Antisouthernism

Antisouthernism

Thomas Allen

“Our” political leaders are falling all over themselves to kowtow to Jews — especially Zionist Jews. They are pushing laws that punish people for antisemitism, which includes making negative remarks about Jews, Israel, or Zionism. 

Yet, none of “our” political leaders oppose antisouthernism. On the contrary, most are antisoutherners and seek to destroy Southerners and Southern heritage and culture.

Merriam-Webster defines “Southernism” as “an attitude or trait characteristic of the South or Southerners especially in the U.S.”  American Heritage Dictionary defines it as “a trait, attitude, or practice characteristic of the South or southerners, especially in the United States.” Thus, Southernism is the attitudes, traits, or characteristics of Southerners or the South; i.e., Southernism is Southern heritage and culture. “Anti” means “against, opposed to, [or] prejudicial to” (Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary). Therefore, antisouthernism is being against, opposed to, or prejudicial to the South, Southern culture and heritage, and Southerners. Antisoutherners are Dixiephobes; that is, they have an intolerance for, an aversion toward, a dislike of, and a disrespect for the South, Southern culture and heritage, and Southerners.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism “is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” (https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism, accessed May 9, 2024.)

A good description of antisouthernism can be obtained by applying IHRA’s definition of antisemitism and the examples that it gives. Thus, antisouthernism is a certain perception of Southerners that may be expressed as hatred toward Southerners (we see this frequently in movies and the news). Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisouthernism are directed toward Southerners or their property, toward Southern communities and institutions (we saw a great deal during the Martin-Luther-King era of the civil rights movement and during and following the Black Lives Matter riots and in between these two).

Using IHRA illustrative examples as a guide, we find the following:

– Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing (presently a minor issue) or harming Southerners (a persistent problem) in the name of a radical ideology or political views. (The destruction of the South and its culture and heritage and the genocide of Southerners have been occurring since the beginning of Lincoln’s War.)

– Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Southerners. (This is easily seen in movies, television shows, books, and articles. Most of the time, Southerners are presented derogatorily.)

– Accusing Southerners as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoings committed by a single Southerner or group, or even for acts committed by non-Southerners. (An example is that Southerners are solely responsible for slavery, which, according to many antisoutherners, did not exist before Southerners created the institution.)

–Identifying the facts, scope, mechanisms, or intentionality of the genocide of Southerners and the deliberate destruction of the South and its heritage and culture during Lincoln’s War, the First Reconstruction, and the Second Reconstruction, especially during the Civil Rights Era. 

–Denying Southerners their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of the Confederate States of America was and is a racist endeavor. (Denying Southerners the right of self-determination was the primary objective of Lincoln’s War despite Lincoln and most Northerners being more racist than most Southerners.)

–Applying double standards by requiring of Southerners a behavior not expected or demanded of any other people, especially Yankees and nonwhites.

–Associating the South with Nazi Germany and Southerners with Nazis (national socialists).

Far too many Southerners are antisoutherners. Most political leaders in the South are either scalawags (i.e., traitors) or carpetbaggers (those who move to the South to plunder it or, worse, those who want to remake Southerners in their own Yankee image). Unfortunately, many Southerners who are not scalawags are antisoutherners. They offer no resistance to antisouthernism and usually go along with the destruction of Southern heritage and culture.

An example of antisouthernism is the treatment of Silent Sam on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC). It was a monument erected to honor students of UNC who defended their country and State from an invading horde. Antisouthern protestors tore down the statue. Instead of sending these vandals to prison for the destruction of property, most political leaders supported the destruction of the statue and, therefore, offered no opposition. An antisouthern judge defeated the few who tried to save the statue.

Another example is Governor Cooper of North Carolina, who supported the removal of Silent Sam. To the disgrace of his ancestors, Cooper showed his hatred of the South by removing the Confederate monuments from the State Capitol grounds. Also, he violated his COVID-19 ukases by marching with Black Lives Matter to demonstrate his antisouthernism — his loathing of the South, its culture and heritage, and his hatred of his ancestors. Cooper is an excellent example of a scalawag, i.e., a traitor.

Cooper is just one of the many scalawags that North Carolina has produced during the Second Reconstruction, which began in 1954. Among the few political leaders in North Carolina who are not scalawags and are true Southerners are I. Beverly Lake Sr. and Jr.

Nikki Haley is another example of an antisoutherner, a Confederaphobe, and a Dixiephobe. As governor of South Carolina, she supported removing the Confederate flag from the State Capitol grounds and succeeded in getting it removed. At least, she initially and correctly said that Lincoln’s War was not about slavery.  However, she soon repented of her heresy and claimed that war was about slavery.

Not to be outdone, Georgia produced three consecutive antisouthern Confederaphobic governors. Governor Zell Miller announced his intention to replace the Georgia State flag because it contained the Confederate battle flag; however, he failed. Then, his successor Governor Roy Barnes managed to replace the flag with a flag that had only a minor reference to the Confederacy. Next, Sonny Perdue was elected governor of Georgia, partially on a platform of allowing Georgians to choose their own flag in a State referendum. Yet, he did not allow them to choose the flag that Barnes had replaced, which would probably have been the flag chosen if the voters had been allowed to choose it. These three governors showed their Confederaphobia, which is antisouthernism.

Like Cooper, Haley, and the governors of Georgia, most political, academic, business, and religious leaders in the South are antisouthern. They have supported the removal and destruction of Confederate monuments and have removed or destroyed them. They have renamed buildings named after prominent Southerners. Even the federal government shows its antisouthernism by renaming military installations named after Confederate officers. Memorials to the Confederacy and prominent Southerners, such as Washington and Jefferson, are razed throughout the South and in the rest of the country.

Antisouthernism prevails throughout America, especially in the South. Jews are treated much better in America than are Southerners. Far more Southerners are victims of antisouthernism than are Jews of antisemitism. 

When protesters demonstrate against Jews, Israel, or Zionism, most political leaders rush to the aid of the Jews. However, when protestors demonstrate against Southerners or the South, most political leaders rush to join the protestors.

A Jew may display Jewish symbols and show pride in his Jewish heritage and ancestry without fear of reprisal from school administrators. However, a Southern cannot display Southern symbols or show pride in his Southern heritage and ancestry without fear of reprisal. If he does, most likely the school administrator will censor him and may even expel him. The same is true of many businesses and governmental establishments; they support Jewish symbols, etc. but are intolerant of Southern symbols, etc. 

Antisouthernism reveals the hypocrisy of the diversity and inclusion ideologues. If diversity and inclusion ideologues believed what they promote, they would not be antisouthern, yet nearly all of them are. They go out of their way to exclude true Southerners although they may occasionally accept traitorous scalawags. To these ideologues, Southern heritage and culture and even Southerners themselves are only worthy of annihilation.

The population of Southerners far exceeds that of Jews, both in the United States and worldwide. Yet, the political, economic, and social influence and power of Southerners are insignificant compared to that of Jews. Perhaps that is why Southerners, like Afrikaans, are personal non grata. Like Afrikaans, Southerners are slated for extinction. Genocide is their destination.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck

Thomas Allen

[Note: This article is based on observations obtained from listening to Beck’s radio program.]

Like most conservatives, Glenn Beck, a talk-show host, is a racial nihilist. He has adopted the new morality of sanctifying the races on the alter of humanity. Also, he is a Zionist and a worshiper of St. Martin Luther King the Divine, although he fails to revere him above Jesus.

Moreover, he asserts that the United States are an exceptional country, a propositional country, a conventual country, and not a genetic country. Thus, he believes that “all men are created equal” as he processes to describe their natural inequality. Therefore, the US Constitution and American history should be understood in the light of this proposition. Naturally, he rejects the fact that the Constitution was written for Whites and not for Blacks and other nonwhite races — therefore, the need for the illegal fourteenth amendment.

Further, Beck professes to be a Christian. However, like most Christians, he has no objection to miscegenation and refuses to recognize God’s prohibition of miscegenation. He finds interracial mating acceptable if done in marriage.

Moreover, Beck acknowledges that God created the races and, therefore, the races should be preserved. (Thus, this belief makes him appear to be a racial preservationist. However, his actions and most of his comments related to race show that he is definitely a racial nihilist. Perhaps, he suffers from some kind of dissociative disorder. To illustrate this disorder, Beck has no objection to or concern about interracial mating although it results in the genocide of the races intermating, which racial nihilist support. If he were a true racial preservationist, he would support racial separation, but he does not. On the contrary, he opposes racial separation.) Further, he suggests that races differ because God created them with different attributes and for different purposes. If true, the races and, therefore, individuals of different races cannot be equal. Thus, Beck’s beloved proposition “that all men are created equal” dies.

Additionally, Beck claims that slavery is contrary to Christianity and the Bible. One wonders what Bible he uses. No where does the Bible or Christianity as taught in the Bible condemn slavery. On the contrary, the Bible sets forth a code for the treatment of slaves. Peter even urged slaves to be obedient to their masters regardless of how the master treated his slaves. (Because the Bible does not condemn slavery, the abolitionists abandoned it.)

Also, Beck suffers from Dixiephobia and Confederaphobia. He claims to be highly knowledgeable in American history. Yet, his knowledge (or should we say ignorance) of Southern history and, especially, the US Constitution and secession is appalling. He erroneously believes that slavery was the real cause of Southern secession despite slavery being better protected within than without the Union. For him, Father Abraham is the savior of the Union although the Union that Lincoln and the Radical Republicans created only superficially resembled the Union that the founding fathers created.

Beck claims that liberty and everything else good with the country comes from the Pilgrims and out of New England. (In The War Between the States, p. 138, Albert T. Bledsoe wrote, “The pilgrim fathers of Massachusetts delighted in two things: first, in the freedom from persecution for themselves; and, secondly, in the sweet privilege and power to persecute others.” This is an accurate description of the Yankee that Beck seems to admire.) Everything bad comes from Jamestown and out of the South. That is, Yankees and Northerners are righteous, and Southerners are evil. (Apparently, all those liberal and progressive Democrats in the North whom Beck despises are immigrants from the South masquerading as Yankees. He seems to believe that most Democrats today are still Southerners, and most Republicans are Northerners and Yankees. Yet, he seems schizophrenic about Southern Republicans, i.e., he praises them as Republicans but condemns them as Southerners.)

He implies obliquely that the first thing that the colonists in Virginia did was to build a fleet of slave ships, sail to Africa, kidnap thousands of Africans, returned to Virginia where they daily beat the Africans who survive the journey and inflicted all sorts of cruelties and tortures on them just to satisfy their sadistic lust. Further, he seems to suggest regret about the Radical Republicans’ failure to genocide the Southerner during Lincoln’s War and Reconstruction.

Beck says that Americans need to choose between the liberty (of the Pilgrims) and despotism (of the Southerner). In 1861, Southerners tried to separate themselves from Beck’s utopia of the freedom-loving and liberty advocating Puritan Yankees. However, Beck’s beloved Yankees would not let the South go — a decision with which Beck approves. Because the United States are (“is” as he would say) a propositional country and a conventual country, the North could not let the South go. It had to purge it of its evil. (In Beck’s mind, this evil was slavery. To the Northerner, this evil was depriving the U.S. government of 85 percent of its revenue, of which 80 percent paid for subsidies to Northern industries, if the secession of the Southern States were successful. Moreover, like most Northerners of that time, Beck hates the South and Southerners.)

Most of the State governments that Beck praises are in the South while most of the State governments that he condemns are in the North and on the West coast. Thus, most Southerners must have migrated to the North and West coast, while most Yankees must have migrated to the South. Unfortunately for him, population statistics do not support such migration.

Moreover, despite his Dixiephobia, most of what Beck likes in the country reside in the South, except its traditional social system, which he despises. Most of what he dislikes in the country resides in the North, except its racist hypocrisy, which he accepts. Thus, Beck seems to have some kind of dissociative disorder.

Like the Palestinians, Southerners are subhuman. Therefore, equality does not apply to the Southerner, especially the unreconstructed Southerner.  Nor does equality apply to Palestinians.

Except for the curse of slavery, Southerners contributed nothing to the founding of the United States. Apparently, Washington and Jefferson were not true Southerners; they were Yankees disguised as Southerners, so Becks seems to suggest.

Moreover, Beck judges historical figures by today’s racial standards, which Beck has adopted. Thus, President Wilson is a racist because he fired the Black personnel on the White House servant staff and segregated federal offices. Andrew Jackson is even more deplorable than Wilson because he forcibly moved Indians in the Southeast to Oklahoma (where they later allied with the Confederacy against the United States).

Like most conservative commentators these days, Beck insinuates that today’s Democrats are antiblack, anti-integration, pro-segregation, and White supremacists because most Democrats before World War II favored segregation and White rule. (This is called guilt by association.) However, he fails to identify pre-World-War-II Republicans who were segregationists and White supremacists — as nearly all pre-World-War-II Republicans were. Examples are repatriationist, White supremacist Lincoln; slaveholder, White supremacist Grant; and progressive, imperialist, eugenist, White supremacist Teddy Roosevelt. Instead, Beak defends the first two of these racist Republican presidents and treats them as great patron saints of racial equality, i.e., Black privilege, power, and supremacy — for that is the meaning of racial equality. Roosevelt, he identifies as a progressive because he ran as the Progressive Party’s candidate in 1912, and not as a Republican although he was the Republican president from 1901 to 1909.

On the plus side, Beck does oppose socialism and much of the economic agenda of liberals and progressives. Moreover, he favors controlled borders and is pro-life. Unfortunately, he has adopted most of the social agenda of the progressives, liberals, and socialists.

Conservatives like Beck are a greater threat to the South and Southerners (true Southerners, not White wokespersons, White social justice warriors, and the like who happen to be born in the South) than are Black Lives Matter and Antifa. Black Lives Matters and Antifa are the enemies without while conservatives like Beck are the enemies within. Enemies within are far more dangerous.

Afterthought
Beck ranks Wilson among the worst presidents because he ordered the racial segregation of federal offices. Yet, he seems to ignore Wilson’s real crimes: bringing the interventionist foreign policy to the United States and thus globalism to America, establishing the Federal Reserve System, adopting draconian laws that destroyed free speech and other liberties in the name of national security, lying the United States into World War I, dictatorially controlling the US economy and nationalizing the railroads and radio broadcasting to control information, and establishing the regulatory state where regulatory agencies enacted rules (legislative), enforced their rules (executive), and decided if their rules had been violated (judicial).

Like other neoconservatives, Beck ranks Lincoln among the greatest presidents mainly because he freed the slaves although he never freed a slave. He seems to overlook Lincoln’s real accomplishments: making himself absolute dictator who was above the States and the US Constitution, destroying the Constitution, imprisoning people who disagreed with him without due process of law, sacrificing more than 600,000 men to impose his protective tariff, authorizing the deliberate killing of women and children, giving the country legal-tender paper fiat money, establishing the imperial presidency, and committing treason according to the Constitution when he levied war against States that he calmed never left the union.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Analysis of a Speech Given to Black Lives Matters

Analysis of a Speech Given to Black Lives Matters

Thomas Allen

A local newspaper in a small town covered a small Black-Lives-Matter protest of about a dozen protestors.[1] (Based on the picture, Whites outnumbered Blacks.) This article analyzes that speech as presented in the newspaper article. My comments are enclosed in brackets.

Beginning the Black-Lives-Matter event, the organizers made some introductory remarks. They said that the event was being held for the cause of Black Lives Matter. Then, they introduced the guest speaker, who was a retired US Army Black female colonel.

The colonel began by praising the organizers and Black Lives Matter. [However, she failed to mention that goal of Black Lives Matter was to destroy White America and replace it with a socialistic Black America.]

Vigorously and joyfully, she approved of dismantling and removing the local Confederate monument. [Obviously, she is a Confederaphobe and probably a Dixiephobe, a hesperophobe, and an albusphobe. Consequently, she appears to suffer from mental problems. Ironically, she gave  her speech in front of another Confederate memorial, which has so far escape desecration.]

The article notes that the town has been sued for removing the statue. [However, the article does not mention that the statue was removed in violation of State law. Also, it was removed in violation of international law: “Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II),” Article 16 – “Protection of cultural objects and of places of worship,” which reads:

Without prejudice to the provisions of The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954, it is prohibited to commit any acts of hostility directed against historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples, and to use them in support of the military effort.]

She notes that people can never change history, but they can change their beliefs [by rewriting history to fit the current ideology or agenda — a la 1984].

Next, she comments about her father, who was a veteran of World War II, and about him being treated like a second class citizen. [Now, because of the civil rights laws of 1964 and 1991 and various other laws, court decisions, and administrative regulations, Whites are treated like second class citizens.] Moreover, when he returned home, he saw statues memorializing the Confederacy and none honoring the veterans of World War II. [When the Confederate soldiers returned home, they saw no statues honoring them. All they saw was devastation. Unlike her father, they also faced starvation. Moreover, most of these soldiers never saw a Confederate statue. Most of these statues were erected around the semicentennial and the centennial of Lincoln’s War.]

However, she does note that most of these Confederate statues were erected in the 1910s and 1920s with another wave of erections occurring in the 1950s and 1960s. She is convinced that they were erected to symbolize Jim Crow. Their purpose was to terrorize Blacks and convince Blacks that the White South had won Lincoln’s War. [If that were their purpose, they were highly ineffective. How many Southerners have ever met a Black who was so possessed by superstition that he lets statues terrorize him? This colonel has a low opinion of Blacks during this era if she believes what she says. Most Blacks seem to have ignored Confederate statutes until the White Confederaphobes demanded their removal. Just as the Puritan Yankee used the Negro to genocide the Southerner during the First Reconstruction, so he again uses the Negro to genocide the Southerner during the Second Reconstruction.]

Then, she attacks the Confederate soldier. According to her, they fought to defend an economic system based on the brutal destruction of Black families. [Apparently, she never considered that most Southerners were fighting to defend their homes and families from an invading horde. Furthermore, the welfare state of the Civil Rights Era has done more to destroy the Black family than slavery ever did. If she wants to save the Black family, she should lead the charge to dismantle the welfare state instead of focusing on destroying Confederate monuments.]

Like progressives, liberals, and neoconservatives, she accuses the Confederate soldier of treason. [If any treason were involved, Lincoln and his followers are the traitors. The reason that the US government never tried Jefferson Davis for treason is that it could not win the case. It even hired several leading attorneys to prosecute the case. These attorneys turned down the offer and advised the government that it had no case. Davis had no problem acquiring leading attorneys to defend him. Of course, this was a time when the courts had not been politicized as they are today.]

She claims that Southerners rebelled against the United States because they refused to accept a political solution to slavery. [Her knowledge (ignorance) of history ranks down there with that of the typical progressive, liberal, and neoconservative. Slavery was not the cause of the war; taxes were. Lincoln offered to concede almost any kind of protection and guarantee of slavery that the South demanded if it remained in the Union and let Lincoln collect the taxes for the benefit of the North. About Lincoln’s War,  The Quarterly Review of London wrote in 1862:

For the contest on the part of the North is now undisguisedly for empire. The question of Slavery is thrown to the winds. There is hardly any concession in its favor that the South could ask which the North would refuse, provided only that the seceding States would re-enter the Union. . . . Away with the pretense on the North to dignify its cause with the name of freedom to the slave!

In 1861, Karl Marx, who was an opponent of the South, summarized the war as follows:

The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty.]

After she has spent most of her speech lambasting, condemning, castigating, degrading, and lying about Confederate soldiers, she asks their descendants to join her and her agenda. She asserts that she wants peace, unity, and change. [Does her desire for change include ending Black supremacy and Black privilege that now controls the United States? Does it include ending the genocide of the Southerner in particular and the White race in general? Does her idea of unity mean unity in the genocide of the Southerner and the White race? Is her definition of peace the communist definition: Peace means no resistance to the agenda of Black Lives Matter and all the destruction that it entails? To the first two questions, the answer is “no.” To the last two questions, the answer is “yes.”

Disappointingly, far too many Southerners suffer from Confederaphobia, Dixiephobia, hesperophobia, and albusphobia. They gladly join the colonel and Black Lives Matter in the eradication of the South and the White race and the destruction of America and Western Civilization.

In a closing note, one must wonder whether she became a colonel because of merit or because of Black privilege. Until proven otherwise, the safe assumption is that she became a colonel because of privilege as she is doubly privileged: first as a Black and second as a woman.]

Endnote

1.   Carey Johnson, “A Plea: ‘Move Forward Together,’” The Franklin Times, August 6, 2020, p. 1A.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles. 

Josephus Daniels

Josephus Daniels

Thomas Allen

Josephus Daniels (1862–1948) owned the Raleigh News & Observer from 1898 until his death in 1948 when the paper passed to his descendants. He is reputed to have been a White supremacist, who used his paper to promote White supremacy. (Now, the owners, who bought the paper in 1995, use the newspaper to promote Black supremacy.) Daniels was the Secretary of the Navy (1913–1921) under President Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt’s ambassador to Mexico between 1933 and 1942.

One of the most despicable acts of unconditional surrenders to Black supremacy has to be the Daniels family taking down Josephus Daniels’ statue. His family took down the statue before even a threat was made. His grandson and great-grandson are a disgrace to their grandfather and great-grandfather. Moreover, this act is a blatant violation of the Fifth Commandment; it greatly dishonors one’s ancestors. If Daniels was as detestable as his family claims, why did they erect a statue in his honor?

Would Daniels be proud that his descendants who have become White-hating, racial nihilist, wokespersons, and social justice warriors, who worship Black supremacy, Black privilege, and Black power? Or, would he be disappointed in and ashamed of them? Regardless, their action is so disgraceful that no self-respecting Black will want to have anything to do with them — other than to take their wealth.

When the war comes, Blacks will take out the albusphobic, Dixiephobic, Confederaphobic Whites who destroy memorials to Southerners and other Whites quicker than they will any so-called White supremacists because these will offer no resistance. They see their duty as sacrificing themselves to their Black masters.

What will Whites receive from the removal of the Daniels’ statue and other statues of Whites? They will receive nothing desirable. Blacks will repay them with ever more degrading demands. If these demands are not met with alacrity and abasement, Blacks will vandalize, riot, loot, burn, and kill until they are met with extortionary and usury interest. Why should not Blacks behave like this when all they face are White albusphobes, who beg to surrender to Blacks so that the Blacks can whip them without mercy? Such is the just reward for anyone who destroys their family heritage the way that the Daniels have.

Now is the time for the Raleigh News & Observer to take the honorable action. It needs to go out of business immediately. Its buildings need to be torn down. All its equipment and other property need to be scrapped. Nothing should be salvaged because it would contaminate the new owner with racism and White supremacy. Josephus Daniels’ racism and White supremacy have so contaminated the News & Observer that no amount of repentance can redeem it. His descendants tried for years to cleanse the taint of racism and White supremacy before they sold the paper to another. Even the new owner has failed. Once an organization is infected with White supremacy and racism, it is beyond redemption. It must be eradicated. That is why the White race, especially those who grovel, needs to be genocided. If you do not believe me, ask Black Lives Matter.

These albusphobic, Dixiephobic, and Confederaphobic Whites, who enthrall themselves as wokespersons and social justice warriors, will avail themselves of nothing. Black Lives Matters and Blacks, in general, cannot respect such groveling self-abasing White albusphobes and consider them a joke — although their words and actions often say otherwise. Blacks see White albusphobes as traitors to their White kindred and, therefore, use them to advance the Black agenda of Black power, Black privilege, and Black supremacy. Consequently, removing the Daniels’ statue and other statues of Southerners will only lead to more violence and racial disharmony and more demands by Blacks and more surrenders by Whites. The only reason Blacks do not want to genocide the White race is that they need White slaves to produce wealth for them to plunder. However, far too many Whites do want to genocide the White race to rid the universe of its greatest disease: whitism.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Black Supremacy and White Privilege

Black Supremacy and White Privilege

Thomas Allen

Presented below are a letter-to-the-editor on the removal of Confederate statues, White supremacy versus Black supremacy, Whites prostrating before Blacks, self-respect, and the death of the White race.

Letter
People who want to remove Confederate monuments and memorials are filled with hate of the South (Dixiephobia) and especially everything related to the Confederacy (Confederaphobia). Yet, these same people preach tolerance and diversity. However, they are among the most intolerant people and despise diversity. They cannot tolerate anything related to the South and especially the Confederacy, which illustrates their hatred of diversity.

They say that Confederate monuments and memorials are hurtful: They hurt the feelings of Blacks. Thus, they must come down. Yet, these Confederaphobes care nothing about the feelings of the people who revere these monuments and memorials as honoring their ancestors who defended their homeland from the invading horde during Lincoln’s War.

Confederaphobes are extremely self-centered and selfish people, who demand all be sacrificed to satisfy their bigotry, prejudices, and desires. They do not want any remembrance of the Confederacy or even the South.

According to my wife, who is a refugee from a Communist country, among the first things that the Communists did when they started taking over the country was to tear down historical and cultural monuments and memorials. The destruction of Confederate monuments and memorials comes straight out of the Communist handbook.

White Supremacy Versus Black Supremacy
One major and important difference exists between today’s Black supremacy and yesterday’s White supremacy. Under Black supremacy, Whites are forced to work without compensation to support Blacks. Under White supremacy, Blacks were never forced to support Whites without compensation. Even under slavery, Blacks were well paid with housing, food, medical care, and even some retirement benefits. Moreover, slaves typically consumed about 90 percent of their production.

Whites Prostrating Before Blacks
Under slavery and Jim Crow, White supremacists never required or expected Blacks to prostrate themselves before the superior White race. However, today under Black supremacy, Whites prostrate themselves before Blacks in abject submission to Black supremacists. Not only do Blacks expect Whites to prostrate pathetically before Blacks, but they also expect Whites to give Blacks everything that Blacks demand. Black supremacy has achieved a level beyond anything White supremacy ever sought. Thus, systemic White privilege is the privilege of Whites to prostrate themselves before their Black masters.  Furthermore, systemic White privilege is the privilege of Whites to eradicate their history, culture, and race.

Self-respect
During the height of White supremacy, Blacks may have acted humbly, but they never lost their self-respect. (Now, arrogance has replaced that humility.) However, under Black supremacy, White albusphobes, progressives, liberals, wokespersons, and social justice warriors have no self-respect. On the contrary, under Black supremacy, White albusphobes, progressives, liberals, wokespersons, and social justice warriors loath and debase themselves. Moreover, they wimpishly grovel before their Black masters. They have no self-respect. How can any Black, Asian, Latino, or even a self-respecting White have any respect for such people? Blacks may manipulate and use them to advance the Black agenda, but Blacks find them deplorable. Self-respecting Whites, Asians, and Latinos pity them and find them despicable, and some even abhor them. All consider them no better than traitors of the White race.

(According to Urban Dictionary, a wokesperson is “a person who considers himself/herself woke and readily spouts wokeish statements, especially on social media, on behalf of the entire ‘woke community’.” “Woke” means “A self-congratulatory, close-minded, emotionally-driven, politically-biased ideology and movement based on oversimplified, ill-conceived, uncritical, hypocritical, exaggerated, self-righteous, or irrational arguments justified by self-deceptive rationalization and self-serving, over-glorified, hollow gestures and politically-motivated lip service referred to as virtue-signaling, which often attract angry, sheltered, impressionable youths, self-important, crowd-pleasing, over-privileged, political-posturing, public figures, and narcissistic, willingly-ignorant, emotionally-regressive, left-wing ‘advocates’ and also often deal with multifaceted, questionable or misrepresented topics superficially, excessively, irresponsibly, and inappropriately.” “Social justice warrior” means “In the broadest sense, a person that uses complex serious social, economic and political issues as a way to further their own agenda by claiming they are fighting to ‘correct a wrong.’ Specifically, it is used to refer to people claim to be fighting for social justice but are actually validating their own ego, looking for special treatment, or attention.”)

Death of the White Race
The White race is dying from the decay within. It may not survive another 50 years. Unfortunately, most Whites do not care, and many Whites joyfully look forward to the day when the White race is no more. About a third of Whites are albusphobes; they loath the White race so much that they wish that the White race never existed. (Regrettably, these albusphobes do not hasten that glorious day of the death of the White race by removing themselves from it now. They prefer to remain a blight on it.) About half of the Whites are racial nihilists, who do not care about any race, especially the White race; the apathetic Whites, who are indifferent about the White race; and cowards, who fear to defend their race from genocide. Only about one-sixth of Whites are fighting to preserve their race. Most of those who are defending the White race are older Southerners who have not been thoroughly reconstructed. Soon after they die, most likely, so will the White race. So far, the genocide of the White race has been highly successful and will most likely succeed.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues.

Confederate Memorials

Confederate Memorials

Thomas C. Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter-to-the-editor on removing a Confederate monument. The editor of the local newspaper stated that if the legislature could change the law to allow a hospital in one county to own a hospital in another county, it could change the law to allow local governments to remove Confederate memorials. (A State law prohibits local government from removing Confederate monuments. Also, a State law prohibits a hospital in one county from owning a hospital in another county. Consequently, a special or local law had to be enacted to allow a hospital outside the county of this newspaper to buy the closed hospital in the county of this newspaper.) This letter follows.]

    There is a vast difference between monuments and hospitals — a difference far greater than between the proverbial apple and orange. After all, apples and oranges are both fruits. Hospitals are businesses; monuments are not. (The reason for prohibiting hospitals in one county from operating in another county is to reduce competition and, by that, drive up prices.)
    Confederate monuments commemorate those, including Blacks, who sacrificed to defend their homeland from an invading horde. (A union officer asked a Confederate prisoner why he was fighting. The Confederate soldier replied, “We are fighting because you are here. If you leave and go home, we will stop fighting.” They were not fighting to defend slavery.) To honor those who defend their homeland is why the Confederate monuments were erected — not slavery, which was much better protected in the Union than outside it, or racism.
    If Confederaphobes want to eliminate a symbol of racism and slavery, they need to remove the US flag. It flew over slavery decades before the Confederate flag did, while the Confederate flag did, and after the Confederate flag did. Moreover, the US flag flew over the genocide of the Plains Indians. Also, it flew over the racist Spanish American War, the racist World War II, and the racist Vietnam War. Is there a symbol more racist than the US flag?

✽✽✽✽✽✽✽

    Some more observations follow.

    Having flown over both slavery and Jim Crow, the Stars and Stripes, the US flag, is obviously a racist flag. Therefore, it needs to be replaced. Ideally, the replacement flag would be a red flag with a black image in the center of Martin Luther King, who has been deified and placed above Jesus Christ. (Proof: One may blaspheme Christ without repercussions and often with accolades. If one says anything less than complimentary about King, the best that he can hope for is permanent ostracism.)

    Only in America can a Communist frontman who left a trail of blood and destruction as he fornicated across the country be deified while men who sacrificed their lives to defend their country from an invading horde are demonized.

    Confederate monuments symbolize liberty, limited government, and localism. Thus, they stand for everything that Confederaphobes abhor. Confederaphobes adore the concentration and consolidation of political, economic, and social power into the hands of a few.

    What would happen if Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and allied groups were convinced that the K in a circle on food packages meant “Klan approved?” Furthermore, what would happen if they were convinced that the reason the item was “Klan approved” was because it was made with Black slave labor?  When the mentality of the members of these groups is considered, convincing them of such nonsense should not be difficult. If these people were convinced that the K in a circle meant “Klan approved,” it would be interesting to see how the Jewish controlled media would react.

    If a statue honoring Commander James Waddell (1824 – 1886) were erected on the courthouse grounds in Pittsboro, North Carolina, and if Confederaphobes attempted to remove it, would the “save the whales” folks rally to save the statue? Or, would they join the Confederaphobes in demanding its destruction? As most “save the whales” folks are typically liberals with an anti-Confederate mentality, they would have to make a difficult choice. Why would they rally to save Waddell’s statue? As captain of the CSS Shenandoah, he destroyed the whaling fleet of the United States — a worthy goal for any “save the whale” person.

Copyright © 2018 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.