Antisouthernism

Antisouthernism

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

Christian Zionists

Christian Zionists

Thomas Allen

Christian Zionists are peculiar people. Of their theology, their most important doctrine is based on the commentary of Cyrus I. Scofield, primarily the futurist school interpretation of Revelation with the rapture. Zionist Jews financially aided Scofield in writing his Zionist commentary, which proselytizes for Zionism, and promoted his Bible.

Most Christian Zionists seem to confuse “Jew,” “Zionism,” and “Israel.” They consider them to be nearly synonymous. However, they differ significantly.

“Jew” is an ethnicity. Anyone born of a Jewish mother is a Jew, with the possible exception of a person born of a nonwhite Jewish mother. Although many Jews practice Judaism to some degree, many Jews are atheists or agnostics or are areligious. The only way that a person born a Jew ceases to be a Jew is to convert to Christianity.

“Zionism” is a political movement. Its objective is to convert Palestine into a Jewish homeland governed by Jews. Some Zionists expand the boundaries to cover all the land between the Euphrates and the Nile. What surprises many Christian Zionists is that not all Jews are Zionists and oppose establishing a country for Jews.

“Israel” is a country governed by Jews that covers most of what used to be Palestine. Only about 46 percent of the world’s Jews live in Israel.

Moreover, Christian Zionists delude themselves by believing that those who call themselves Jews but are not are God’s chosen people. Almost none of today’s Jews are descended from Judah or even Jacob, Israel. Ironically, their theology has led the Christian Zionists to support outlawing the New Treatment and to root for the slaughter of Jews.

With the support of Christian Zionists, the United States House of Representatives passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023. It codifies the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This definition leads to outlawing the New Testament, which has been a goal for Jews for centuries. One example that IHRA gives as antisemitic is “Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews. . . .” Jesus told the Jewish leaders that they were the children of the devil (John 8:44) and called them hypocrites (Matthew 15:7; 23:13-15; 23:23, 25, 27. 29). Thus, from a Jewish perspective, he made mendacious, dehumanizing, and demonizing allegations. Therefore, Jesus is antisemitic. Since the New Testament is the story of Jesus that glories him, it is antisemitic and, consequently, illegal under the Antisemitism Awareness Act.

Furthermore, Paul wrote much of the New Testament. Like Jesus, Paul is also an antisemite. According to IHRA’s definition of antisemitism, anyone who makes “claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel” is an antisemite. In 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15, Paul states that the Jews killed Jesus. Therefore, Paul is an antisemite.

Further, Christian Zionists imply, if not outright claim, that the Bible states that God blesses those who bless Israel (Jews) and curses those who curse Israel. Many insinuate that “Israel” refers to the country of Israel. On the contrary, according to the Bible, God blesses those who bless Abraham, who was not a Jew or an Israelite, and curses those who curse him (see “Commentary on Genesis 12:3" by Thomas Allen). No country has supported Zionism, Israel, and the Jews as much as the United States. This support even extends to giving Israel and Jews control of the US government. Yet, instead of being blessed, the United States have been cursed (see “The Results of Supporting Zionism and Israel” by Thomas Allen).

Also, some Christian Zionists claim that if a person does not promote Zionism and support Israel despite what it does, that person is not a Christian. Such a person needs to be shunned, disfellowshiped, and excommunicated.

Additionally, most Christian Zionists do not know that Christians, Jews, and Muslims lived together in Palestine peacefully before the Balfour Declaration of 1917. In 1920, of the population of Palestine, about 11 percent were Palestinian Christians, about 10 percent were Jews, and the remainder were Muslims. By 1940, the population of Palestine was about 8 percent Christians, 30 percent Jews, and 62 percent Muslims.

After World War I, Jews began moving to Palestine and creating strife, primarily by driving Palestinians from their land. Following World War II, Jews began pouring into Palestine in large numbers and stealing Palestinian land. Palestinian attacks against Israel and Israeli attacks against the Palestinians are just a continuation of the war that the Jews started following World War II to steal Palestinian land.

Many Christian Zionists fail to understand why Palestinians do not accept their plight and get on with their lives. They assert that today’s Palestinians should not hold today’s Jews responsible for the wrongs committed more than 7 decades ago by other Jews against other Palestinians. However, most of today’s Palestinians do not hold Jews who came to Palestine in the late 1940s and early 1950s responsible for what is happening to Palestinians today. They hold today’s Jews accountable for what they have done to Palestinians in recent years and decades. Israelis have continued to steal Palestinian land and murder Palestinians.

Furthermore, Christian Zionists show their compassionate Christian love by cheering for the extermination of Palestinians, i.e., the genocide of Palestinians. They rejoice over killing Palestinian children (future terrorists) and women (breeders of future terrorists). On top of that, many claim that Palestinians are subhumans, who do not and have never existed. That group that calls themselves Palestinians is no more than squatters who illegally occupied land that belongs to the Jews. Moreover, Palestine never existed. (Apparently, the editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica, ninth edition, 1890, were too stupid or too ignorant to know that Palestine did not exist because they wrote eight pages describing Palestine. Also, Joel must not have received the notice that Palestine does not exist; he mentions Palestine in Joel 3:4.)

If nothing else, Christian Zionists are hypocrites. Out of one side of their mouth, Christian Zionists claim to care for Israel and the Jews and want to provide them unlimited aid. Out of the other side of their mouth, they want and pray for a world war in which most Jews are killed. Moreover, since most Christian Zionists are members of the rapture cult, they believe that they will not be on earth to enjoy the slaughter of the Jews. They will enjoy the slaughter safely in heaven.

Jews and vaccines have one thing in common. Both are sacred and are innocent of causing any problems or adverse effects. They are immune to criticism because they can do no wrong.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

King on Racism and the White Backlash – Part 2

King on Racism and the White Backlash – Part 2

Thomas Allen

Next, King discusses the American Indian. He preferred genociding the American Indians by breeding them out of existence to White driving them from their land and replacing them. 

Continuing, King writes, “Thus through two centuries a continuous indoctrination of Americans has separated people according to mythically superior and inferior qualities while a democratic spirit of equality was evoked as the national ideal.” (P. 85.) He complains about the country not going full-throttle to give the Negro whatever he wanted and demanded. (Today, the Negro has much more than King thought possible. Now, the Negro has enslaved Whites to serve and support him.)

Then, King discusses the War on Poverty and complains about not enough money being spent on Negroes.

Correctly, King writes, “There is a double standard in the enforcement of law and a double standard in the respect for particular laws.” (P. 87.) (King is right. Negroes are allowed to violate laws, especially criminal laws, more so than are Whites. Police and most governmental agencies are less likely to enforce a law against a Negro than against a White.)

King writes, “To live with the pretense that racism is a doctrine of a very few is to disarm us in fighting it frontally as scientifically unsound, morally repugnant and socially destructive.” (P. 88.) (Except for White Communists and White oligarchs, all Whites are racists.) However, he continues, “A people who began a national life inspired by a vision of a society of brotherhood can redeem itself. But redemption can come only through a humble acknowledgment of guilt and an honest knowledge of self.” (P. 88.) (Thus, only self-debasement and kowtowing to the Negro in unconditional submission, do Whites have a slight chance of redemption. [Many Whites have so humiliated and degraded themselves, but they still are not redeemed.] In other words, Negroes have to treat Whites worst than the meanest and vilest White ever treated a Negro for White even begin thinking about achieving redemption. Of course, all of this is done in the name of love.)

Next, King writes, that “all men are created equal; every man is heir to a legacy of dignity and worth; every man has rights that are neither conferred by nor derived from the state, they are God-given.” (P. 89.) (Here, King mixes truth with falsehood. Not all races are made in the image of God; only the White race is made in the image of God [see "What Race Was Adam?" by Thomas Allen.] Men are not created equal. A five-foot, fat, klutz does not have the same opportunity of becoming a professional basketball center as does a seven-foot, agile, athlete. [See “Gottfried and Equality” by Thomas Allen.]  Short, fat klutzes may have an equal opportunity to apply for a job, but genetics denies them an equal chance of getting the job. Peoples are not even equal before the law [see “The Heritage Foundation on Critical Race Theory” by Thomas Allen]. Moreover, God is not an egalitarian [see “Respecter of Persons” by Thomas Allen]. If God were an egalitarian, then all would be saved with the same rewards, or all would be condemned with the same torment.)

The first step to redemption is “the journey home, the journey to full equality, . . . [which requires] a radical reordering of national priorities.” (P. 90.) Consequently, Whites need to spend their money primarily for the benefit of Negroes. Likewise, governments need to spend the taxpayers’ money for the benefit of Negroes. A just society requires spending vast sums of money for the benefit of Negroes. If Whites pay insufficient protection money to Negroes, riots and other acts of violence will occur. (In addition to giving Negroes  all sorts of benefits and privileges that Whites never enjoyed, Whites have spent vast sums of money for the benefit of Negroes. Yet, the Negro’s lust for lucre is still not satisfied. Now, they demand trillions of dollars in reparations.)

Further, King argues that money spent on space exploration and war should be spent on the Negro. (King-idolizing conservatives need to push that money wasted on war be given to Negroes.)

Next, King comments on the struggle of Negroes to attain dignity. (Negroes may or may not have obtained dignity, but they sure have stripped many Whites and nearly all White governmental, corporate, religious, media, and academic leaders of their dignity.)

Continuing, King declares, “The Negro is no longer ashamed that he is black —  he should never have permitted himself to accept the absurd concept that white is more virtuous than black.” (P. 92.) (However, many Whites are now ashamed of being White.) Negroes should not have allowed Whites to crush them with the propaganda that Whites are superior. “That day is fast coming to an end.” (P. 92.) (That day arrived decades ago. Now, Whites and Negroes have crushed Whites with the propaganda that Whites are inferior.)

According to King, poverty prevented Negroes from attaining dignity. (With the enormous quantities of money transferred from Whites to Negroes, poverty should be eliminated as an excuse for the lack of dignity.)  “If the society changes its concepts by placing the responsibility on its system, not on the individual, and guarantees secure employment or a minimum income, dignity will come within reach of all.” (P. 92.) (All King-idolizing conservatives need to promote democratic socialism, for this is what King is describing and wants.)

King writes, “Over the last few years many Negroes have felt that their most troublesome adversary was not the obvious bigot of the Ku Klux Klan or the John Birch Society, but the white liberal who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice, who prefers tranquillity to equality.” (P. 93.) (Robert Welsh, the founder of the John Birch Society, was a staunch integrationist [see “John Birch Society and Segregation” by Thomas Allen]. Also, William Jasper, editor of The New American, a magazine associated with the John Birch Society, was an integrationist [see “A Letter: Miscegenation” by Thomas Allen].) Continuing, King adds, “Even in areas where liberals have great influence — labor unions, schools, churches and politics — the situation of the Negro is not much better than in areas where they are not dominant.” (P. 92.) (In recent decades, most liberals seem to have overcome this deficiency as they outdo each other by lavishing privileges, wealth, and power on Negroes.)

Correctly, King notes, “Often white liberals are unaware of their latent prejudices.” (P. 93.) (Unlike Southerners, Northern liberals have not spent much time around Negroes, so they have to rely on mysticism or prejudicial stereotyping to guide them. While Southerners who have not been indoctrinated with wokeism view Negroes realistically, Northerners generally view Negroes in one of two ways. Some idolize the Negro and believe that he is like a White person of high moral character but only with dark skin. Others resort to stereotypes: The Negro is a criminal brute or a lethargic, listless, lazy loafer.) King condemns liberals for their lack of alacrity and speed in surrendering White America unconditionally to King’s demands. (Since King wrote this essay, not only have liberals surrendered unconditionally to the Negro, but so have most conservatives. Is America any better now than then?)

According to King, any liberal who fails to accept interracial marriages negates his claim to genuine liberalism. (Thus, King reveals that he has no reservations about genociding the American Negro via miscegenation. Likewise, most liberals and conservatives lack reservations about genociding the Negro via miscegenation.) When interracial marriage is so acceptable and common that no one ever questions it, the disease of racism is cured. (Thus, the cure of racism is to genocide the races via miscegenation. One wonders if King believed that mulattos and mestizos are superior or if he hates Whites so much that he is willing to genocide the American Negro to genocide the White race. And this is evidence of love?)

Then, King states, “The white liberal must see that the Negro needs not only love but also justice.” (P. 95.) Further, King states, “The white liberal must affirm that absolute justice for the Negro simply means, in the Aristotelian sense, that the Negro must have ‘his due.’” (If the Negro received ‘his due’ and the same justice as Whites, far more Negroes would be in prison, and fewer Whites would be in prison.)

Next, King asserts that the Negro’s demand for justice is “a troublesome concept for many liberals, since it conflicts with their traditional ideal of equal opportunity and equal treatment of people according to their individual merits. But this is a day which demands new thinking and the reevaluation of old concepts. A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, in order to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis.” (P. 95.) (Since King did not want Negroes to be judged on their merit, he must have believed that they lacked merit and were really inferior. Thus, King demanded equity, equality of outcome, for Negroes instead of equality of opportunity and treatment. [Consequently, King-idolizing conservatives should cease preaching equality of opportunity and start preaching equality of outcome.] To placate the Negro, merit and equality of opportunity and treatment have been replaced with special privileges and benefits for Negroes so that they can achieve equity. Now, less-qualified Negroes are hired instead of more-qualified Whites. Universities admit less-qualified Negroes over more-qualified Whites. Yet, the Negro’s greed and lust remain unsatisfied.)

Mistakenly, King claims, “The Negro has not gained a single right in America without persistent pressure and agitation.” (P. 96.)  (The fifteenth amendment gave suffrage to Negro men. Negro pressure and agitation did not cause this amendment to be ratified. White Republicans gave them suffrage because of the growing popularity of the Democrats in the North. To retain control of Congress, the Republicans needed more Republican voters in the North. They expect most Negroes to vote for Republicans, so they gave them the vote.)

King writes, “that the oppressed person who agitates for his rights is not the creator of tension.” (P. 96.) (That is, the Negro has no responsibility for any of his violent acts and should not be held accountable for his violent acts. Whites are the blame for all violent acts of Negroes. Even after surrendering unconditionally to the demands of Negroes and giving them nearly everything that they demand, except reparations, Whites are still the blame.)

Moreover, King insists that the Negro protests, demonstrations, and riots did not cause a White backlash. “[T]he hatred and the hostilities were already latently or subconsciously present.” (P. 96.) By bringing these hostilities to the surface, the Negro was like a physician informing his patient that he has cancer. Therefore, the Negro was doing Whites a service by destroying their country, society, and culture to save them from the rot of racism.

Next, King, condemns Negroes who “have uttered anti-Semitic sentiments.” (P. 97.) However, “the amount of anti-Semitism found among Negroes is no greater than is found among white groups of the same economic strata.” (P. 97.) “The limited degree of Negro anti-Semitism is substantially a Northern ghetto phenomenon; it virtually does not exist in the South.” (P. 97.) (The lack of antisemitism among Southern Negroes may result from a lack of contact that they had with Jews. Familiarity breeds contempt as often as it breeds harmony.) Nevertheless, Jewish maltreatment of Negroes caused the antisemitism of Negroes. (Again, Negroes are not responsible.) Moreover, “Negroes cannot be expected to curb and eliminate the few who are anti-Semitic.” (P. 98.) (Yet, King expected White liberals to curb and eliminate White segregationists.)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Allen.

Part 1, Part 3

More social issues articles.

A Letter: Christian Zionism

A Letter: Christian Zionism

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 2003 to Mr. Rick Wiles, American Freedom Net, Inc., about one of his radio programs where he negatively discussed British or Anglo Identity organizations. Identity folks believed that the ten lost tribes of Israel migrated to and settled in northwest Europe, primarily the British Isles.]

    I agree with you that the same people who control the U.S. government probably control many (perhaps most) of the Identity organizations — the Globalists, Elite, Establishment, Illuminati, Illuminists, etc. The Globalists also control most, if not all, mainline orthodox denominations, organizations, and churches. The mainline denominations are far larger and have much more wealth, power, and influence than the Identity crowd. So, you would get more bang for your minute by vehemently attacking the mainline churches instead of the small almost insignificant Identity crowd.
    The Christian Zionist are a much greater threat to our few remaining freedoms than the Identity crowd. Like the mainline denominations, Christian Zionists far outnumber and have much more wealth, power, and influence than the Identity folks. Furthermore, most of the Christian Zionist organizations are probably fronts for the Mossad or at least controlled by the Mossad, which, like the CIA, is merely a tool of the Globalists.
    Christian Zionists live under the delusion that today’s Jews are God’s chosen people (I always thought Christians were God’s chosen people). They seem willing to defend Israel to the last American. Many even want to rebuild the temple and reinstate the old sacrificial system — both of which God destroyed. (Is not this apostasy?) Christian Zionists are guilty of the same heresy of which you accuse the Identity crowd. The only difference between them is that Christian Zionists have substituted today’s Jews for the Identity’s Northwest Europeans.
    Based on my anti-Zionist comments, I am anti-Semitic. To add to my anti-Semitic commentary, Jewish influence in this country far exceeds their numbers — and if you deny that, you are a liar, and if you admit it you are an anti-Semite. But, then, I am in good company, for Jesus was one of the greatest anti-Semites. He harshly criticized the Jewish leaders of his day. To criticize Jews, especially Jewish leaders as a group, is by definition anti-Semitism.
    Furthermore, I am a racist and a segregationist. Again I stand in good company, for God is a racist and a segregationist.
    To prove that I am a racist, I contend that Negroes (Blacks) are superior to Aryans (Whites) at reproducing at low latitudes. Why? Because dark skin retards ultraviolet light from destroying vitamin B-12, which is essential for reproduction. To proclaim one race is superior to another race in at least one trait is by definition racism.
    To prove that God is a racist and segregationist, He told the Israelites after they left Egypt that he had separated them from other people (Lev. 20:26), which makes Him a segregationist. He told them that He put a difference between them and the Egyptians (Ex. 11:7), which makes Him a racist. Moreover, He created the races.
    Furthermore, God disdains interracial marriage and breeding so much that in Dt. 23:2 He proclaimed that “no half-breed may be admitted to the assembly of Yahweh” (The New Jerusalem Bible). The KJV uses the word “bastard” instead of “half-breed.” However, it uses “bastard” in the sense of “spurious” and “mongrel,” not in the sense of “being born out of wedlock.” (Jephthah was born of a prostitute and out of wedlock. Since he is among the list of heroes in chapter 11 of Hebrews, he is part of God’s congregation.)
    Apparently, you contend that all the races of men descended from Adam. If you believe that, then you are an EVOLUTIONIST. You have accepted the basic premise of evolution: “like beget unlike.” You reject the Biblical principle of “after his kind” or “like beget like.”
    As I reject evolution, I must accept that Adam was the father of only one race. According to his name and the descriptions given to his descendants (they were ruddy and fair: 1 Sam. 16:12, 17:47; 2 Sam. 13:1; Gen. 12:11, 14; 24:16, 26:7; Lam. 4:7), I must conclude that he was the father of the Aryan race.
    God created each race at a different time (“having determined their appointed seasons”) and place (“[having determined] the bounds of their habitation”) — Acts 17:26. To condone interracial marriages and interracial sexual relations is to condone breeding out of existence the races that God created, which is genocide.
    As for Hitler, he was an occultist, whom the Globalists, among whom were Jewish bankers, brought to power to aid them in bringing about a world war. He was also a great benefactor to the Zionists. Zionism would not have advanced nearly as far as it has without him.
    Beyond their advocation of violence with which I disagree, the Identity crowd does have some flawed teachings. The evidence refutes that salvation is available only to Aryans. (Not all Identity folks claim that only Aryans are saved.) Many of them blame all of the world’s problems on Jews. Jews are guilty of causing much of the world’s problems and of pushing the New World Order with its one-world totalitarian government and one-world Pantheistic religion. However, far more non-Jews are involved. (Most Jews are like most Freemasons, and most Democrats and Republicans, for that matter. They do not have a clue about what is going on. They are puppets being used by the New World Order puppeteers and do not even know it.)
    Although some Identity folks claim that Satan is the literal genetic father of today’s Jews, many (perhaps most) Identity folks reject this doctrine. (There is no fundamental difference in this doctrine and the orthodox doctrine that the “sons of God” who married the “daughters of man” in Genesis 6 were fallen angels. Both claim that spiritual beings can interbreed with man. [As a side note, is not it strange that the Nephilim, whom the KJV calls giants, who were supposed to be the product of this unholy union and were supposedly destroyed by the Noahic Flood, were in Palestine at the time of the Israelite invasion?])
    I am not convinced that the Northwest Europeans are the lost tribes of Israel. The lost tribes were submerged into a much larger Aryan population, most of whom now live in Europe. However, I suspect that more chromosomes of the lost tribes are in Europeans than are in today’s Jews. (Most of today’s Jews, the Ashkenazim, are descendants of Turks of the Turanian race and Armenians [and Alpines] of the Aryan race and their hybrids. A small number, the Sephardim, are descendants of the Idumeans, who were mostly of the Melanochroic race and Melanochroic-Aryan hybrids.)
    If you want to learn more about race and the true Biblical view on race mixing, you may purchase my books [Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Mankind; Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis; Integration Is Genocide; and False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of Races and Interracial Marriages] in which I explain them in some detail. Enclosed is my book list. [Editor’s note: Not unsurprisingly, he never bought a book.]

Copyright © 2003, 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen

More religious articles.

Homosexuals

    Homosexuals

    Thomas Allen

    Theologians and ministers who teach the acceptance of sodomy, homosexual activity, are deceiving and misleading their students and congregations. They preach and teach that sodomy is not a sin and that the Bible does not condemn it. Moreover, God considers sodomy, homosexual activity, to be a virtue, or at least something that He finds acceptable. They claim that God does not consider sodomy as a sin.
    Contrary to what these theologians and ministers teach, God condemns homosexual activity as an egregious sin. According to the Bible, God’s word, sodomy ranks with murder as a sin deserving death.
    The first Biblical encounter with homosexuals and their sodomy is the story of Sodom in chapters 18 and 19 of Genesis. Their wickedness was so great that God destroyed Sodom and all its inhabitants.

    Leviticus 18:22: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind [homosexual act]: it is abomination.

    In Leviticus 18:22, God declares sodomy, homosexual acts, to be an abomination. Some newer translations, such as the Living Bible and the New Life Version, translate “lie with mankind, as with womankind” as “homosexual act.” Likewise, they translate this phrase as “homosexual act” in Leviticus 20:13.

    Leviticus 20:13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman [homosexual act], both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

    In Leviticus 20:13, God declares that homosexual acts are such an abhorrent abomination that those guilty of it are to be executed. (As the author of the Torah of which Leviticus is part, Moses is perhaps the greatest of all Jews. By definition, to disagree with a Jew of Moses’ stature is a blatant act of antisemitism. Therefore, anyone who does not believe that homosexuals should not be executed needs to explain his antisemitism.)

    Deuteronomy 23:18: Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore [lesbian], or the price of a dog [male homosexual], into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

    In Deuteronomy 23:18, God again declares sodomy an abomination. Both the Complete Jewish Bible and the Living Bible translate “dog” as “male homosexual.” A male homosexual or sodomite is often called a dog “because of the practice of his vice reminds one of the sexual intercourse of animals.”[1]
    Not only is the homosexual act condemned in the Old Testament, but it is also condemned in the New Testament.

    1 Corinthian’s 6:9-10: [9] Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind [homosexuals], [10] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

    According to 1 Corinthians 6:9, homosexuals will not inherit, possess, the kingdom of God. (See comment below.) Many modern translations translate “abusers of themselves with mankind” as “homosexuals.”

    1 Timothy 1:9-11: [9] Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, [10] For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind [homosexuals], for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; [11] According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

    In Timothy 1:10, homosexuals are listed among the lawless and ungodly. Many modern translations translate “them that defile themselves with mankind” as “homosexuals.”

    Revelation 22:15: For without are dogs [homosexuals], and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

    According to Revelation 22:15, homosexuals are not allowed to enter the New Jerusalem, the Messianic Jerusalem, the eternal city. The Complete Jewish Bible translates “dog” as “homosexual.” (See comment below.)
    As shown, homosexual activity is an abomination. Homosexuals are to be executed. Moreover, they do not inherit the kingdom of God and are not allowed to enter the New Jerusalem.
    Thus, any theologian or minister who teaches or even implies that sodomy is acceptable or that God does not condemn homosexuals is not teaching the Bible, God’s word. He is teaching the doctrines of Lucifer.
    (Comment. Wilkin believes that once a person believes in Jesus, he has everlasting life (John 3:16, 3:36, 5:24, 6:47, 11:26). Furthermore, he cannot lose his salvation once saved (John 10:28-29) regardless of any later sins. In his commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:9-11, he argues that a saved homosexual who continues to perform homosexual acts will not lose his inheritance in the Kingdom of God. He is still allowed to enter the Kingdom of God and still have eternal life.[2]  However, he will have one of the lowest statuses in God’s kingdom. Then he seems to contradict himself with his commentary on Revelations 22:15. He states that “dog” not only includes homosexuals, male prostitutes, but it includes all enemies of God’s word. Thus, sinners will not be part of the New Jerusalem. They are in the lake of fire.[3] Those in the lake of fire endure eternal and unending misery.[4] To endure eternal misery, one must have eternal life. If the saved gain eternal life by believing in Jesus, then in whom or what do the unsaved believe to gain eternal life?)

Endnotes
1. Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Bible Handbook: An Essential Guide to Understanding the Bible (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1966), p. 148.

2.  Robert N. Wilkin, The Grace New Testament Commentary, Vol. 2, “Romans – Revelation” (Denton, Texas: Grace Evangelical Society, 2010), pp. 729-730.

3.  Ibid., p. 1333.

4.  Ibid., p. 1328.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on religion.