Monday, April 24, 2023

The Heritage Foundation on Critical Race Theory

The Heritage Foundation 

on Critical Race Theory

Thomas Allen


The Heritage Foundation (HF) has published a pamphlet titled Critical Race Theory: Knowing It When You See It and Fighting It When You Can. It discusses some errors and flaws of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and why it is wrong. In so doing, HF  reveals the defecation of neoconservatism: Its opposition is presented from a neoconservative perspective. HF’s arguments are based on racial nihilism and equality (as opposed to equity).

HF asserts that “in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the government rejected racial discrimination.” Regardless of its wording, this Act did not reject racial discrimination. Instead, it led to discrimination against Whites in favor of Blacks with quotas, affirmative action, and other privileges for Blacks.

Next, HF declares that “the civil rights movement affirmed that prejudice has no place in American life.” That is a lie. The civil rights movement has been built on prejudice against Whites.

Moreover, initially, the civil rights movement was aimed at the South although Southerners possessed no prejudice against Blacks. Collins English Dictionary defines prejudice as “an opinion formed beforehand, esp an unfavourable one based on inadequate facts.” Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary defines prejudice as “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.” The attitudes of Southerners toward Blacks were based on 400 years of observation, knowledge, thought, reason, and facts. They were not prejudging against Blacks. However, prejudice against Blacks may have existed in the North and West in areas where Blacks were rare.

Further, HF claims that “the vast majority of Americans we work and worship with, live and learn alongside, embrace the equal rights and dignity of all.” Thus, HF reveals its racial nihilism and support of policies that lead to the genocide of Blacks. Such a utopia exists only in the nightmares of self-loathing Whites and racial nihilists, nearly all of whom are White. If it were not for governmental coercion, much of this apparent harmonious integration and amalgamation would vaporize. Except for racial nihilists and those who hate their race, most people prefer associating with people of their own race. Moreover, the actions of most nonwhites show that they want to be superior to Whites and not just their equal.

HF notes that CRT “champions curricula and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs that separate individuals by race.” Separating individuals by race perseveres the races and is biblically supported. Apparently, HF prefers genocide. It wants to integrate and amalgamate the races, which is genocide.

Moreover, diversity and inclusion are incompatible. If diversity is to be preserved, segregation and separation are necessary. Inclusion requires integration and amalgamation.

HF idolizes the conglomeration of the races in America. Again, HF promotes breaking up the country, a civil war with one race dominating the other races, or genocide of the races via amalgamation into motley mongrel man. Amalgamation seems to be HF’s choice.

HF worships the civil rights movement though most of the problems that the country faces today have grown from the mentality that brought about the civil rights movement. (At the foundation of the civil rights movement were communists, and most of the problems of the country have grown from the communist mentality — see, “Are the United States a Communist Country?” by Thomas Allen.)

Although CRT errs in blaming the failure of Blacks on White, its solution is not as destructive as HE’s are. (Blacks are the blame for their failures; they need to accept responsibility for their own actions and the outcome of those actions.) HF’s solution is genocide via the amalgamation of the races into motley mongrel man.

Also, CRT errs in asserting the existence of White privileges. Whatever privileges that Whites may have had are long dead. Today, only nonwhites, especially Blacks, have special privileges.

One condemnation of CRT that HF has is its communist origin. Yet, HF has no qualms about the communist origins of the civil rights movement.

HF states that “children from intact families are less likely to spend time in prison or face poverty than children from non-intact families.” During the Jim Crow Era, most Black families were intact families, but during the Civil Rights Era, many Black families have become non-intact families. Yet, HF condemns the Jim Crow Era while praising the Civil Rights Era.

While CRT opposes meritocracy, HF supports it. In spite of meritocracy leaving Blacks in general at the bottom of the economic ladder, HF supports it. In the market system of the United States, which rewards merit when government coercion is absent, Whites, Turanians (primarily, East Asians), and Melanochroi (primarily Asian Indians and Pakistanis) in general will do much better than Blacks.

If admission to colleges and universities depended solely on merit, more Whites would go to colleges, and fewer Blacks would go — especially at the more prestigious universities.

HF favors school choice. Parents should be allowed to choose which school to send their children to. If White parents wanted to send their children to a school that allowed only White students, would HF find this acceptable? Likewise, with Black parents wanting to send their children to schools that only allowed Black students, would HF find this acceptable? It would probably condemn these choices and support outlawing such schools. Why? Because it wants to genocide Blacks — at least the policies that it promotes lead to the genocide of Blacks.

If the policies promoted by HF are implemented to their fullest, Blacks will fail behind White and other races educationally and economically because of the connate disabilities of Blacks, i.e., because of genetics. CRT recognizes this outcome; that is why it promotes special privileges for Blacks and the suppression of Whites.

HF offers two definitions of “equality”; both are chimeras. One is equal treatment under the law, and the other is equal opportunity.

Because people differ, true equality under the law is an illusion. The closest approach to it is everyone is arrested by the same officer and tried by the same judge and jury with the same defense attorney and prosecutor. Even then, equality would not be achieved because people differ on different days. 

Even in a more general sense, equality before the law cannot exist because of discretion. Thus, to start approaching equality before the law, law enforcers, prosecutors, and judges have to be stripped of any discretion. Even jury nullification, the bulwark against tyranny, has to be forbidden.

In “Gottfried and Equality,” I describe the delusion of equality of opportunity. A five-foot, fat, klutz does not have the same opportunity of becoming a professional basketball center as does a seven-foot, agile, athlete.  A dimwit does not have the same opportunity of becoming a doctor or engineer with a Ph.D. as does a genius. Genetics denies people equal opportunity.

The underlying principle of equality before the law and equality of opportunity is that everyone is identical. If that were true, everyone would have an equal outcome.

Because genetics discriminates against Blacks in most endeavors, CRT preaches equity, equality of outcome. A society can come closer to achieving equality of outcome than achieving equality of opportunity. Governmental coercion can cause equality of outcome, equity, to be approached. Genetics prevents equality of opportunity from ever being approached.

CRT leads to discrimination, demonization, and hatred of Whites and to granting special privileges to Blacks. HF’s policies lead to the genocide of Blacks and Whites. Under CRT, Blacks win and Whites lose. Under HF’s policies, both Blacks and Whites lose.


Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles. 

Saturday, April 15, 2023

WHAT IS THE BEAST?

WHAT IS THE BEAST?
Thomas Allen

    And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Ninevah by decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything:  let them not feed, nor drink water:  But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn everyone from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.  (Jonah 3:7, 8)

(Note:  3:7 refers to man and beasts and herds and flocks, but 3:8 refers only to man and beast.)  Man, beast, herds, and flocks were not to eat or drink; but what kind of beast wears clothes?  What kind of beast can cry unto God?  What kind of beast can turn from its evil ways?  What kind of beast has hands and can turn to violence?

    And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of every man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.  Whoso sheddeith blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made he man.  (Genesis (9:5, 6)

What kind of beast has the intelligence to know right from wrong and to be accountable for his action as is implied by this passage?

    No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years.  (Ezekiel 29:11)

What kind of beast has feet as opposed to paws and hoofs?

    And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it:  whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death:  There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.  (Exodus 19:12, 13)

What kind of beast has hands that can touch a mountain?

    And six years thou shalt sow thy land, and shalt gather in the fruits thereof:  But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still; that the poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave the beast of the field shall eat.  In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy oliveyard.  (Exodus 23:10, 11)

What kind of beast eats grapes and olives?  Would a farmer let domestic or wild animals wonder freely through his vineyard or oliveyard, thus trampling and destroying his plants?

    Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith:  neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto:  it is confusion.  And if a man lie with a beast he shall surely be put to death:  and ye shall slay the beast.  And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast:  they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.  (Leviticus 18:23, 20:15, 16)

With what kind of beast can man, male and female, have sex.  What kind of beast can be held morally responsible for its sexual conduct?

    And the Philistine said to David, Come to me, and I will give thy flesh unto the fowls of the air, and to the beast of the field.  (I Samuel 17:44)

What kind of beast eats meat and the flesh of man?

    And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and the beast of the field have I given him also to serve him.  (Jeremiah 27:6)

What kind of beast can act as a servant of man?

    That they shall drive thee from man, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.  (Daniel 4:25)

What kind of beast would take care of an insane King?

    So Jeremiah wrote in a book all the evil that should come upon Babylon, even all these words that are written against Babylon, and shalt see, and shalt read all these words;  Then shalt thou say, O Lord, thou hast spoken against this place, to cut it off, that none shall remain in it, neither man nor beast, but that it shall be desolate forever.  (Jeremiah 51:60-62)

What kind of beast no longer inhabits the area of ancient Babylon"  The area is abundant with game today.

    When I shall send upon them the evil arrows of famine, which shall be for their destruction, and which I will send to destroy you:  and I will increase the famine upon you and will break your staff of bread:  So will I send upon you famine and evil beasts, and they shall bereave thee; and pestilence and blood shall pass through thee; and I will bring the sword upon thee.  I the Lord have spoken it.  (Ezekiel 5:16, 17)

What kind of beast can be evil?

    But these as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption:  And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time.  Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceiving while they feast with you:  Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls:  an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children.  (II Peter 2:12-14)

What kind of beast can speak evil, enjoy rioting, have eyes full of adultery, covet and sin?

What kind of beast, domestic or wild, accompanies man, lives among man, is a servant of man, has hands and feet, eats meat, wears clothes, can talk, can have sex with man, can riot, can be held morally accountable for its action, can covet, can sin, can repent, and can pray to God?  Beast, beast of the field, and beast of the earth refer to a creature that resembles and is like man.  The beast refers to the _________.

Copyright © 1995 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Thursday, April 6, 2023

American Police State

American Police State
Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was written in 2002, shortly after the enactment of the so-call PATRIOT Act]

    In defending his newly imposed restrictions on legal rights, President Bush said that “the Constitution is sacred” and that it will not be undermined in his war against terrorism. His actions contradict his words.
    He has had American citizens arrested and imprisoned without charges, hearings, or convictions and without access to an attorney or anyone else. Apparently, he can have anyone arrested and imprisoned indefinitely merely by labeling that person as “an enemy combatant.” The victim is not allowed to appeal this charge. This action violates the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, to be informed of the charges, to confront witnesses, and to have a lawyer.
    The Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) is building several large detention (prison) camps across the country. These centers may be used to imprison people who refuse an untested toxic vaccination, dissenters, segments of the population declared “enemy combatants,” terrorists like constitutionalists and Christians who believe that these are the last days, and others whom Bush deems undesirable.
    Bush endorsed and rapidly pushed through a scared, cowardly Congress his Anti-Patriot bill. This bill was not even available for Congressmen to read until after they had passed it.
    Under this law, federal agents can monitor conversations between a prisoner and his attorney. Such monitoring violates the Sixth Amendment.
    Court hearings can be, and are being, held in secret The Sixth Amendment requires trials to be public.
    The Anti-Patriot Act also makes a mockery of the Fourth Amendment. Now almost no restrictions are placed on searches and seizures. Probable cause is no longer needed for search warrants. (When Congress asked the Justice Department how many subpoenas had been issued under the Anti-Patriot Act, the Justice Department told Congress that the information was classified and could not be released. Nearly every time that the Bush Administration does is classified and cannot be released. Why all the secrecy? What is Bush trying to hide? The police state that he has given America.)
    Legal barriers to the police searching library records have been greatly reduced. These searches include removing hard drives of computers from libraries. Not only can the police view the Internet usage of a suspect, but they can also view the usage of everyone else who has recently used that computer. Until now, what one read was protected under the First Amendment. The Anti-Patriot Act has voided this First Amendment Protection.
    The only things that remain sacred are that racial profiling will not be used and the borders will not be closed to immigrants. Racial profiling and closing the borders to immigrants are not unconstitutional.
    Bush is knowingly, or possibly unknowingly, falling into an old standard Communist trap. A common Communist tactic is to commit terrorist acts to cause the government to react with oppression. The typical government reaction to terrorism is to clamp down on the freedom of the people. More terrorist acts are followed by more freedom-restricting reactions by the government. Soon the people are living in a police state that is nearly as oppressive as what the Communist would have imposed. Discontent and rebellion are often the results.
    If Bush were really serious about defeating terrorism, he would bring all the U.S. troops scattered across the globe home and use them to seal the borders to all immigrants. (He would also respect the posse comitatus law and refuse to allow troops to participate in law enforcement or to patrol American streets.) He would reduce immigration to zero. (The Mexican invasion is far more detrimental to American welfare than anything that Iraq, Hussein, bin Laden, al-Qaeda, or any other Arabic terrorist group could inflict.) He would institute a vigorous program to round up and deport all illegal immigrants. When an immigrant’s visa expired, he would have to return home.
    Instead of violating the Constitution to fight terrorism, Bush should use it. Anyone who is suspected of terrorism or collaborating with terrorists should be tried quickly in open court. If convicted, he should be sentenced to the fullest extent of the law. Any high-ranking governmental official who knew about the 9-11 attack, aided the terrorists in the attack, concealed information that could have prevented it, or otherwise aided the terrorists should be publicly executed.
    Instead of seeking to curb private ownership of firearms, Bush should be openly and vigorously encouraging it. He would push to repeal federal laws that impede private ownership of firearms. A highly armed citizenry is not only the best defense against terrorism, but it is also the best defense against a despotic police state.
    Bush would replace our Zionist Middle East foreign policy with a more even-handed one that did not favor either side. He would withdraw the United States from the United Nation and all those entangling alliances created under the authority of the United Nations including NAFTA and GATT. He would embargo trade with China, North Korea, Syria, Saudi-Arabia, and other countries whose governments support terrorists or whose governments allow private citizens to support terrorists.
    Instead of administering the government in secrecy, Bush would open the government up to public inspection. With the possible exceptions of weapons technology, manufacturing trade secrets, the identity of undercover agents, activities related to criminal investigations, and the like, he should declassify and unseal all governmental records and make them available to the public. If we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then the people need to know what the government is doing. Bush would make public all records concerning the 9-11 attack. He would release everything that could reveal who knew what when.
    If Bush’s goal is to turn the United States into a despotic police state with troops on the street where citizens fear both the government and terrorists, he is traveling the right road. If his goal is to defeat terrorism, protect the Constitution, and restore American freedom, he needs drastically change course.

Copyright © 2002 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.