Coulter, White liberals have the luxury of being immune to the charge of “racism.” [However, that is changing as Blacks are lumping them with all other Whites.]

Using Al Sharpton as an example, she comments on the double standard of liberals, Democrats, and the media. They praised Sharpton for doing things that if Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell would have done, liberals, Democrats, and the media would have condemned them.

Coulter notes that liberals instill racial hatred in Blacks: “The problem with liberals’ constantly imputing racist hatred to white people was that it kept creating real racist hatred in black people—ending with real dead white people.” (p. 94.)

Overall, Whites are more tolerant of homosexuals than are Blacks. Yet, liberals, who adore homosexuals, did not condemn Blacks for their homophobia. Instead, they either ignore or justify their homophobia.

While liberals idolize Black criminals and revere Blacks who fake hate crimes, they have little use for honest Blacks. Moreover, liberals promote Black hostility toward Whites.

She condemns Franklin Roosevelt for putting a Klansman on the US Supreme Court, refusing to desegregate the military, giving Blacks make-work government jobs, and putting them on welfare. Thus, he brought Black advancement to a halt. Consequently, in the North, Blacks began supporting Democrats instead of Republicans. According to her, Southerners did not let Blacks vote. [When Blacks in the South were allowed to vote, they voted for her despicable Democrats.]

Although the liberal’s approach to helping the Negro was idiotic, at least according to Coulter, they picked the group that deserved special treatment. [Thus, Coulter endorses Black privileges denied to Whites.] She adds, “Civil rights aren’t supposed to be bounties for every self-obsessed group with a grievance” (p. 147). [Accordingly, civil rights are only for Blacks and are not for anyone else. Apparently, Whites with a grievance against Black privileges should be denied their civil rights because civil rights are only for Blacks.]

She criticizes liberals for using Blacks to promote issues that do not help Blacks, such as, national health care, abortion, and homosexual marriage — most Blacks do not support these issues. [Yet, they vote for Democrats who support these issues.] However, liberals have been successful in using Blacks to advance their progressive causes. [Progressivism grew out of Lincoln and the Republicans, whom Coulter adores.] Another complaint that she has about liberals is that they treat Blacks like children. [Conservatives often act the same by supporting special privileges for Blacks as Coulter does.]

Democrats want to expand civil rights victims to cover women, homosexuals, illegal immigrants, transgenders, and most other groups except heterosexual White males. Being a Negrophile, Coulter wants to restrict civil rights to Blacks.

According to Coulter, because Blacks suffered under slavery and Jim Crow, they deserve favorable treatment. [Favorable treatment for Blacks requires discrimination against Whites. So, what is the difference between Coulter and Democrats other than Democrats want to give other groups favorable treatment?]

Consequently, Coulter adamantly opposes the feminist movement and the shift of civil rights from Blacks to women. This shift moved Blacks “to the back of the bus” (p. 157). She disdains feminists promoting rare White-on-Black rape to advance the feminist agenda. So rare is White-on-Black rape that feminists have to resort to hoaxes. Between 2003 and 2008, no White-on-Black rapes were recorded. However, during this time, Blacks raped several thousand White women per year and raped Black women at an even higher rate.

Like Democrats, Coulter supports Roosevelt’s application of the Interstate Commerce Clause except that she extends it much further than he did[, which far exceeds that intended by the Constitution of the founding fathers]. Also, like liberals, she supports extending the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment to private companies[, which the authors of this clause did not intend]. Then she complains about Democrats expanding the Interstate Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause to women and other groups. 

Coulter discusses Bob Jones University and believes that its policy against interracial dating was silly and its theology was incorrect. However, its policy applied to both Blacks and Whites. Whites could not date Blacks, and Blacks could not date Whites. [Yet, she does not apply this reasoning to segregated schools. Blacks were assigned to Black schools, and Whites to White schools. Blacks could not go to White schools, and Whites could not go to Black schools. Both races were treated the same. Moreover, she shows that she has no concerns about supporting policies that lead to breeding Blacks out of existence. Also, she is wrong about prohibiting interracial dating as theologically incorrect. The Bible forbids interracial mating and marriages.] Anyway, Bob Jones repented of its evil ways and became politically correct by allowing interracial dating.


Coulter presents the typical Republican diatribe against Democrats. Republicans are Negrophiles; Democrats are Negrophobes. Republicans promote integration and, therefore, promote the amalgamation and genocide of Blacks. Democrats promote segregation and, therefore, promote the separation and preservation of Blacks. Segregationists are the only people whom she hates more than Democrats, who are almost synonymous with segregationists in her mind.

Moreover, she accuses Democrats of trying to destroy the country, which they are. Yet, she promotes policies that do the same thing although she is too blind with her love for Blacks and hatred for Southerners, segregationists, and Democrats to realize it. She promotes Whites surrendering their political power to Blacks. Wherever and whenever Whites have surrendered political power to Blacks, the results have been disastrous. Africa is a prime example. Other examples are the Southern States during Reconstruction and the major cities run by Blacks. Why does she think this time will be different? Democrats know that Whites surrendering political power to Blacks will be destroyed the country. That is the reason that they push this surrender. Why does Coulter want to aid them in bringing down the country?

  Coulter thought that America’s insanity with race and White guilt ended with the completion of the O.J. Simpson trial. However, this reprieve lasted for only a few years. As she notes, Obama brought back racism with his presidency.

Nevertheless, the election of Obama proves that America is not racist. Many Whites voted for Obama to prove that they were not racists. White guilt elected Obama to the presidency. She blames White guilt for electing many of the Black liberal Democrats to office and the resulting disasters that their policies cause. 

Coulter wants the country to move beyond race. However, liberal Democrats make just about everything about race. (Only two ways can her dream be achieved. One is the physical separation of the races, which is the Scriptural way and which she rejects. The other way is the complete amalgamation of the races to form motley mongrel man.)

One of the flaws of her book is that she fails to define “racism,” which is the soul of her book. Nevertheless, if you want to read a book written by a racial nihilist who practices the new morality of sacrificing Blacks on the altar of humanity, this is the book for you.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Part 1.

Thursday, January 13, 2022

Coulter on Race — Part 1

 Coulter on Race — Part 1

Thomas Allen


Below are some impressions that Ann Coulter gives on race in her book Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (2012). My comments are enclosed in brackets except for the summary paragraphs at the end.

[Coulter is a racial nihilist who practices the new morality of sacrificing Blacks and other races on the altar of humanity. Thus, she worships integration and the resulting amalgamation. Therefore, despite being a Negrophile, she has no qualms about genociding Blacks: She is a strong proponent of policies that result in their genocide.]

She writes, “Racial filters paralyze logical thinking” (p.39). Where crime is involved, she wears no racial filters. However, in most other realms, racial filters paralyze her logical thinking — especially about the South.

Consequently, she is a Dixiephobe and derogates Southerners and is especially venomous toward poor Southern Whites and “rednecks.” Most Southerners are barely civilized. Disdain is all that she has for Southerners who have not been reconstructed in the image of Yankeedom.

She notes that Northerners discriminated against poor Southern White who migrated North during the World War II era in search of better wages and a higher standard of living. Northerners discriminated against the slothful and industrious, the irresponsible and responsible, and the crude and sophisticated Southerners alike without distinguishing between them. She excuses this discrimination because Northerners could not be expected to examine each Southerner individually. [That is, Northerners were judging by ethnicity and not by character. Yet, Whites, especially Southerners, are expected to examine each Black so that they can judge by character instead of by race. Is this because all Blacks have saintly character? To say otherwise is proof of racism.]

The only positive feature that she finds in Southerners is that usually, they support more of her political views instead of those of the Democrats' — civil rights for Blacks are an exception. [However, she is unable to forgive Southerners for supporting segregation and the Democratic Party.]

Nevertheless, she does praise the Confederate soldier. [Her admiration for Confederate soldiers and their decedents seems to be mostly limited to them being great warriors, who can be used to enforce foreign policies that she favors.]

At least she is correct about why Confederate soldiers fought: “Confederate soldiers fought because they lived in the South — not because they held a brief for slavery” (p. 195). [She could have added that if Lincoln had not invaded the South, there would have been no war.] However, she errs in believing that the war was primarily about slavery. [Slavery was better protected within the Union than outside it.]

Black culture, especially the inclination of Blacks toward criminal and antisocial behavior, grew from Blacks imitating Southern culture — primarily the culture of poor Whites and rednecks — and not from slavery. [Since most Blacks were around the more sophisticated and cultured Whites, plantation owners, than around crude rednecks and poor Whites, why did they adopt the culture of the latter instead of the former?] Voting for Democrats is one of the many bad habits that Blacks got from Southerners. [Are the want-to-be-Democrat Republicans any better than real Democrats?]

According to her, the more civilized Blacks are descendants of Blacks who lived under the influence of the Puritan Yankee.

During the Jim Crow era, Black married at a higher rate than Whites. Until President Johnson, the welfare system did not subsidize unmarried women with illegitimate children. Under Johnson, the welfare system began subsidizing illegitimacy. During Coulter’s beloved Civil Rights Era, Black marriages had plummeted to 30 percent by 2010.

While condemning the Jim Crow Era and praising the Civil Rights Movement that led to the Civil Rights Era, she describes how well-dressed Blacks were during the Jim Crow Era. Moreover, during the Jim Crow Era, Blacks had a growing middle class built on merit with married parents and intact families. However, during the Civil Rights Era, the intact Black family has greatly decreased, and a Black middle class based on affirmative action has replaced the real middle class of merit.

Coulter implies that the Civil Rights Movement is the greatest event in human history, and the civil rights acts are the greatest laws ever enacted. Yet, every social issue that Democrats promote that Coulter loathes grew naturally from the Warren Court’s desegregation ruling and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, both of which she extols.

Like many people, she confuses integration with desegregation. [Because most Blacks and Whites prefer associating with their own race, desegregation always leads to integration and then forced integration. Forced integration is necessary to prove that desegregation has occurred.]

Nevertheless, she praises President Nixon for his activism in forcing integration and imposing quotas [euphuistically called affirmative action]. While supporting affirmative action, she complains about discriminating against White college applicants. [What does she expect when affirmative action demands discrimination against Whites to prove that affirmative action has been applied?]

She has no qualms about using the government to deny people the use of their property when necessary to force integration. [Freedom of association has no meaning for her.]

While Republicans were treating Blacks as equals before the law, Democrats were placing Blacks above the law. [Then, as usual, most Republicans copied the Democrats in placing Blacks above the law. They even began to outdo the Democrats with affirmative action, set-asides, and the like.]

Coulter blames Johnson’s Great Society programs for the rise of Black criminals. [Opposing these programs were many segregationist Democrats, whom she disdains as the vilest of all creatures — even lower than liberal Democrats. Also, Republican support was needed to get these programs through Congress. Furthermore, Republicans have never done anything to eliminate these programs when they held power.]

Then, she discusses crime. A rare incidence of violence by a White against a Black gives Blacks an excuse for demonstrations and riots. Any Black shot by a policeman becomes a beloved member of the community. Accusing police officers, especially White officers, of racism and criminal activity if they injure or kill a Black has become a favorite pastime of Blacks, politicians, and the media. Frequently, these accusations lead to criminal prosecution.

When the media, politicians, or Blacks accuse a White person of injuring or killing a Black, the White person is automatically guilty even if the Black is the perpetrator. Moreover, most of the accusers continue to believe that the White person is guilty after a jury finds him innocent. [Perhaps, this is because of the way Black juries treat Black defendants.] Often, Black jurors refuse to convict an obviously guilty Black defendant.

White racism is used as an excuse to justify crimes by Blacks. According to the liberal media, no Black is ever guilty of a crime against a White person even if the evidence shows that the accused Black is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt — even if the Black confesses to the crime. [If it were not for White racism, all Blacks would be as holy and saintly as Saint Martin Luther King the Divine, who has supplanted Jesus in holiness and saintliness.]

While Whites feel no compulsion to defend Whites who are guilty of violent crimes, Blacks feel compelled to defend Blacks who are guilty of violent crimes. White liberals display the same compulsion as Blacks.

Coulter notes that in 1986 Blacks committed 49.1 percent of all homicides despite comprising only 12 percent of the population. In 1986, only 2.6 percent of the homicides were White-on-Black. Blacks killed three times as many Whites as Whites killed Blacks. Blacks killed 16 times more Blacks than Whites did. [Consequently, Blacks are their own worst enemy.]

Whenever a White kills or seriously injures a Black, the media, liberals, and many conservatives overflow with compassion and sympathy for the Black. However, when a White is a victim of a Black, they ignore the White victim.

She remarks, “A corollary to the hysterical overreporting of any white-on-black crime is that black-on-white hate crimes will be utterly unreported by the media, except in the town where it happened” (p. 54). While Black-on-White crimes are seldom tried as hate or racial crimes, White-on-Black crimes are often tried as hate or racial crimes.

A lack of White-on-Black crime evidences that White racism against Blacks is not the country’s greatest problem. [On the other hand, Black-on-White crimes show that Black racism against White is a major problem.] Additionally, the few White supremacists in the country are impotent and not much of a threat to anyone.

Ordinary Blacks do not defend violent Black criminals throwing rocks at police officers. However, Democrats did defend Blacks throwing rocks at the police. [Since most Blacks are Democrats, is she saying most Blacks defend these Black criminals? Probably not. Nevertheless, to accuse Democrats in general for defending these Blacks is to accuse Blacks in general for defending them.]

Because Blacks are victims of criminals at a higher rate than are Whites, many of them want a strong police presence in their neighborhoods. [Yet, when serving on a jury, many of these same Blacks are inclined to let an obviously guilty Black criminal go free.]

American does have a crime wave; it is Blacks assaulting Whites. On the rare occasion when Whites attacks Blacks, the liberal media cover it ad infinitum for weeks and months.

Coulter discusses the O.J. Simpson trial and Mark Fuhrman in detail and how Blacks rejoiced at a not guilty vote. Also, she discusses the conviction of Fuhrman for using the N-word and his sterling character. [Fuhrman was a detective involved in the Simpson case and a key witness against Simpson.] She remarks, “Only one felony conviction came out of the O. J. Simpson trial for a double murder so brutal that one victim’s neck was severed to her spinal cord: the perjury conviction of Los Angeles detective Mark Fuhrman, for lying about having used the N-word nine and a half years earlier”(p. 127). About the result of the Simpson trial, she writes, “In 1995, Americans discovered it was considered a graver offense to use ‘the N-word’ than to cut a woman’s head off” (p. 127).

Coulter condemns Black race riots primarily because of the poor image that they give Blacks. [Apparently, image is more important than the deaths, injuries, and destruction that these race riots caused.]

She seems surprised that few of the 1960s race riots were in the South, the home of Democratic segregation and the Klan. Most of the 1960s race riots were outside the South. This apparent contradiction, she accredits to States and cities in the North and on the West Coast being lenient on crime. If Northerners had only treated Blacks as harshly as they treated Southerners and Irish immigrants, they would have trained Blacks to be good, law-abiding citizens. [Could it be that most race riots of the 1960s and afterward occurred outside the South because race relations in the South were better than elsewhere in the country? Coulter’s Dixiephobia prevents her from considering this possibility.]

Nevertheless, the South gets the blame for the riots in Northern cities during the 1960s. Liberals thought Southern Klansmen had captured Northern police departments. While liberals treat Blacks like spoiled brats who are never held accountable for their actions, the media blames to police for the bad behavior of Blacks.

Coulter discusses the Rodney-King riot in some detail and shows how the media aided it. She cites some heroic deeds of Blacks during the riot. Also, she discusses the trial of the police officers who arrested King. After the Los Angeles jury found the officers not quality, President Bush the Elder order the Attorney General to investigate. The investigation led to a trial where two of the officers were convicted. She complains about the federal trial convicting two of the four police officers. [Southerners well understand this double jeopardy. Whenever a local jury found a White person not guilty of a crime against a Black, the federal government would try the person again for the same crime but with a different label.]

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Part 2.

Wednesday, January 5, 2022

Ethnic Cleansing

Ethnic Cleansing
Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1992 to the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party.]

Many people are concerned about the war in Bosnia and the ethnic cleansing occurring in that country. However, few of these people seem concerned about the ethnic cleansing occurring right here in the South.

Between 1861 and 1865 the United States government invaded the South and tried to kill as many Southerners as it could.  Not only did it kill Southern soldiers defending their homes, but it also killed Southern women and children.  It even killed the slaves whom it claimed it was trying to free.

Next came the First Reconstruction, which lasted until 1877. During this period the might of the United States government supported various local scalawags and carpetbaggers, who tried to remold the South into the image of Yankeedom by political means.

Most patriotic Southerners resisted this political effort to remake them. However, a new type of Southern was given birth during the First Reconstruction — the New South Southerner.  (The New South Southerner is basically a populist scalawag.) The New South Southerner led the economic reform of the South. What politics failed to do, economics would do. The South would be industrialized like the North. Agrarianism would be replaced by industrialism. Along with industrialization came hordes of Yankee immigrants to manage Southern factories and to remold the South into the image of Yankeedom. This economic assault has been largely successful. It has destroyed many unique aspects of the Southern way of life. This economic assault continues even today.

Next came the Second Reconstruction, which began in 1954. Like the First Reconstruction, the Second Reconstruction is a political assault against the South. It seeks to destroy Southerners by the genocide of integration.

Along with the Second Reconstruction has come an even more intense attack against that which is uniquely Southern: the Confederate flag; songs of the South, such as “Dixie,” “Maryland, My Maryland,” and “Old Virginny”; the immortal, eternal Confederate soldier and the monuments that honor him; etc.

(The Confederate flag flew in Lithuania when the Lithuanians were struggling to free themselves from the oppression of the Soviet Union. The Confederate flag flew in Berlin as the Berlin Wall fell. Oppressed Europeans recognize the Confederate flag for what it is: the symbol of liberty.  Perhaps this explains the antagonism against the flag.  It represents what the enemies of the South despise:  LIBERTY!)

The South and all that is Southern must be destroyed.  It must be remade into the image of Yankeedom. As long as the South retains any of its unique character and identity, the spark of freedom lives. This spark must be smothered out so that all can live under the enslavement of Yankeedom.

Southerners need to end the ethnic cleansing of the South before it is too late.  Southerners need to stop the ethnic cleansing of the South before the South and all that is Southern is completely annihilated. Southerners must unite and throw off the yoke of their oppressors and murders! There is only one way that Southerners can put an end to the genocide being inflicted upon them. There is only one way that Southerners can retain those unique Southern characteristics not yet destroyed and resurrect those lost. That way is a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States. The time has come to flee from ethnic cleansing towards freedom. The time has come for secession!

Copyright © 1992, 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern issues articles.