Critique of Achtenberg’s Speech on Fair Housing

Critique of Achtenberg’s Speech on Fair Housing

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1994 for the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party. It has been slightly edited.]

A speech delivered by Roberta Achtenberg, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), illustrates how much the United States have deteriorated and how much deterioration will accelerate in the future. This speech illustrates the desperate need for the Southern States to secede and form a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States.

Achtenberg delivered this speech at the first (and hopefully the last) National Fair Housing Summit. It was a gathering sponsored by the federal government to discuss the state of fair housing and to decry the lack thereof. “Fair housing” is a euphemism that means that a landlord or homeowner has no right to rent or sell or not to rent or sell his property to whomever he pleases for whatever reason he pleases. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss ways to take away even the few rights and freedoms remaining and to discuss how to finish destroying what remains of Western Civilization in the United States.

She points out, correctly so, that where a person lives is a most important factor in determining the quality of one’s life. Thus, she concludes that all neighborhoods should be thoroughly integrated with the lowest stratum of society. There should be equality in the quality of life. “[T]he right to choose where we live is as important as the right to equal educational and employment opportunity and the right to vote.” Just as the power of the federal government has been used to destroy public education, to weaken the economy, and to corrupt the political process, it will now be used to ruin neighborhoods — or more correctly, ruin neighborhoods at an accelerated rate.

Then, she complains about the government not being more tyrannical in destroying the rights of the people in their use of their property. She praises the “advocates for the disabled, advocates for woman and for families with children, and industry leaders” for leading the fight to destroy these rights. Ah! But, thanks to the Clinton administration, a new day has dawned. The federal government will now become an active partner in the destruction of these rights (as though it has not been an active partner in destroying these rights since before the “civil rights” movement).

Moreover, she and her cohorts will lead the charge to destroy what remains of these rights, for she claims what the government does best is to lead. (Unreconstructed Southerners know differently. They know that what the government does best is to destroy.) She promises severe penalties for homeowners and landlords who do not kowtow before the fair housing overlords. Woe unto him who stands up for his rights.

Furthermore, she promises accelerated growth in the power of the federal government in housing (which really means accelerated growth of the federal government in controlling people). Programs to destroy the rights of homeowners and landlords will be instituted by every means available. The death and utter destruction of these rights are the legacy that she promises that the Clinton administration will leave America.

Also, she advocates affirmative action in housing. Yet she denies that affirmative action will lead to quotas and reverse discrimination. As anyone who has even cursorily looked at other affirmative action programs knows that affirmative action has always led to quotas and reverse discrimination. No matter how much the advocates of such affirmative action programs have denied that quotas and reverse discrimination would not occur, they always have. She fails to explain why affirmative action in housing will not result in the same.

Then, she says that “it’s time for government to act affirmatively to guarantee every American’s right to choose freely where they live.” To guarantee this so-called right means more than denying landlords the right to rent their property to whomever they please and denying homeowners the right to sell their houses to whomever they please. It also means providing people money to buy or rent in neighborhoods that they cannot afford. As a result, the politically powerful will compel the many serfs to support the privileged few. She hints that such a subsidy program is envisioned. Moreover, she equates separation by income with separation by race or ethnicity.

Next, she proceeds to inform her audience that the fair housing laws will be used to end segregated neighborhoods. Neighborhoods are to be integrated in spite of what the people in those neighborhoods think or want. Integration for integration’s sake! (As always, this integration flows only in one direction. White neighborhoods will be forcibly integrated. Black neighborhoods will not.)

Continuing, she informs her audience that integrated housing and neighborhoods are the last great unconquered frontiers for the civil rights movement. She is determined to conquer this frontier and bring it to ruin just as the civil rights movement has ruined all else that it has conquered. Yet, she fails to inform her audience of the results of the fair housing laws if they are as fully and forcibly implemented as she desires. The results are deteriorating neighborhoods, poorer housing, greater racial tension and hatred, ever-higher taxes, the loss of freedom, and a bigger government.

Her agency, HUD, is already attacking the banking industry. Banks are not to place the interest of their stockholders, owners, and depositors first. They are to place the social programs of the federal government first. They are to lend to whomever the federal government tells them to lend to — no matter how risky the loan.

Furthermore, the weight of the federal government is to be used against States and locales to coerce, extort, and bribe them into adopting analogous fair housing laws and enforcement programs. The federal government will make State and local governments coconspirators in the destruction of housing in the United States.

Finally, she comments on affordable housing and bemoans the lack of affordable housing. She claims that “there is [not] enough affordable housing, in enough neighborhoods and communities to enable people to actually make free choices about where they will live.” She does not identify the principal cause of the lack of affordable housing, which is governmental intervention, manipulation, and control of the housing market. On the contrary, she advocates more governmental intervention, manipulation, and control of the housing market. What she fails (or perhaps refuses) to realize is that her agency, HUD, and other agencies of the federal government are the cause of much of the housing problem about which she is carping.

Throughout her speech, she brags about the enforcement activities of her agency. She brags that the enforcement activities of her agency need to be increased and expanded. She brags about how the extent, domain, and coverage of her agency are to be increased and expanded. She brags about how much more intrusive into business and private affairs of all Americans her agency is to become. Never does she mention the constitutionality of what she advocates — probably because everything she advocates is unconstitutional.

The time has come for all good Southerners to free themselves from the despotism and tyranny of the megalomaniacs of HUD. They are only one example, and a small one at that, of the despotic and tyrannical rule of the United States over the Southern States. The time has come for a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States.

Copyright © 1995, 2025 by Thomas C. Allen.

More social issues articles.

White Privilege

White Privilege

Thomas Allen

Whites are accused of having “White Privilege,” which supposedly gives them all sorts of advantages over and at the expense of nonwhites, especially Blacks. “White Privilege” is the unearned assets, advantages, and benefits that White people have merely because they are White. Whites have what they have solely because of their skin color.

   In “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” Peggy McIntosh identifies 50 things that she considers “White Privilege.” Some of them are absurd, irrelevant, and insignificant. A few insult Blacks. Some result from the desire of Blacks to be thought highly of by other Blacks. Even a few are wrong: The opposite is true. However, a few are correct. [See “Black Privilege” by Thomas Allen.]

The following is a short, but incomplete, list of the privileges that Whites have today. They greatly disagree with McIntosh’s list of privileges.

1. The privilege of being second-class citizens in the country that their ancestors founded and built.

2. The privilege of having their God-given unalienable rights as citizens of a State subordinated to civil rights granted by Congress and federal agencies to nonwhites.

3. The privilege of being led by Albusphobic Whites.

4. The privilege of being obligated to be disloyal to the White race.

5. The privilege of not defending the interests of the White race.

6. The privilege of being denied equal rights and equal protection under the law.

7. The privilege of having the legal system weaponized against them (lawfare) instead of having the legal system protect them.

8. The privilege of going to prison for trying to save the life of a Black thug as happened to  Derek Chauvin.

9. The privilege of being the victim of Black criminals (see “The Dirty War: America’s Race War” by Thomas Allen).

10. The privilege of being the only race that can commit hate crimes.

11. The privilege of going to jail for peacefully protesting while nonwhites, especially Blacks, are rewarded for highly destructive riots.

12. The privilege of dying in foreign wars for people and institutions that loathe them.

13. The privilege of not being allowed to hear political speeches at church while nonwhite churches can have political speeches.

14. The privilege of being domestic terrorists.

15. The privilege of having less qualified nonwhites hired for a job instead of more qualified Whites because of race.

16. The privilege of losing their jobs to nonwhites.

17. The privilege of being fired because they are White.

18. The privilege of being victims of affirmative action and racial quotas.

19. The privilege of having nonwhites steal the credit for discoveries, inventions, and works of Whites.

20. The privilege of granting nonwhites benefits and privileges that Whites never enjoyed.

21. The privilege of being sacrificed for racial justice.

22. The privilege of being responsible for the substandard behavior of Blacks.

23. The privilege to support nonwhites.

24. The privilege of having their country destroyed.

25. The privilege of having their culture destroyed.

26. The privilege of having their history destroyed.

27. The privilege of having statues and memorials of Whites destroyed.

28. The privilege of participating in the destruction of statues and memorials of Whites.

29. The privilege of not segregating while nonwhites may segregate.

30. The privilege of not being allowed to attend meetings of nonwhites.

31. The privilege of not discriminating against nonwhites while nonwhites may discriminate against Whites.

32. Privilege of being discriminated against and not being allowed to object to such discrimination without being penalized.

33. The privilege of having nonwhites refer to Whites with racial slurs and being sued if responding by referring to nonwhites with racial slurs.

34. The privilege of being the only race that has to endure hate speech.

35. The privilege of enjoying wokeism.

36. Privilege of being the only race that can be racist.

37. The privilege of not being allowed to speak about race except to degrade Whites.

38. The privilege of worshiping archconservative St. Martin Luther King the Divine. 

39. The privilege of being racial nihilists while not allowed to be racial supremacists or racial preservationists although nonwhites may be racial supremacists or racial preservationists (See “Views on Race” by Thomas Allen.)

40. The privilege of practicing the new morality of scarifying the White race on the altar of humanity while not allowed to practice the old morality of preserving their race although nonwhites can practice the old morality of preserving their races (See “Old Morality – New Morality” by Thomas Allen.)

41. The privilege of being loathed by nonwhites, especially Blacks.

42. The privilege of hating themselves and their race.

43. The privilege of living in environments that are hostile to Whites.

44. The privilege of being victims of racism.

45. The privilege of being marginalized.

46. The privilege of being humiliated.

47. The privilege of feeling guilty about being White.

48. The privilege of being victims of antiwhite inquisitions.

49. The privilege of not having their lives matter.

50. The privilege of having less qualified nonwhites admitted to a university instead of more qualified Whites because of race.

51. The privilege of having their children taught to hate their race.

52. The privilege of not being allowed to protect their children.

53. The privilege of having their education lowered to accommodate nonwhites, especially Blacks.

54. The privilege of enduring diversity training and sensitivity training.

55. The privilege of being indoctrinated with Critical Race Theory.

56. The privilege of not having college courses designed specifically for Whites.

57. The privilege of being stupid and apathetic;

58. The privilege of trying to placate nonwhites whose lust for vengeance can never be satisfied, for example, many Blacks.

59. The privilege of being degraded and bullied for being White.

60. The privilege of being masochists.

61. The privilege of being held to a higher standard than nonwhites.

62. The privilege of being blamed for all of the world’s problems and being considered the cancer of the universe.

63. The privilege of being guilty of all evils until proven innocent, which they can never do.

64. The privilege of the sin of whitism, a sin of which they can never repent.

65. The privilege of kowtowing and groveling to unappreciative nonwhites, especially Blacks.

66. The privilege of begging nonwhites, especially Blacks, for forgiveness for things that Whites have never done.

67. The privilege of being demonized.

68. The privilege of having their reputation destroyed. 

69. The privilege of being penalized because of their massive contribution to mankind.

70. The privilege of being replaced by nonwhites.

71. The privilege of not having a homeland while all other races may have a homeland.

72. The privilege of participating in their own annihilation.

73. The privilege of being abolished, i.e., genocide.

74. The privilege of being the stupidest race to ever exist.

75. The privilege of being the most frightened cowards who ever existed.

According to diversity, inclusion, and equity (DIE) adherents, all the aforementioned White privileges are unearned benefits that Whites enjoy and that give them advantages over other races. Merely by being born White, they earn these privileges. Because of their White supremacy, they refuse to share these privileges with others.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles,

The Jim Crow Era Versus the Civil Rights Era

The Jim Crow Era Versus the Civil Rights Era

Thomas Allen

I have read several books and articles whose authors hated the Jim Crow Era and loved the Civil Rights Era. Only slavery was worse for Blacks than the Jim Crow Era. The Civil Rights Era is the greatest thing that ever happened to Blacks. Reading their works, one is perplexed about how they arrived at this conclusion. They present information that shows that in many respects, life for Blacks was superior during the Jim Crow Era than during the Civil Rights Era.

During the Jim Crow Era, Blacks had a growing middle class based on merit and, thus, self-respect. Because of this growing Black middle class, Stalin sent agents to destroy it by creating a Black revolution. Contrariwise, during the Civil Rights Era, the growing Black middle class is based on affirmative action and, therefore, doubt. In the Civil Rights Era, the Black middle class has been based on special privileges, those who grant the privileges can quickly bring the Black middle class down by removing the privileges. Consequently, Blacks had more independence during the Jim Crow Era than they have had in the Civil Rights Era.

Further, during the Jim Crow Era, most Black families had fathers. Now, in the Civil Rights Era, most Black families have no fathers. Thus, the family unit was much stronger during the Jim Crow Era. Moreover, Blacks married at a higher rate than Whites. During the Civil Rights Era, Black marriages have plummeted. A much lower percentage of Black children were born out of wedlock in the Jim Crow Era. Now, the Civil Rights Era has resulted in a large percentage of Black children being born out of wedlock. Moreover, Black sacrificed far fewer of their children to Lucifer at the abortion clinics then than now.

Also, during the Jim Crow Era, criminal activity by Blacks was lower than during the Civil Rights Era. During the Jim Crow Era, Blacks had a higher moral standard than they have had in the Civil Rights Era.

Moreover, fewer Blacks were welfare recipients and, therefore, much more self-reliant. During the Civil Rights Era, many Blacks have become enslaved to the welfare state and are dependent on their masters in Washington. Thus, they have traded segregation for slavery.

In the time of Jim Crow, only a few Blacks expressed a desire to genocide their race, the American Negro, via miscegenation. As a result of the Civil Rights Era, an ever-growing number of Blacks seem compelled to genocide the American Negro via miscegenation.

Apparently, the benefits of the Civil Rights Era have more than offset the deterioration of the Black family, the rising Black crime rate, the enslavement of Blacks in the welfare state, and the genocide of the Black race. (Not only is the American Negro being genocided via miscegenation, but also the culture and society of the American Negro are being destroyed through integration, which too is genocide. This genocide of the American Negro may account for the deterioration of Black behavior.) At least the Civil Rights Era has reduced the number of restrooms and water fountains by amalgamating the races. With integrated schools, it has reduced the quality of education for all through indoctrination-propaganda curricula, but at least both Blacks and Whites now receive the same low-quality education. Anyway, Blacks can now eat in the same restaurants as Whites, can sit beside Whites on public transportation and at public entertainment events, and stay at the same motels — although integration ended many Black businesses. Moreover, during the Civil Rights Era, Blacks have received preferential treatment in employment via affirmative action and quotas. Nevertheless, most people believe that the benefits of the Civil Rights Era for Blacks far outweigh its costs for Blacks and especially for Whites.

As shown above, Blacks were much more independent and self-reliant during the Jim Crow Era. Now, in the Civil Rights Era, they are dependent on their masters in Washington and the statehouses. Thus, many have reverted back to slavery without the self-respect that a slave had knowing that he more than earned his keep. Today’s slaves are nothing more than parasites living off others and giving nothing in return but their votes and services as protestors and rioters. Contrary to the popular myth, Blacks had many advantages and benefits under Jim Crow that they have lost during the Civil Rights Era.

Jim Crow laws never sought to destroy the Black society, culture, and race; they even protected them. However, an objective of the Civil Rights laws has been to destroy White society, culture, and race along with Black society, culture, and race.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles. 

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.

Bob Dole: Presidential Candidate

Bob Dole: Presidential Candidate

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1996 to the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party. It compares Bob Dole with Bill Clinton in the 1996 presidential campaign.]

It looks like Bob Dole is going out of his way to give the election to Bill Clinton, which is probably good for America. Dole as the Republican candidate is the best thing that Clinton has going for him in his reelection bid.

In the character department, Dole wins without a contest. (But then to find someone who could lose to Clinton in the character department would be difficult.) Unfortunately for Dole, character does not seem to carry much weight in American politics. As for policies, little distinguishes Dole from Clinton.

On issues, such as abortion, homosexuals, and immigration, to name a few, where Dole could gain support by distinguishing himself from Clinton, he fails to do so. Instead of comforting the social conservatives, who are the core of Pat Buchanan’s support and a large part of the Republican Party, Dole is ignoring, teasing, confusing, and antagonizing them. He is working hard to lose their support. Still, he is correct in that these people are unlikely to vote for Clinton. However, if he does not court their support, many will support a third-party candidate or stay home. Historically, Dole has been closer to Clinton on most issues than he has been to Buchanan.

During the campaign, Buchanan forced Dole to take a strong pro-life stance. Since Dole has secured the nomination, he has moved away from that position. He has become noticeably accommodative to the abortionists. (When voting on bills directly dealing with abortion, Dole has taken a pro-life stance. When voting on bills dealing indirectly with abortion, such as “family planning” legislation, he has generally backed the abortionist position. He has also supported nominees for the Supreme Court who are pro-abortion.) Little difference between Dole and Clinton exists on the abortion issue.

Moreover, he seems to have joined the enemies of the Second Amendment. For a number of years, he supported the right of people to own guns to defend themselves from a despotic government. In recent years he has joined those who seek to deny the people this right. He was instrumental in the passage of the Brady bill. Furthermore, he supported the crime bill that banned “assault weapons” and prevented the introduction of a bill to repeal this ban. Again little difference between Dole and Clinton exists.

Both Dole and Clinton are internationalists, i.e., favor using U. S. troops to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. Both pushed for the passage of GATT and NAFTA. (These “treaties” have nothing to do with free trade other than giving free trade a bad name. Their purpose is to transfer the control of trade to an international body and strip members of the pacts of their sovereignty.) Both favor most-favored-nation treatment for China, the greatest tyranny on the planet. No real difference exists between Dole and Clinton in foreign policy and foreign trade.

That Dole would abolish affirmative action programs is doubtful. He opposed Republican Reagan’s rescission of Democratic Johnson’s executive order that mandated affirmative action for companies doing business with the federal government. Also, he supported the 1991 “Civil Rights” Act, which is the quota law that now serves as the main federal affirmative action law. That Dole as president would push to abolish affirmative action is incredible. Once more, no real difference exists between Dole and Clinton.

When Clinton first started pushing for socialized health care, Dole was a supporter. He offered compromises that would increase the chances of the program passing the Senate. He only became an opponent of socialized health care when public resistance became widespread. Later, he promoted a bill that would increase federal regulation of private health care by regulating health insurance. This bill moves the country closer to Clinton’s goal to socialize health care. Again Clinton and Dole are the same.

Moreover, Dole has historically supported higher taxes. Newt Gingrich once described him as “the tax collector for the welfare state.” [Some have said that Dole never saw a tax that he did not like.] Tax reduction under Dole is no more likely than tax reduction under Clinton. Both favor heavy taxation.

Furthermore, Dole has been instrumental in getting enacted into law the food stamp program, Martin Luther King’s holiday, American with Disability Act, and other programs that Clinton supports. What difference is there between the two? No significant difference seems to exist in their policies.

In running for the presidency, Dole has followed the advice of Richard Nixon. Nixon advised Dole to run as a conservative to win the nomination and then as a moderate or centralists for the election. If Dole wins the election, America will get what it got with Nixon. The conservatives will get the rhetoric. The liberals will get the action. This would make a Dole administration much like most other post-World War II administration.

One of the great paradoxes of post-World War II American presidential politics is that the greatest growth in the federal government has occurred under Republican presidents. People who would like to see programs advocated by Clinton implemented should support Dole. Those who oppose Clinton’s programs should support Clinton. As shown above, there is not much difference between Dole and Clinton on the issues. However, Dole will be much more successful in implementing Clinton’s programs than Clinton. Clinton will face too much opposition from the Republicans and moderate Democrats in Congress to have much success in getting his programs approved. Moreover, his administration will be too distracted by scandal to do too much damage to the country. On the other hand, the only opposition that Dole would face in getting essentially the same programs approved would be from principled conservative Republicans in Congress of whom there are only a few.

Again the American voter is presented with a choice between the lesser of two evils. The apparent lesser evil, Dole, may be a greater evil because he will be more successful.

Copyright © 1996, 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political issues articles.

The Genocidal War Against the White Race

The Genocidal War Against the White Race

Thomas Allen

    A genocidal war is being waged in America today, and it is not against the Black race. It is against the White race. This genocidal war is being waged in Europe and other countries founded and built by the White race. (It has been nearly won in South Africa.)
    The intellectuals of academia, who ironically are mostly White, are the architects of the genocide of the White race. Their preaching of the goddess Equality demands the death of the White race: All that is White must be destroyed. They are guided by envy, an insatiable lust for equality (well not exactly — they are to be the masters and all others are to be slaves, a millennium ruled by intellectuals instead of Jesus to correct the errors of mankind), and apparently self-hatred (victims of their own propaganda?).
    These intellectuals have built a system in America based on the premise of equality: All humans are equal; there are no racial differences beyond skin color (even differences in skin color would be denied if they were not so obvious). Being mostly White, these intellectuals have concluded that Whites are intellectually superior to other races. Their conclusion is not ill-founded, for studies, many of which they have suppressed, support their conclusion. To serve their goddess Equality, they must remove the source of inequality by eradicating the White race. They must destroy the White race even if they must destroy themselves. (This suicidal urge is hard to understand because most of these intellectuals are White males. However, then habitual sin leads to self-destruction.)
    The intellectual supremacy of the White race has led it to acquire a larger share of the wealth, which is an affront to the goddess Equality. The coercive power of government can only go so far in redistributing wealth. There is no guarantee that its redistribution will not later be undone. To ensure the permanence of the redistribution, the superior race must be eliminated. The White race must go. (These intellects delude themselves with their own intelligence. Every race has great variation of intellect, talents, and abilities. Wealth has to continuously be redistributed to prevent some from having noticeably more wealth than others.)
    To achieve equality among humans, the White race must be destroyed. Many tactics have been employed to achieve this objective. Two fratricidal wars have been fought in Europe during the twentieth century. These wars killed tens of millions of White men in the prime of life. In the second war, tens of millions of White women and children were also killed. Billions of dollars in wealth were wasted and destroyed, thus, hastening the day when White civilization would be reduced to third-world poverty.
    During recent decades, the war has taken on a more subtle tone. The “divide and conquer” tactic has been used with a great degree of success. White women have been pitted against White men. Woman is no longer man’s complement. She is now his competitor.
    Numerous laws have been enacted to destroy the family and to inject women into the workplace. Various welfare programs make fathers superfluous and destroy their need and responsibility. Public education relieves parents of the responsibility of training and teaching their children. Equal employment opportunity and affirmative action laws force discrimination against White males. Ever increasing taxes force White women into the workplace if the family is to maintain a reasonably decent standard of living. These and other laws are attempting to eradicate the White race by belittling and reducing to insignificance the White male.
    Other weapons include integration and immigration. Integration is used to break down inhibitions against the sin of miscegenation. The White race can be destroyed by breeding it out of existence through interracial marriages. To provide breeding stock for this objective, immigration laws have been revised to favor the immigration of non-Whites. Because nearly all illegal immigrants are non-White (Blacks from the West Indies, mestizos from Mexico, and East Asians) little effort has been expended to thwart the flow. To the contrary, the United States government acts to encourage illegal immigration by requiring American taxpayers to support them.
    University professors, who are mostly White males, habitually condemn White males. They accuse them of being the scourge of the Earth, the source of racism (the greatest sin known to these intellectuals), and the root of all evil. White males, i.e., the White race, for without White males the White race is impossible, is a virus that must be eradicated if the world is to be saved.
    White males have been delegitimized and dehumanized to the point where many feel the necessity to apologize for being one. They are the only class against whom people can legally discriminate. They are the only class against whom people are required to discriminate. If White males can be completely delegitimized and dehumanized, the enemies of the White race may succeed in their attempt to destroy the White race.
    White males need to stop apologizing for being White and men. They need to reassert their authority. They need to purge their ranks of traitors, which unfortunately includes most of their political, business, labor, academic, and religious leaders. Then they can save the White race and return it to its rightful place.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Southern History: The Second Reconstruction

The Second Reconstruction
Thomas Allen

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

Along with the Second Reconstruction has come an even more intense attack against that which is uniquely Southern: the Confederate flag; songs of the South, such as “Dixie,” “Maryland, My Maryland,” and “Old Virginny;” the immortal, eternal Confederate soldier and the monuments that honor him, etc. Even major corporations have entered the genocidal attack against the South. A major motel company took down the Georgia flag because it bears a Confederate emblem. (This old Georgia flag has been replaced with a new Georgia flag.) A major telecommunication company and a major bank joined the gang to remove the Confederate battle flag from the capitol dome in South Carolina. (The Confederate battle flag has been removed.) Major Southern universities proscribe flying the Confederate flag. At least one university has gone so far as to proscribe flying the flag of the State whose taxpayers support it.

Those who condemn the Confederate flag as being a symbol of slavery, racism, White supremacy, etc., should with more vigor and vehemence condemn the Unites States flag. The United States flag flew over slavery, segregation, and White supremacy in the North before the Confederate flag did, while the Confederate flag did, and after the Confederate flag ceased to in the South.

Blacks have shown no hesitation, concern, or sensitivity about imposing, nay forcing, their company on people who do not want to associate with them. Southerners should not sacrifice the Confederate flag in the name of sensitivity about the feelings of Blacks towards the Confederate flag. Some of those who love that flag see Black hostility towards it as just another attempt to impose the Black man’s will on them to deprive them of one of their few remaining liberties in the Black man’s attempt to establish Black supremacy. If Blacks find the Confederate flag offensive, then they should avoid associating with those who display and revere the flag. After spending a lifetime trying to outlaw freedom of association by forcing their company on others, such an obvious solution cannot be accepted. The Confederate flag must bow to their prejudices.

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

That big business is among the leaders in the genocidal war against the South is not difficult to understand. Big business, like all bureaucracies, strives for uniformity. The big corporations generally operate as self-contained businesses. They also strive to become self-contained social entities. They expect employees, especially at the managerial level, to place loyalty to the company (although the company feels no loyalty towards its employees) above loyalty to the community and even often above loyalty to their family and God. Such loyalty to the company makes for highly mobile personnel among its various units. (An employee who does not place the company first seldom advances beyond the lower ranks.) Anything that stands in the way of loyalty to the company and standardization must be destroyed. Because traditional Southerners place loyalty to God, family, and community above all, the Southern way of life must be destroyed. To Southerners, loyalty to the company that employs them ranks down on his list of loyalties. They may be highly loyal to an employer they know personally, but they have difficulty being loyal to an abstract corporation and a board of directors whom they do not know and who are far removed. Thus, big business is among the leaders of the assault against the South.

The role of the establishment media is so obvious, it hardly needs commenting on. The establishment media “revel in smearing the South and Southerners by adjective and innuendo.”[1] These attacks appear not only in editorials but also in so-called objective news articles. The media are also notorious for seeking out the ignorant, inarticulate, uncultured, spokesman to present the pro-Southern view instead of knowledgeable, articulate, respectable spokesman.

One of the most useful and effective weapons being used against Southern males is “affirmative action.” This weapon destroys the White male economically, politically, and socially as it gives other races preferential treatment and special privileges at the expense of White males. But this is not the worst aspect. The most hideous aspect of affirmative action is that it treats White women as part of the privileged minority. Thus, it attempts to drive a wedge between White men and women and thereby create discord where there should be harmony. The purpose is to drive White women to non-White men. The objective is the demise of the White race.

The Reverend Ray Aycock provides a cogent concise description of what the Second Reconstruction has brought the South:

They have taken over our schools, forced their laws on us, destroyed our customs, mongrelized and brainwashed our children, allowing the murder of millions of unborn children. They used deadly chemicals on our men and theirs, and they performed medical experiments on people that would make Hitler blush. They killed more people than Nazi Germany. They have not only made the sick practice of homosexuality acceptable, but they are glorifying it. They sent a message to all churches in the United States, and it occupied states by telling Bob Jones, the Mormons and the Branch Davidians, “Worship like we tell you or be burned out!” Now they want to tax our products, tobacco, to pay their medical bills.[2]

This sentiment is echoed by the author in Southern Manifesto:

Being a chivalrous, charitable, Christian people, we do not request or require reparation or restitution from those who came to conquer us, to pillage our lands, to plunder our wealth, to imprison our forefathers and friends, to desecrate that which we hold sacred, to destroy our culture and heritage, to pollute our race, to indoctrinate us with alien philosophies, to coerce us to pay tribute to finance our enslavement and their follies, to force us to die in their wars, to corrupt our leaders, to subvert our governments, and to impose multitudes of repugnant and oppressive laws upon us. We require only that they depart and leave us in peace. We recognize that our liberties and prosperity can only be protected and expanded and preserved for ourselves and our posterity through a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States.

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

As vile as the external forces are in seeking the destruction of the South and the death of the Southerners, those exerted by the New South Southerners are infinitely more satanic. The New South Southerner has sold his soul for what? Nothing of lasting value. He is a worse miscreant than opportunistic demagogic Fourth of July orators that the Reverend James O. Branch described in his sermon on public opinion, “It [public opinion] chains the rebel, Jefferson Davis, in a dungeon because he was the unsuccessful leader of Sovereign States in their assertion of the right of self-government; and, from the throats twenty thousand fourth of July orators, it fills the ears of the unsuccessful rebel in prison with the praise of the successful rebel, George Washington, who led revolting colonies against the armies of their lawful sovereign.”[4] Traitor of tradition and worshiper of “progress” that he is, the New South Southerner admires one and condemns the other because one won and the other lost, although both fought for the same thing. The New South Southerner is worse than a traitor of tradition. He betrays his State, his race, his ancestors, and God — albeit not his gods, for his gods are the god of equality, the god of envy, the god of material progress, and the god of political power. (One wonders why good Southerners keep voting these demagogic quislings into political office.) These are the people whom Richard Weaver described as “the obnoxious professional Southerners. These people have been quite willing to use whatever they possess of Southern inheritance to procure what is, traditionally, anti-Southern, and they have been impatient with those who remind them of the contradiction.”[5]

The New South Southerner is typified by George Allen, a Republican Governor of Virginia. He is a scalawag who has nothing but total contempt for Southern heritage. He offered Disney millions of dollars to destroy battlefields on which many patriotic Southerners shed their blood for independence. Disney proposed to build a historical theme park. Based on whom Disney chose for its historical advisor, the South would surely have been depicted in a derogatory, ignoble way.

The genocidal war against the South is often overt and obvious, but it also contains its subtle and covert aspects. One of these is in the education of the children of the South. There is much truth in Dr. Hunter McGuire’s assertion that one of the worst crimes committed against the South has been committed by those men “who immediately after the war . . . brought Northern men and Northern historians into our schools and for years employed them to teach us why and how Southern men fought against the North.”[6] The situation in Southern schools today is much worse than when this statement was made a century ago. The South looks to Northerners and Southern renegades to write their history and to teach their children. Why?

Donald Davidson is correct when he writes, “The South, because of its regional differentiations, some of which are certainly valuable, is at a disadvantage, and so long as political and economic power dwells where it long has dwelt, it will continue to be at a disadvantage.”[7] This power has long dwelt in Yankeedom. Only through independence can the South break this bondage and regain its political and economic power.

Even if many Southerners fail to see this war of genocide being waged against them, foreigners see it. In one of his editorials, Albert H. Baxendale, Jr., describes a conversation between a Britisher and a Southerner:

“We English,” he told the Southerner, “think of you Southerners as the Welsh of your country.” Asked what he meant, the Britisher replied, “The English have been trying for decades to stamp out the Welsh traditions — their language, their music, their speech, their customs. The rest of American is trying to do the same to you Southerners.” He was right. There are two forces at work today, engaged in a continual effort to destroy the last vestige of the Southern heritage. Those forces are knee jerk liberal Yankees and Southern renegades, also known as gutless politicians, spineless school administrators, and over-educated academic types.[8]

Edward Lawton describes the situation in the South following the war:

Since 1865 the situation of the South has been unique in the Western World. Asides from rights and wrongs, a population and an area appropriate to a pre-World War I great power have been, following conquest, ruled against their will by a neighboring people, and have had imposed upon them social and economic controls they dislike. And the great majority of these people are of Anglo-Saxon or Celtic descent. This is the only case in modern history of a people of Britannic origin submitting without continued struggle to what they view as foreign domination. . . . It is amazing that a people as proud and warlike as Southerners should have been as docile as they have.[9]

The docility of Southerners defies explanation. The time has long passed for Southerners to rise up and throw off their oppression. No other people of their stock would have so meekly tolerated the oppression that Southerners have endured for as long as they have.

Unreconstructed Southerners continue to resist for a number of reasons. Among the most important are as Alexander Stephen wrote, “Time changes and men often change with them, but principles never!” and as T. S. Eliot wrote, “We fought for lost causes because we knew that our defeat and dismay may be the preface to our successor’s victory. . . . we fight rather to keep something alive than in the expectation that it will triumph.”[10] Jefferson Davis wrote, “The contest is not over, the strife is not ended. It has only entered on a new and enlarged arena. The champions of constitutional liberty must spring to the struggle . . . until the government of the United States is brought back to its constitutional limits.”[11] A Massachusetts writer corroborated Mr. Davis when he wrote, “Such character and achievement were not all in vain; that though the Confederacy fell as an actual physical power, it lives eternally in its just cause — the cause of constitutional liberty.”[12] Whenever an unreconstructed Southern hears that the Confederacy is dead, he needs to reply, as Sheldon Vanauken did, “Not while it [the Confederacy] lives in the hearts of thousands of Southerners.”[13]

The unreconstructed Southerner is in firm agreement with General Lee’s statement that “a Union held together by bayonets has no charms for me.”[14] Like all empires, the Union today is still held together by bayonets.

Richard Weaver reminds both Southerners and Northerners:

that the Southerner today is the only involuntary tenant of the American Union. . . . he is where he is as the result of a settlement of force against him. . . . Therefore, in the national legend the typical American owes his position to a virtuous and effective act of his will; but the Southern owes his to the fact that his will was denied; and this leaves a kind of inequality which no amount of political blandishment can remove entirely.[15]

William Workman gives an excellent explanation of why Northerners find forgetting the War easy and Southerners find it difficult:

Forgetfulness comes easy to victors who fought and won on what to them was foreign soil. It does not come so easily for the vanquished whose homeland was ravaged and laid desolate, whose manhood was blighted by death and war by the aftermath, and whose leaders were stigmatized by imprisonment and ignoble treatment after giving all they had to a cause in which they believed. And as insult added to injury, the South was taxed by the national government to pension the very Federal servicemen who devastated the South, while being taxed by their own Southern states to provide for the Confederate servicemen who defended their homes and ideals.[16]

When Southerners are accused of living in the past, they need to recall the words of John Peale Bishop, “Without a past we are living not in the present, but in a vague and rather unsatisfactory future.”[17] Southerners are among the few Americans with a deep firm tap root in the past. Therefore, they are among the few that will bear true fertile fruit in the future.

Furthermore, Southerners also need to remember John Peale Bishop’s words, “Long after the Confederacy is lost in the national archives and the last old lady has forgotten in the grave that this was conquered territory, there will still be, regardless of the government, a deep division between states that grow cotton and those which first manufactured it into cloth.”[18] A great division still exists, which helps explain the intense genocidal war being waged against the South and Southerners. Only by the annihilation of the South can the empire be preserved.

Unreconstructed Southerners agree with Woodrow Wilson’s words, “I would rather fail in a cause that I know some day will triumph than to triumph in a cause that I know some day will fail.”[19] (Mr. Wilson also told us that “No people should be compelled to live under a sovereignty which it does not willingly accept.”[20]) When accused of trying to perpetuate a lost cause, Southerners need to remember the words of Henry A. Wise, Governor of Virginia, just after the War: “A lost cause! If lost it was false; if true, it was not lost.”[21] The cause is not yet lost. It is true. It lives on. In the meantime, they need to recall M. E. Bradford's advice, “If our friends tell us that these days are dark then we should recite something like the hopeful formula ‘that in order to get better, it must get a good deal worse.’”[22]

Southerners need to remember the enemy that they fight against and the dream for which they fight. Allen Tate describes the beast against whom all unreconstructed Southerners war as:

Regionalism without civilization — which means, with us, regionalism without the classical-Christian culture — becomes provincialism; and world regionalism . . . becomes world provincialism [i.e., one world citizenship with one world government, i.e., the new world order]. For provincialism is that state of mind in which regional men lose their origins in the past and its continuity into the present, and begin every day as if there had been no yesterday.[23]

“It is, in short,” as Donald Davidson writes, “life without principle, which is hardly life at all above the bestial level — that is to say, the low-grade but often pretentious life reflected in the succulent pages of Life and Time, in the T-V show, in the blaring radio with its singing commercials, and in the stream of ‘remorseless motors’ on street and highway.”[24] Samuel T. Francis adds to this description the following:

The lifestyles, aspirations, and values of the current elite are bound together, rationalized, and extended by what may be called the “cosmopolitan ethic.” This ethnic expresses an open contempt for what Edmund Burke called the “little platoons” of human society — the small town, the family, the neighborhood, the traditional class identities and their relationships — as well as for authoritative and disciplinary institutions — the army, police forces, parental authority, and the disciplines of school and church. The cosmopolitan ethic, reversing a Western tradition as old as Aesop, finds virtue in the large city, in the anonymous (and therefore, “liberated”) relationships of declassed, desexed, demoralized, and deracinated atoms that know no group or national identities, accept no given moral code, and recognize no disciplines and no limits. The ethic idealizes material indulgence, the glorification of the self, and the transcendence of conventional values, loyalties, and social bonds. At the same time, it denigrates the values of self-sacrifice, community, and moral and social order. Its most perfect (though extreme) expression is perhaps Mick Jagger, but a more typical and vapid form is portrayed in advertisements that tell us What Kind of Man Reads Playboy.[25]

The enemies of the South include liberals, neo-conservatives, internationalists, unionists, integrationists, socialists, capitalists, public educationists, and egalitarians.

William Workman offers this description of the hypocrisy of those who seek to destroy the South: “. . . the very individuals who evidence the greatest willingness to compel Southern submission to Northern domination are the very ones who scream loudest about ‘dictatorship’ in the South when Southern whites seek to retain control of their own affairs.”[26]

In contrast to the enemy, Allen Tate describes the dream for which true Southerners fight as “the classical-Christian world, based upon the regional consciousness, which held that honor, truth, imagination, human dignity, and limited acquisitiveness could alone justify a social order however rich and efficient it may be; and could do much to redeem an order dilapidated and corrupt, like the South today, if a few people passionately hold those beliefs.”[27] Unreconstructed Southerners must continue the struggle against the Leviathan of Yankeedom until these truths and beliefs burn in the heart of every Southerner throughout the South.

While this struggle continues, Southerners need to keep in mind the words of John Crowe Ransom:

The Southerner must know, and in fact he does very well know, that his antique conservatism does not exert a great influence against the American progressivist doctrine. The Southern idea today is down, and the progressive or American idea is up. But the historian and the philosopher, who take views that are thought to be respectively longer and deeper than most, may very well reverse this order and find that the Southern idea rather than the American has in its favor the authority of example and the approval of theory. And some prophet may even find it possible to expect that it will yet rise again.The future belongs to the unreconstructed South.[28]

While the struggle continues, unreconstructed Southerners should look to their forefathers and draw council from their experience, which General Basil Duke of Kentucky expressed, “that safety is never consulted by giving heed to the suggestions of timidity, and that the manliest and most consistent course, is also the most truly expedient, and that the interest and honor of a people go hand-in-hand, and are inseparable.”[29]

Edward Lawton observes that:

. . . most Northerners are content to continue indefinitely with many — perhaps most — Southerners considering themselves a sort of Free World captive satellite, somewhat like Ireland before its independence or like Alsace before the German defeat in 1918. This is not good enough for people who claim Liberty is the cornerstone of their national unity. For the truth is that Southerners, along with the Katangese, are the only people in the past century for whom the United States has opposed the right of self-determination.[30]

He adds:

American patriotism has tended to strengthen the ideological argument that preservation of the Union justified extreme measures. But this emotional view does not stand up unless a preponderance of the material and spiritual facts support it. From our survey of the evolution of American society in the past century it is evident that such is not the case. There is good reason to believe that most Southerners would be better off materially, culturally and spiritually if they had been allowed to establish their own republic.[31]

With the collapse of the Soviet Empire, there is now even less excuse for maintaining the American Empire. Only through independence will the South be able to survive.

In their struggle for independence, Southerners must continue to contend with what Thomas R. Waring, editor of the Charleston News and Courier, termed the “Paper Curtain.” The Paper Curtain is a ban on pro-South views. This ban has been extremely effective during much of the Second Reconstruction. According to Mr. Waring, “A frank statement of the Southern viewpoint is simply unacceptable for publication in the North.”[32] He had first-hand experience with the Paper Curtain. His pro-South manuscripts were rejected more than once by Northern publishers.

Andrew Grayson provides an excellent, precise, and accurate summary of the Second Reconstruction:

Instead, all that these two post-World War II Southern generations have ever known is an “America,” a “Union,” a “North”’ a “Federal government” that hates, despises and contemptuously look down on the South; that slanders and defames their ancestors; that mocks and ridicules living Southerners as ignorant, stupid, backward rednecks; that passes laws specifically against them and the white South; that sends in Federal marshals and U. S. combat troops to herd them at bayonet point like animals and criminals; that has intentionally destroyed every Southern institutions and nullified almost every right they ever had; that gloats over grinding down white people while uplifting Negroes; that has racially discriminated against them in every way imaginable; that has racially discriminated for Negroes in every way possible; that has allowed the Negro to run loose as a wilder and more rampaging savage than any other civilization has ever known; that has in many ways placed the Negro above the law; that has confiscated a large portion of their wages in order to elevate the Negro to a position of a nonworking welfare-aristocracy; that has made it economically impossible for whites to have more than two or three children while making it economically profitable for Negroes to breed and breed and breed; that has created an economic system that makes it mandatory for most white mothers to work while black mothers are paid not to work; that has created an economic system that causes working whites to scrimp and do without while nonworking blacks never have to worry about anything; that has robbed them of educational, economic, occupational, cultural and other opportunities and given these opportunities to unqualified Negroes who have not earned them and never could earn them; that treats the South as an economic colony and exploits its resources and labor; that has in countless other ways made plain that, to “America,” Southerners are the scum of the earth and Dixie is the cesspool in which they live.[33]

Grayson concludes:

Just as America may never again produce a group of men equal to the founding fathers (the best and brightest of whom were Southern), the South may never again produce a group of men equal to the Confederates. But by God we deserved better than what we had a century after the war. We can do betters than that; we can produce better sons than they.[34]

The War will end and the cause for which it was fought will die when the last unreconstructed Southerner is liquidated — hence, when the South finally dies as a distinct entity — or when the South is freed from the shackles of Yankeedom. When the South returns to its heritage, when the South unashamedly embraces Christianity, when the South cleanses itself of all the alien doctrines of Yankeedom, i.e., when the last vestige of egalitarianism, socialism and fascism, democracy, miscegenation and integration, unisexism, statism, and secular humanism in all its denominations vanish from the South, and when the South becomes a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States, then the War will end. The South will once again enjoy a free market agrarian economy with all the wealth and freedom such an economy entails. The South will once again become a Christian land where the word of God is revered and is supreme. The South will once again become a land where the family is respected, promoted, and protected, where children honor their parents, and where men are gentlemen and women are ladies. The South will once again become a land where racial purity and integrity are important, desired, and protected. The South will once again be a land where old times are not forgotten. Until then Southerners must remember John C. Calhoun’s admonishment, “I hold concession or compromise to be fatal.”[35]

Until the South gains its freedom, the political leaders need to do as Ross Barnett, Governor of Mississippi, exhorted public officials to do three years before the United States invaded Mississippi:

We will not surrender to the evil and illegal forces of tyranny. We must either submit to the unlawful dictates of the federal government or stand up like men and tell them, “Never!” Every public official, including myself, should be prepared to make the choice tonight whether he is willing to go to jail, if necessary, to keep faith with the people who have place their welfare in his hands. We will not drink from the cup of genocide. Hold fast against this grave threat to our liberties. Stand together, hand in hand, mind to mind, unyielding and unafraid.[36]

In the end, no one followed Barnett’s sage advice, not even Barnett. In the end, they all chose to “drink from the cup of genocide.” Southerners need to remove from office and forever ostracize all political leaders who follow Barnett’s actions and drink from the cup of genocide instead of following Barnett’s words and holding fast against tyranny!

Endnotes
1. William D. Workman, Jr., The Case for the South (New York, 1960), p. 65.

2. Roy E. Aycock, “Partisan Letters,” Southern Partisan (Second Quarter, 1994), pp. 3-4.

3. Thomas Allen, Southern Manifesto, p. 2.

4. James O. Branch, Sermons (Oxford, 1909), p. 118.

5. Richard M. Weaver, The Southern Essays of Richard M. Weaver, ed. George M. Curtis III and James J. Thompson Jr. (Indianapolis, 1987), Southern Essays, p. 30.

6. Hunter McGuire and George L. Christian, The Confederate Cause and Conduct in the War Between the States, Addendum (Richmond, 1907), pp. 10-11.

7. Donald Davidson, The Attack on Leviathan: Regionalism and Nationalism in the United States (Chapel Hill, 1938), p. 299.

8. Albert H. Baxendale, Jr., “Campaign on to Destroy Southern Heritage,” Citizen Informer (Spring, 1994), p. 9.

9. Edward P. Lawton, The South and the Nation (Fort Myers Beach, 1963), pp. 14-15.

10. Holmes Alexander, “Living with a Lost Cause,” Southern Partisan (Winter, 1986), p. 43.

11. Stephen Cain, “The Question Still Lives,” The Freeman (May, 1993), p. 195.

12. McGuire and Christian, p. 3.

13. Sheldon Vanauken, “Warning Symbol,” Southern Partisan, XIV, (Third Quarter, 1994), p. 13.

14. Weaver, p. 243.

15. Ibid., p. 202.

16. Workman, p. 10.

17. John Peale Bishop, The Collected Essays of John Bishop Peale, ed. Edmund Wilson (New York, 1948), p. 13.

18. Ibid., p. 447.

19. William Freehoff, “Southern Sampler,” Southern Partisan, VIII (Fall, 1988), p. 9.

20. Maurice Muret, The Twilight of the White Race (Westport, 1926, reprinted 1970), p. 37.

21. William F. Freehoff, “Southern Sampler,” Southern Partisan, V (Spring, 1985), p. 33.

22. M. E. Bradford, “Conclusion: Not in Memoriam, But in Affirmation” in Why the South Will Survive (Athens, 1981), p. 223.

23. Donald Davidson, Southern Writers in the Modern World, (Athens, 1958), p. 59.

24. Ibid., p. 59.

25. Samuel T. Francis, “Message from Marx,” in The New Right Papers, ed. Robert W. Whitaker (New York, 1982), p. 69.

26. Workman, p. 16.

27. Ibid., p. 59.

28. John Crowe Ransom, “Reconstructed But Unregenerate,” in I'll Take My Stand: The Southern and Agrarian Tradition (Baton Rouge, 1958), p 3.

29. Weaver, Southern Tradition, 194.

30. Lawton, p. 18.

31. Ibid., p. 207.

32. Ibid., p. 66.

33. Andrew Grayson, The Black Death: Reconstruction I and II, p. 50.

34. Ibid., p. 91.

35. John C. Calhoun, Union and Liberty: The Political Philosophy of John C. Calhoun, ed. Ross M. Lence (Indianapolis, 1992), p. 470.

36. Grayson, p. 96.

Copyright © 1995 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on the South.