Is Ann Coulter Credible?

Is Ann Coulter Credible?
Thomas Allen

    In her column “A Nation Rejoices! A Humiliating Defeat for Trump,” Ann Coulter explains why the Republican Doug Mastriano lost the gubernatorial election in Pennsylvania. With her explanation, she implies that she has no credibility.
    In “A Credibility Test,” a four-part test is given to determine if a person has credibility on political issues. The four questions are:
    (1)    Does the person believe or act as though he believes the official story of the Kennedy assassination?
    (2)    Does the person believe or act as though he believes the official governmental conspiracy theory of 9-11?
    (3)    Does the person believe or act as though he believes that the Democrats did not steal the 2020 presidential election but won it fairly?
    (4)    Does the person believe or act as though he believes that White replacement is a hoax?
If a person answers “yes” to any of these questions, his credibility is questionable. If he answers “yes” to two or three, he has no credibility. If he answers “yes” to all four, he is ignorant beyond repair and is irredeemably stupid.
    Among the reasons that Coulter gives for Mastriano’s defeat were that he spoke at a QAnon rally where the official stories of 9-11 and the Kennedy assassination were questioned. Thus, she implies that she accepts the official stories — at least, she does not reject them.
    Also, she condemns Mastriano for claiming that the Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election. By that, she implies that the Democrats did not steal the 2020 presidential election.
    Coulter does not discuss White replacement in this article. However, in “They’re Replacing You, Black America” (June 2, 2022), she implies that White replacement is a hoax.
    As shown above, Coulter answers all four questions with “yes.” Therefore, not only does she have no credibility, she is ignorant beyond repair and is irredeemably stupid.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Review of Facts and Falsehoods – Part 1

Review of Facts and Falsehoods – Part 1

Thomas Allen

Facts and Falsehoods Concerning the War on the South 1861-1865 (Memphis, Tennessee: A. R. Taylor & Co., 1904) by George Edmonds is an excellent book and worth reading. Edmonds reveals the real Abraham Lincoln before he was deified.

Before Lincoln’s deification, most Republicans, including his cabinet, did not respect him, and many despised him. Further, they perceived him as incompetent, opportunistic, and indecisive and as a political hack and a politician in the worst sense of the word. Fame was what Lincoln wanted. Assassination was the best thing to ever happen to him, for it brought him the fame for which he lusted and his deification.

Edmonds shows that the founding principles of the Republican Party were hatred of the Constitution and Southerners, disunion, and the concentration of political power in the federal government. Being a White man’s party, the Republican Party had little use for Blacks — free or slave. 

He discusses the hatred of the South that many Republican leaders possessed from Lincoln’s War to 1904 when he published his book. This hatred of the South still exists today albeit in a milder form when conservatives, e.g., Beck and Coulter, express it. This hatred reveals itself in the left’s destruction of Southern culture, history, and memorials with the support of scalawags including most Southern Republican and Democratic governors, and the complacency of most conservatives.

The following are some excerpts from his book.

Comparison of Buchanan with Lincoln

Edmonds quotes the Lemars (Iowa) Sentinel, 1879, which fearlessly propounded Republican doctrines, “No reasonable man will say that President Buchanan was wrong when he said that the North had no constitutional right to coerce seceding States, but what of that? Up jumped Abraham Lincoln, the rail-splitter, and kicked the Constitution into the Capitol cellar, and called for 75,000 armed men to march down and conquer the South, and when the 75,000 proved not enough, the rail splitter called for more, and more, until he had over 2,000,000 armed men, and he sent ’em down to burn and pillage, to kill, conquer or annihilate traitors to our glorious Union, the Constitution all the while in the Capitol cellar." (pp. 23-24)

About Rebellion

Edmonds writes, “The history of man’s struggle for freedom shows that rebellions have won for mankind all the freedom they possess. Did ever any ruler on earth, of his own will, loosen his grip on the liberties of those he ruled? Every inch of liberty the English-speaking people now have was gained by rebellions. The colonies of ’76 won freedom by rebellion. Rebellion means resistance to lawful rule. George III was the lawful King of the Colonies. At no period in the existence of this Union has one State or group of States held lawful rule over any other State or group of States. The most stupendous falsehood ever told on this continent is the falsehood that the Southern people rebelled. There can be no rebellion except against lawful rulers. The Republican party of the 6o’s was guilty of the monstrous crime of usurping the power to rule the Southern States. Not only did Republicans pour out the virulence of hate on the South’s men, her women came in for a share, and a large share they received.” (p. 245)

Lincoln’s Response to Medill’s Protest to Lincoln’s Order for More Troops

About Lincoln rebuking Joseph Medill, editor of the Chicago Tribune and Republican politician, when he protested Lincoln ordering more troops from Chicago, Edmonds cites Ida Tarbell, who wrote a biography of Lincoln. Miss Tarbell relates what Medill told her about this incident, “In 1864 when the call for extra troops came, Chicago revolted. Chicago had sent 22,000 and was drained. There were no young men to go, no aliens except what was already bought. The citizens held a mass meeting and appointed three men, of whom I (Medill) was one, to go to Washington and ask Stanton (the War Secretary) to give Cook County a new enrollment. On reaching Washington we went to Stanton with our statement. He refused. Then we went to President Lincoln. ‘I cannot do it,’ said Lincoln, ‘but I will go with you to Stanton and hear the arguments of both sides.’ So we all went over to the War Department together. Stanton and General Frye were there, and they both contended that the quota should not be changed. The argument went on for some time, and was finally referred to Lincoln, who had been silently listening. When appealed to, Lincoln turned to us with a black and frowning face: ‘Gentlemen.’ he said, with a voice full of bitterness, ‘after Boston, Chicago has been the chief instrument in bringing this war on the country. The Northwest opposed the South, as New England opposed the South. It is you, Medill, who is largely responsible for making blood flow as it has. You called for war until you had it. I have given it to you. What you have asked for you have had. Now you come here begging to be let off from the call for more men, which I have made to carry on the war you demanded. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Go home and raise your 6,000 men. And you, Medill, you and your Tribune have had more influence than any other paper in the Northwest in making this war. Go home and send me those men I want.’

“Medill says that he and his companions, feeling guilty, left without further argument. They returned to Chicago, and 6,000 more men from the working classes were dragged from their homes, their families, forced into the ranks to risk limbs and lives in a war they had no part in making, while the men that forced that war on an unwilling people remained at home in comfort and safety, and made enormous fortunes by the war.” (p. 162)

To this, Edmonds adds, “Is it any wonder educated workingmen often become anarchists and hate all governments?” (p. 163)

Lincoln on Courts

About Lincoln’s preference for using military courts instead of civil courts, Edmonds writes, “Daniel Webster objected to military courts because, as he said, ‘military courts are organized to convict.’ The so-called humane Lincoln objected to civil courts because one member of the jury might be more ready to hang the panel than to hang the man! Lincoln seems to assume that men arrested by military officials must be guilty, therefore should have no chance of escaping conviction by trial in a Civil court. Lincoln also objects to civil courts because they only convict on charges of crime well defined by law. Military courts convict on the most frivolous pretexts, or no pretext at all. The chief thing necessary to military conviction is that some man in high place should desire the man to be convicted and put out of his way. In the Albany address reference was made to the suspension of the habeas corpus. To this Mr. Lincoln replied as follows: ‘The suspension of the habeas corpus was for the purpose that men may be arrested and held in prison who cannot be proved guilty of any defined crime.’” (p. 212)

Continuing, Edmonds writes that the above declaration is not Lincoln's worst. Then, he quotes Lincoln’s comment to the Albany committee of Democrats, “Arrests are not made so much for what has been done as for what possibly might be done. The man who stands by and says nothing when the peril of his Government is discussed cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered (by arrest, imprisonment, or death) he is sure to help the enemy.” (p. 212).

Then, Edmonds writes, “Is it any wonder under rulings like this that 38,000 arbitrary arrests threw 38,000 innocent men and women into American bastiles [sic] to languish for months or years, and many therein to die?” (p. 212.)

Moreover, Edmonds writes, “Under Lincoln’s definition silence became an act of treason. A man with a sore throat, unable to talk aloud, if he happened to be present when the Lincoln Government was discussed, was liable to arrest and imprisonment in the most distant fortress in the land.” (p. 212).

Next, Edmonds quotes Lincoln writing, “Much more if a man talks ambiguously, talks with ‘buts’ and ‘ifs’ and ‘ands’ he cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered (by imprisonment or death) this man will actively commit treason. Arbitrary arrests are not made for the treason defined in the Constitution, but to prevent treason.” About this quotation, Edmonds comments, “That is to prevent the sort of treason never before known on earth — the treason of ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ and ‘ands’ — the treason made and invented by Abraham Lincoln, the first President of the Republican party.” (pp. 212-213.)

Seward’s Character

To describe the character of William H. Seward, Lincoln’s Secretary of State, Edmonds quotes General Piatt, a personal friend and great admirer of Seward, “Seward began life as a school teacher in the South. He had been treated with condescending indifference by the unenlightened masters, which treatment he never forgot. Seward looked down on the white men of the South in the same cynical way that he did upon the slaves. He had no pity for the slaves, and no dislike for the master. He was a great favorite with the last named. He had contempt for them, which he concealed as carefully as he did his contempt for the United States Constitution. Seward had trained himself to believe that worldly wickedness indicated ability. He thought to be bad was to be clever. He thought that devotion to wine, women and infidelity gave proof of superior intelligence. He affected a wickedness he did not feel, because such wickedness, in his estimation, was good form.” To this description, Edmonds asks, “Was it spite that made Seward so vindictive toward the Southern people?” (p. 158)

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2.

More Southern articles.

Black Replacement

Black Replacement

Thomas Allen

In “They’re Replacing You, Black America” (June 2, 2022, https://www.takimag.com/article/theyre-replacing-you-black-america-2/), Ann Coulter argues that immigrants are replacing Blacks and not Whites. As the following table shows, immigrants are not replacing Blacks. They are replacing Whites.

Coulter is a Dixiephobe and a Negrophile. With the possible exception of the American Negro, she is a racial nihilist who practices the new morality of sacrificing the races on the altar of humanity. Concerning the American Negro, she partially proclaims the old morality of racial preservation although she probably does not object to Blacks marrying outside their race, which destroys racial preservation.

Also, she believes that Republicans are the saviors of Blacks while Democrats are the enslavers of Blacks. Unfortunately, Blacks fail to recognize Republicans as their saviors and Democrats as their enslavers.

As the following table shows, the percentage of the White population has been declining since 1950. With the passage of the 1965 immigration act, the Regan amnesty, other acts and policies favorable to nonwhite immigrants, and the open-door policies of Clinton and the following administrations, the percentage of the White population has plummeted. On the other hand, except for 2020, the percentage of the Black population has been rising. Thus, immigrants are replacing Whites and not Blacks. (The non-Hispanic Whites percentage may be a better indicator of White replacement. Most Hispanics identify themselves as White although only about 20 percent are White. Except for Hispanics from the Caribbean, who are mostly Negroes and mulattoes, most Hispanics are Turanians [American Indians] and mestizoes.) Although the percentage of the Black population dropped in 2020, its total population rose. However, the White population dropped in total number in 2020. It fell from about 224 million in 2010 to about 204 million in 2020.

Coulter’s concern is about Blacks losing job opportunities to immigrants instead of Blacks falling behind in population. With some justification, she argues that immigrants, who are mostly people of color, are filling set-asides, quotas, and affirmative action jobs reserved for Blacks. (Apparently, employers have found that these immigrants are better and more competent workers than Blacks and that they satisfy the diversity and inclusiveness goals of discriminating against Whites — especially White males.)

Coulter claims that the purpose of the 1965 immigration act was to flood the country with cheap labor. (No, the real purpose was to genocide Whites.) She claims that employers have lost their source of cheap labor with the death of slavery and Jim Crow. (Slavery was dying because slave labor was becoming more expensive than free labor. That is, slaves were losing to the cheap labor of free Whites. Under Jim Crow, the Black middle class was rapidly growing, which is why the communists sought to destroy Jim Crow. Blacks had to provide services for Blacks that they could not readily obtain from Whites.)

Coulter asserts that “black academics, intellectuals and activists have been screaming from the rooftops about the devastating impact of mass third world immigration on African Americans.” (These Black academics, intellectuals, and activists must be an extremely small minority of the Black leadership as one rarely hears them.) Yet, most self-appointed Black leaders and politicians support unlimited third-world immigration.

Although Coulter moans about these third-world immigrants replacing Black workers, she places none of the blame on Blacks. Perhaps, if Blacks showed enough ambition to abandon their criminal and welfare state of mind, were more responsible, acquired a basic education not based on equity, developed a better attitude, and disposed of their entitlement mentality, they would be more employable and marketable and could successfully compete with third-world immigrants. After all, with set-asides, quotas, and affirmative action, the system is rigged in favor of Blacks and against Whites. Unfortunately, for Blacks, nonwhite immigrants have learned to game the system, and employers prefer them to satisfy their antiwhite agendas because they are more competent than Blacks.

Nevertheless, the real blame for replacing both White and Black workers with third-world people of color lies with the political leaders and the people who support them. With the 1965 immigration act, they opened the United States to third-world nonwhite immigrants. Further, they have encouraged ever-increasing numbers of nonwhite immigrants with various laws and policies.

Further, Coulter complains about Blacks losing their political power to immigrants. (Although nearly all these immigrants are people of color, most have no use for Blacks. For the most part, their opinion of Blacks is lower than that of the stereotypical Klansman. Even Black immigrants have a low opinion of American Blacks.)

Democrats take Blacks for granted. Blacks are going to support the Democratic Party no matter how poorly the Democrats treat them. (This attitude is not restricted to Blacks and Democrats. Most White conservatives still support the Republican Party despite the poor treatment the Republican leadership, especially at the federal level, gives them.)

Pessimistically, Coulter concludes with “without the tiniest sliver of hope that historic black America will ever notice that the Democratic Party is screwing them six ways from Sunday.”  Thus, by stating that Blacks are too stupid to learn that the Democratic Party is using them, Coulter proclaims the low intelligence of Blacks. (Like many Blacks who are too stupid to realize that they are being used, many Whites also suffer from this handicap.) She chastises Republicans who waste resources trying to win the Black vote.

In any event, Whites are suffering much more from the large-scale immigration of nonwhites than are Blacks. This nonwhite immigration is slowly genociding Whites.

 

Appendix. Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck, who like Coulter, is a racial nihilist and a Dixiephobe, agrees with the progressives about White replacement. On his radio program, he declared that White replacement was a hoax, a conspiracy theory. Obviously, he has not looked at the US population statistics for some decades. ("Conspiracy theory" is a derogatory term used to smear someone without offering any proof that he is wrong.)

Cochran’s Law Lexicon defines conspiracy as “an unlawful combination or agreement between two or more persons to carry into effect a purpose hurtful to some individual, or class, or the public at large.” Thus, when two or more people collaborate to carry out an act that harms an individual, class of people, or the public, a conspiracy exists. White replacement requires more than one person to carry out, and it is harmful to White Americans as it ultimately genocides them. Therefore, White replacement is a conspiracy fact and not a conspiracy theory.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

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.

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.