Genocide of Southerners

Genocide of Southerners

Thomas Allen

To destroy the culture of an ethnic group is to destroy that ethnicity — just as deliberately killing members of an ethnicity leads to the destruction of that ethnicity. Both scenarios result in genocide or attempted genocide.

Now, let us look at some definitions of genocide. These definitions show that what has been happening to Southerners since the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation has been genocide.

1. John Cox: “Genocide aims to not only eliminate individual members of the targeted group but to destroy the group’s ability to maintain its social and cultural cohesion and, thus, its existence as a group.”

2. The Armenian Genocide Museum: “[Cultural genocide is] acts and measures undertaken to destroy nations’ or ethnic groups’ culture through spiritual, national, and cultural destruction.”

3. Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary: “the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.”

4. Merriam-Webster, legal definition: “acts committed with intent to partially or wholly destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.”

As these definitions clearly show, Yankeedom and the oligarchs have been trying to genocide Southerners for more than 160 years. The following outlines this genocide.

The genocide of Southerners began early in Lincoln’s War with the wanton killing of children and women. Lincoln’s army killed them directly and indirectly through starvation. Moreover, Lincoln’s army deliberately destroyed public buildings, private houses from stately houses to slave quarters, churches, and cultural sites. Their deliberate destruction of Southern life and culture had nothing to do with war. Such deliberate destruction was genocide.

This genocide continued through the First Reconstruction as Republican bureaucrats and politicians further destroyed Southern culture and Southerners. Carpetbaggers, scalawags, and Blacks backed by the Union army looted and otherwise destroyed the South. So successful was their war to destroy the South through impoverishment, that Southerners needed more than a century to recover. 

Following the First Reconstruction, the genocide subsided somewhat and Southerners began to recover their culture. This era was when Southerners erected most of the statutes and memorials to their heroes.

With its Brown v. Board of Education (1954) ruling, the Warren Court began the Second Reconstruction and signaled the renewal of the genocide of Southerners. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Loving v. Virginia (1967), which legalized miscegenation, became highly important weapons in the genocide of Southerners.

While genociding Southerners via miscegenation, the Yankee oligarchs through their agents — primarily scalawags, carpetbaggers, and Blacks — attacked the culture and symbols of the South. A major casualty was the Confederate flag. Among other casualties were songs such as “Dixie” and “Carry Me Back to Old Virginny” and most songs that contained the word “slave” or praised the South. Statues and memorials of Southern heroes were torn down. Even streets, buildings, institutions, and military bases were renamed to remove references to Southerners. The cultural genocide of Southerners is almost completed.

Although the genocide of Southerners during the Second Reconstruction (1954 to present) has not been one of physically killing Southerners, it has been rapidly destroying their culture and heritage. Once an ethnicity’s culture is destroyed, it is dead though its people may continue to live.

Most people seem to believe that for genocide to be real, it must occur over a few years — a decade at most. They are wrong. Assyrians have been enduring off-and-on genocide and ethnic cleansing longer than have Southerners. Muslims have been trying to genocide Assyrians longer than Yankees have been trying to genocide Southerners.

The genocide of Southerners began with the deliberate and wanton killing of Southern civilians during Lincoln’s War and continued during the First Reconstruction. During the Second Reconstruction, the genocide of Southerners has focused on erasing their culture and to a lesser extent via miscegenation.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

King on Being a Good Neighbor

King on Being a Good Neighbor

Thomas Allen

In “On Being a Good Neighbor,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 21–30, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses a good neighbor, altruism, pity, and sympathy. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

According to King, a good neighbor is not passive; he is actively involved in life-giving deeds. (In other words, he meddles in other people’s affairs. Thus, the United States have been a good neighbor since the end of the Cleveland administration as they seek to meddle in the affairs of most other countries.) Further, being a good neighbor is not “a moral pilgrimage that reached its destination point but in the love ethic by which he journeyed life’s highway.” (P. 21) (That is, a good neighbor meddling knows no end.)

Next, King uses the story of the good Samaritan as an example of a good neighbor. (However, King and his followers seldom acted like good neighbors toward Southerners and never toward segregationists.) A good neighbor is altruistic. (Yet, King was never altruistic toward Southerners and especially segregationists.)

King preaches universal altruism (for Whites, but not for Negroes except for Negroes who opposed his movement). Neighborliness is an altruism that transcends tribe, race, class, and nation. (Nevertheless, King is void of such altruism. Whites are to sacrifice themselves for Negroes, but Negroes are not to give Whites anything. The rich and middle class are to sacrifice themselves for the poor while the poor are just to take. Segregationists are to sacrifice themselves to integrationists, but integrationists are never to give segregationists anything.)

While condemning a narrow group-centered attitude, King promotes a narrow group-centered attitude (— everything for the Negro.) The concerns of countries with their own interests lead to war. Manufacturers concerned with their own personal interests replace their workers with machines. (If workers were never replaced with machines, we would still be living in the stone age.) Expressing his desire for socialism and wealth redistribution, King condemns manufacturers who oppose the redistribution of wealth. (King-idolizing conservatives should promote the redistribution of wealth.)

Then, King condemns Whites who do not sacrifice themselves and all that they have for Negroes. Failure to do so robs the Negro of his personhood, strips him of his dignity, and leaves him dying along the wayside. (Whites have sacrificed much of what they have for the benefit of the Negro. Whites pay Negroes to loaf and have large families, give them jobs for which they are not qualified, allow them to break the law with impunity, and give them a host of other benefits and privileges denied Whites. Yet, most Negroes are still not satisfied. Now, Whites are denied their personhood, stripped of their dignity, and are dying along the wayside. Further, Whites grovel before Negroes begging forgiveness for things that they have not done.)

Continuing, King condemns people for failing to think of people of other races, nationalities, religions, etc. “as fellow human beings made from the same basic stuff as we, molded in the same divine image.”  (P. 24.) (However, King fails to free himself of his narrow-mindedness. He always promotes the interest of the Negro even at the expense of others. Moreover, especially regarding Southerners and segregationists, he fails “to remove the cataracts of provincialism from [his] spiritual eyes and see men as men.” [P. 24.])

Furthermore, King condemns Whites who do not see Negroes as human beings first. (Yet, King seldom sees Southerners as human beings first and never sees segregationists as human beings. He usually sees them as subhumans or lower vermin.)

Then, King remarks that many people do not aid Negroes because of fear. If they support integration and oppose segregation, they fear losing their jobs, prestige, and status. Further, they fear attacks on their person or property. They may also fear going to jail. (Now, Whites fear these things if they support segregation and oppose integration. Also, they fear these things if they oppose the benefits and privileges that Blacks have but are denied to Whites. As a result, many Whites grovel before Negroes.)

Continuing, King writes, “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. The true neighbor will risk his position, his prestige, and even his life for the welfare of others.” (P. 26-27.) (Today, most people prefer temporary comfort and convenience to defending the White race and the country as founded. Consequently, most people are not true neighbors. Most likely, King would endorse today’s lack of neighborliness.)

Then, King writes, “True altruism is more than the capacity to pity; it is the capacity to sympathize.” (P. 27.) (King and most of his followers are void of altruism. Not only do they not pity Southerners or segregationists, but they also have no sympathy for them. Actually, many have a negative pity for them. King and his followers may pity them for being too stupid or ignorant to agree with King.)

King defines true sympathy as “the personal concern that demands the giving of one’s soul. . . . [S]ympathy grows out of a concern for a particular needy human being. . . . Sympathy is fellow feeling for the person in need — his pain, agony, and burdens.” (P. 27.) (That King would have had sympathy for Southerners and especially segregationists is hard to believe.)

According to King, pity is doing something for people, and sympathy is doing something with people. Pity without sympathy leads to paternalism. (Pity void of sympathy has mostly guided the civil rights movement. Progressives, liberals, and many conservatives have made the government parents of Negroes. It supports a large number of unwed mothers with children. It has given Negroes all sorts of unearned benefits and privileges. In short, the government is a parent who has made its Negro children spoiled brats.)

King pushes integrated church congregations and implies that Whites are responsible for segregated church congregations. (However, at least in the South, Negroes are the ones that initiated the segregation of church congregations. They wanted to be independent of Whites.)

Continuing, King writes, “The law cannot make an employer love an employee, but it can prevent him from refusing to hire me because of the color of my skin.” (P. 29.) (Because of forced or implied quotas to prove non-discrimination, employers hire based on race. Unqualified Negroes are hired instead of qualified Whites to prove that the employer is not racially discriminating although he discriminates against Whites. King would have supported this discrimination because he promoted it.)

Next, King declares, “Court orders and federal enforcement agencies are of inestimable value in achieving desegregation, but desegregation is only a partial, though necessary, step toward the final goal that we seek to realize, genuine intergroup and interpersonal living.” (P. 29.) (In other words, King is promoting miscegenation. Consequently, he shows that he despises the American Negro. Miscegenation leads to breeding the American Negro out of existence, which is genocide. While King recognized that desegregation and integration were the road to miscegenation, White promoters of desegregation in the 1950s declared that miscegenation was not a goal of integration and would increase only slightly.)

Moreover, King believes that forced association leads to harmony and love. It could never lead to contempt and hostility. (Yet, the latter has occurred much more often than the former — probably because forced association violates God’s law of racial separation. What would have surprised King is that more contempt and hostility has arisen from Negroes than from Whites —thus, the desire of Negroes to segregate themselves from Whites, and Whites objecting to such segregation.)

Then, King claims, “True integration will be achieved by true neighbors who are willingly obedient to unenforceable obligations.” (So far, integration has failed to live up to King’s promotion. More often than not, integration has led to disharmony and hostility — especially by Negroes as the Black Lives Matter riots showed — than to harmony and love.)

King falls far short of living up or even attempting to live up to his description of the good Samaritan. He is void of altruism and sympathy — especially for Southerners and segregationists. Thus, by his description of neighborliness, he is not a good neighbor. Moreover, integration has failed to achieve the harmony that he declares it would achieve.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

A Response to Bibleinfo’s Justification of Miscegenation

 A Response to Bibleinfo’s Justification of Miscegenation

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: Bible verses cited in the article are in the appendix except Genesis chapter 34 and Deuteronomy 23:2, which is given in the text. Also, only part of the verses in Numbers 12:1-5 is given in the appendix.]

Bibleinfo (https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/what-does-bible-say-about-interracial-marriages, accessed August 10, 2023) asserts that the Bible does not forbid interracial marriages. However, it does demand that Christians should not marry non-Christians. To support its assertions, it cites 2 Corinthians 6:14 (Christians are not to marry non-Christians) and Numbers 12:1–15 (Moses’ Ethiopian wife).

According to Bibleinfo, a Christian should only marry a Christian; the person’s race is irrelevant. To marry outside one’s religion is to be unequally yoked. However, to marry outside one’s race is not unequally yoked. Bibleinfo errs.

2 Corinthians 6:14 is a recommendation and not a commandment. Moreover, it discusses religion but does not discuss race.

Further, Paul gives different advice in 1 Corinthians 7:12-13. Paul recommends that Christians who are married to non-Christians should remain married unless the non-Christian wants a divorce. (1 Corinthians 7:15).

Two Old Testament stories refute Bibleinfo’s claim. They are Dinah’s marriage and Joseph’s marriage.

Chapter 34 of Genesis tells the story of Simeon and Levi, two of Jacob’s sons, slaying a city of Hivites over the issue of interracial marriage. The prince of the Hivites wanted to marry their sister, Dinah. So, the Hivites of this city offered to intermarry with the Hebrews. Before they could intermarry, Simeon and Levi told the Hivites that they needed to convert to the Hebrew religion. The Hivites converted and were circumcised. Thus, the two people would not be unequally yoked religiously. Now both of them were of the same religion, the Hebrew religion, and, therefore, equally yoked religiously. However, they differ racially and, therefore, were unequally yoked racially. The Hebrews were Aryans; the Hivites were Aryan-Melanochroi hybrids (or possibly Melanochroi). Simeon and Levi slew the Hivites not because of religious differences, for they were of the same religion. They slew them because of racial differences. Slaying the Hivites prevented miscegenation and racial amalgamation. Thus, being racially yoked, i.e., of the same race, is more important than being religiously yoked, i.e., of the same religion.

In Genesis 41:45 Joseph married the Egyptian Asenath, the daughter of Potipherah, a priest of On. At this time, Egyptians were of the same race as the Israelites.  She bore Moses two children: Manasseh and Ephraim. Being the daughter of an Egyptian priest, Asenath was almost certainly a worshiper of Egyptian gods and not of Jehovah. Her name means “worshiper of Neith.” She may have converted later, but no evidence is given of such conversion. These verses show that the Scriptural prohibition against mixed marriages is racial and not religious. A footnote in The Berkeley Version of the Bible to Genesis 46:20 affirms this: “Her training of Manasseh and Ephraim would hardly be in the Hebrew faith.” Therefore, Joseph married someone of his race who most likely was not of his religion. Thus, being racially yoked is more important than being religiously yoked.

(“Egyptian” is the translation of Mizraim. For much of its ancient history, two racially distinct people inhabited Egypt. They were the Mizraim, who were Aryans, and the Pathrusim, who were Melanochroi (also called Homo brunus and brown Caucasians). The Mizraim lived mainly in Lower Egypt and were the Egyptians encountered most often by the Israelites. The Pathrusim lived mainly in Upper Egypt although they were not uncommon in Lower Egypt. These Pathrusim are the ancestors of today’s Fellahins. [See False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of the Races and Interracial Marriages by Thomas Coley Allen.])

As the stories of Dinah and Joseph’s marriages show, being equally yoked racially (of the same race) is more important than being equally yoked religiously (of the same religion).

Concerning Moses’ wife, Bibleinfo makes the same error that most people make. Because most translations claim that the wife whom Miriam and Aaron spoke against was an Ethiopian, they assume that she was a Black woman from the region south of Egypt. (The people south of Egypt to northeast Kenya were and are Melanochroi; they are not Negroes, Blacks.)

In Exodus 2:21, Moses marries Zipporah, the daughter of Reul, a Midianite.  In Numbers 12:1 Moses had married an Ethiopian or a Cushite. (“Ethiopian” is the translation of Kûwshîy, which is literally “Cushite.” Cush refers to Arabia in general, and Cushite refers to the people of Arabia in general. [For proof that Cush refers to the Arabian Peninsula, see “Cush and Ethiopia” by Thomas Allen.]) Moses’s wife was a Midianite and a Kenite and also a Cushite. Cush was a region, Arabia. Midian was an area within this region. The Kenites were a tribe or people inhabiting this area. An example of an English colonist who came to the United States helps illustrate this phenomenon. An Englishman living in Virginia could correctly be called an American (Cushite), a Virginian (Midianite), or an Englishman (Kenite). So closely related to the Israelites were the Kenites that they were later considered a part of Judah (1 Chronicles 2:55; 1 Samuel 27:10). The woman referred to in Exodus 2:21 is the same woman referred to in Numbers 12:1. The Bible gives no indication of Moses ever having more than one wife. Therefore, Moses’ wife was of the same race as he was, so miscegenation did not occur.

Like many people, Bibleinfo claims that Miriam was stricken with leprosy (Numbers 12:10) because she and Aaron condemned Moses for marrying a woman of a different race. This was not so. God would not punish them for rebuking Moses for sinning. Aaron and Miriam questioned Moses' authority. They questioned his office as God's spokesman and prophet (Numbers 12:2, 6-8). Questioning God’s appointment of Moses as His spokesman and coveting that position is what caused Miriam’s affliction.

Moreover, Bibleinfo asserts that Rahab, a Canaanite prostitute, was an ancestor of Jesus. Again Bibleinfo errs; she was not an ancestor of Jesus. (For proof, see “Rahab” by Thomas Allen.)

Like all proponents of miscegenation, Bibleinfo ignores Deuteronomy 23:2. If they do consider it, they mistranslate mamzêr. Deuteronomy 23:2 (“No half-bred [mongrel] may be admitted to the assembly of the Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh” – NJB.) summaries God’s attitude toward miscegenation and interracial mating. (For a discussion on Deuteronomy 23:2, see “Commentary on Deuteronomy 23:2" by Thomas Allen.) To prevent interracial breeding, God ordained racial segregation and separation.

As shown above, Bibleinfo is misleading people and is justifying the sin of miscegenation, interracial marriage. For more on the Bible’s condemnation of interracial marriages, see these books and articles by Thomas Allen: Integration Is Genocide, False Biblical Teachings on the Origin of the Races and Interracial Marriages, “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” and “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation.”

Appendix

The verses cited below are from the World English Bible.

Genesis 41:45: Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphenath-Paneah. He gave him Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera priest of On as a wife. Joseph went out over the land of Egypt.

Genesis 46:20: To Joseph in the land of Egypt were born Manasseh and Ephraim, whom Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, bore to him.

Exodus 2:21: Moses was content to dwell with the man. He gave Moses Zipporah, his daughter.

Numbers 12:1: Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite [Ethiopian] woman whom he had married; for he had married a Cushite [Ethiopian] woman.

Numbers 12:2: They said, “Has Yahweh indeed spoken only with Moses? Hasn’t he spoken also with us?” And Yahweh heard it.

Numbers 12: 6-8: He said, “Now hear my words. If there is a prophet among you, I, Yahweh, will make myself known to him in a vision. I will speak with him in a dream. 7 My servant Moses is not so. He is faithful in all my house. 8 With him, I will speak mouth to mouth, even plainly, and not in riddles; and he shall see Yahweh’s form. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant, against Moses?”

Numbers 12:10 The cloud departed from over the Tent; and behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. Aaron looked at Miriam, and behold, she was leprous.

1 Samuel 27:10: Achish said, “Against whom have you made a raid today?” David said, “Against the South of Judah, against the South of the Jerahmeelites, and against the South of the Kenites.”

1 Chronicles 2:55: The families of scribes who lived at Jabez: the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and the Sucathites. These are the Kenites who came from Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab.

1 Corinthians 7:12-13: 12 But to the rest I—not the Lord—say, if any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she is content to live with him, let him not leave her. 13 The woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he is content to live with her, let her not leave her husband.

1 Corinthians 7:15: Yet if the unbeliever departs, let there be separation. The brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us in peace.

2 Corinthians 6:14:  Don’t be unequally yoked with unbelievers, for what fellowship do righteousness and iniquity have? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness?

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.