The Woke Religion

The Woke Religion

Thomas Allen

In “The woke religion: Worshiping postmodernism, Luciferianism and chaos,” Brandon Smith describes the woke religion. This religion is the religion of wokesters and most of the global elite.

According to Smith, the woke religion is a fusion of three evils: postmodernism, futurism, and Luciferianism. “Postmodernism is the war on objective truth, especially as it applies to human beings. Futurism is the war on the past, cultural heritage and the conservation of traditional values and structures. Luciferianism is the war on God, the denial of natural law and the refusal to accept that there are limits to human understanding and control.” Thus, the woke religion is highly destructive. It seeks to destroy God, traditions, and truths. Typically, adherents of the woke religion are psychopathic, sadistic, narcissistic, reprobate miscreants.

Although it is not an organized religion or church, the woke religion is hierarchical. At the top are the elites, who know the real objectives of the woke religion and work to achieve them. They are akin to cardinals in the Roman Catholic Church or general officers in the military. These elites are true illuminists (See the “Illuminists Series” at https://tcallenco.weebly.com/history.html). 

Next are the elites’ agents and lieutenants, who are the intermediaries between the elite and the useful idiots. They are the equivalent of archbishops and bishops or field officers and company officers. Seldom do the elites give them direct instructions. These intermediaries have a good idea of the elites’ ultimate goals, but most do not know the full extent or details of those goals. They receive most of their instructions indirectly or by osmosis. Mostly, they are so in harmony with the mission of the elites that they need no instructions. This tier provides most of the provocateurs. Primarily, in hopes of gaining wealth and power, they have devoted themselves to the elites. However, if the elites achieve their goals, the elites will liquidate most of them because they know too much and are too much of a threat.

At the bottom of the pyramid are the useful idiots. They are akin to priests and masses or noncommissioned officers and privates. They believe the elites’ propaganda, and most do not have a clue about the elites’ ultimate objectives. Many just enjoy the destruction. Moreover, most do not know that the elites are using them. At this level are the true wokesters and most participants of Antifa. If the elites win, many in this tier will perish because they are no longer useful. Except as tools to achieve their goals, the elites have no use for anyone in this tier.

Unfortunately for humanity, the satanic elites of the woke religion have many useful idiots who are not adherents of the woke religion but who willingly work to achieve the malevolent ends of the woke religion, which is the utter destruction of God’s creation. Some of these useful idiots agree with some of the destructive doctrines of the woke religion. Others ally themselves in hopes of gaining wealth and power. Still, others join because they enjoy destroying, or they merely hate. These useful idiots include politicians and others who have an insatiable lust for power and wealth and many welfare recipients and other members of the parasite classes. Progressives, neoconservatives, technocrats, socialists, communists, fascists, globalists, feminists, egalitarians, Puritan Yankees, Dixiephobes, and relativists are often found among these useful idiots. These useful idiots revealed themselves during the George Floyd riots and demonstrations. Like the useful idiots who follow the woke religion, most of these useful idiots do not know that they are only tools that the illuminist elites are using to achieve their nefarious goals.

Appendix. Wokester

The Urban Dictionary defines “wokester” as (1) “an easily offended 20-something idiot who believes the word ‘woke’ legitimizes their self-centered view of the world. These individuals often lack skills in civil discourse, or an educated background in any subject they rant in,” (2) “a person that lacks basic common sense and decision making skills. This person typically has a below average IQ. . . .” and (3) “a self-righteous person who prefers form over substance. Often a moron and always a pussy.” 

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

King on Pilgrimage to Nonviolence

King on Pilgrimage to Nonviolence

Thomas Allen

In “Pilgrimage to Nonviolence,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 155–164, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses liberal theology, neo-orthodoxy, existentialism, social gospel, Gandhi’s nonviolent tactics, and the influence that they had on him. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King remarks that he was raised in a strict fundamental tradition. However, the theological seminary changed him. He states, “Liberalism provided me with an intellectual satisfaction that I had never found in fundamentalism.” (P. 155.) Thus, he fell in love with liberalism. He writes, “I was absolutely convinced of the natural goodness of man and the natural power of human reason.” (P. 155.)

Later, however, he began to question some theories associated with liberal theology. Nevertheless, the “contribution of liberalism to the philological-historical criticism of biblical literature has been of immeasurable value and should be defended with religious and scientific passion.” (P. 156.)

King “began to question the liberal doctrine of man.” (P. 156.) He “came to recognize the complexity of man’s social involvement and the glaring reality of collective evil.” (P. 156.) (Collective evil rises from the sinful nature of individuals.)

Another problem that King found with liberal theology was that it “overlooked the fact that reason is darkened by sin.” (P. 156.) He discovered that “sin encourages us to rationalize our actions.” (P. 156.) “Reason, devoid of the purifying power of faith, can never free itself from distortions and rationalizations.” (P. 156.) (Thus, King understood the flaws of liberal theology concerning human nature and its underrating sin.)

Although King “rejected some aspects of liberalism, . . . [he] never came to an all-out acceptance of neo-orthodoxy.” (P. 156.) He found liberalism to be too optimistic about human nature and neo-orthodoxy to be too pessimistic. A major problem with neo-orthodoxy is that it “went to the extreme of stressing a God who was hidden, unknown, and ‘wholly other.’” (P. 157.) Moreover, it “fell into a mood of antirationalism and semi-fundamentalism, stressing a narrow uncritical Biblicism.” (P. 157.)

For King, neither liberal theology nor neo-orthodoxy satisfactorily described the nature of man. “A large segment of Protestant liberalism defined man only in terms of his essential nature, his capacity for good; neo-orthodoxy tended to define man only in terms of his existential nature, his capacity for evil.” (P. 157.) King found the truth in a synthesis of the two “that reconciles the truths of both.” (P. 157.)

Then, King discusses his “appreciation for the philosophy of existentialism.” (P. 157.) He was “convinced that existentialism . . . had grasped certain basic truths about man and his condition. . . .” (P. 157.) Existentialism gave King an “understanding of the ‘finite freedom’ of man.” (P. 157.) Also, it gave him an understanding “of the anxiety and conflict produced in man’s personal and social life by the perilous and ambiguous structure of existence.” (P. 157.)

Continuing, King remarks that after entering the theological seminary, he began  “a serious intellectual quest for a method that would eliminate social evil.” (P. 158.) (That is, granting Negroes special privileges and benefits and discriminating against Whites.) He “was immediately influenced by the social gospel.” (P. 158.) (That is preaching socialism and communism instead of the gospel of Jesus and worshiping the state instead of the Father of Jesus.)

Then, King writes, “The gospel at its best deals with the whole man, not only his soul but also his body, not only his spiritual well-being but also his material well-being.” (P. 159.) He chastises religions that express concern for the soul but little concern “about the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them, and the social conditions that cripple them.” (P. 159.) These religions are spiritually moribund. (Today, most denominations have followed King’s advice and have focused on man’s economic and social conditions at the expense of focusing on the salvation of his soul and morality. As a result, they have become spiritually moribund.)

Next, King discusses his encounter with the teachings of Gandhi, which taught him about nonviolent resistance. (King was a poor student because nearly everywhere he went, he left a trail of blood and destruction. Basically, his nonviolent tactic was to create a situation that would cause a violent reaction from his opponent. Despite his denial, such a tactic is not nonviolent.) He concludes “that the Christian doctrine of love, operating through the Gandhian method of nonviolence, is one of the most potent weapons available to an oppressed people in their struggle for freedom.” (P. 159.) (Contrary to his assertions, King failed at merging love with nonviolence. Never did he show any love for segregationists and seldom for Southerners. Moreover, many of his protests were filled with violence. Most of the others threatened violence if Whites did not surrender unconditionally to King’s demands.)

Although the Montgomery protest was violent, King claimed that it convinced him of the power of nonviolence. (As most of his later protests were violent or threatened violence, he must have been convinced that nonviolence would not achieve his goals. His preaching of nonviolence was for propaganda purposes.) He declares, “Nonviolence became more than a method to which I gave intellectual assent; it became a commitment to a way of life.” (P. 160.) (Based on his action, King gave nonviolence only intellectual assent, but he never committed to it as a way of life — except in words.)

Next, King comments on his pilgrimage to India. He witnessed “the amazing results of a nonviolent struggle to achieve independence. The aftermath of hatred and bitterness that usually follows a violent campaign was found nowhere in India.” (P. 160.) Great Britain and India remained friendly within the British Commonwealth. (First, politically, the British left India. Although King may have wanted many Whites to have no political voice in the United States, he wanted to increase the political voice of Negroes. If India is an analogy for the United States, the Whites, who are the majority, would be the Indians, and the minority Negroes would be the British and, therefore, leave the country or at least eliminate their political influence. Second, King proved that his protests were violent because their aftermath left hatred and bitterness. Only the victors hated and were bitter. Even decades after the Negroes won everything that King fought for and more, the destructiveness of the “peaceful” demonstrations of Black Lives Matter revealed the hatred and bitterness that the victors had for the defeated.)

Then, King notes that following the Montgomery protest, many Southerners were bitter toward the Negro leaders “even though these leaders have sought to follow a way of love and nonviolence.” (P. 161.) (First, the Montgomery protest was violent. King and his followers had created a situation that they knew would result in violence. Second, many Southerners correctly saw that King had initiated a war to destroy the South and its society and culture and eventually to genocide Southerners. Love does not cause people to seek the destruction and genocide of an ethnicity. Since King sought to destroy the South, love did not guide him.)

Continuing, King asserts that the nonviolent approach gives people who are committed to it “new self-respect. It calls up resources of strength and courage that they did not know they had.” (P. 161.) Moreover, “it so stirs the conscience of the opponent that reconciliation becomes a reality.” (P. 161.) (Reconciliation never became a reality. King and other civil rights leaders forced Southerners and later the remainder of American Whites to surrender unconditionally.)

Next, King discusses using “the method of nonviolence in international relations.” (P. 161.) Once, he believed that war “might be preferable to surrender to a totalitarian system.” (P. 161.) However, he later changed his mind because of “the potential destructiveness of modern weapons.” (P. 161.) (How much did his Communist advisors have to do with King changing his mind? Further, when his association with Communists and his Communist training are considered, one must wonder if his definition of peace was a lack of violence or a lack of resisting Communism. Judging from his actions, one must conclude that he meant the latter.) Correctly, he asserts that “we must find an alternative to war and destruction.” (P. 161.) (Unfortunately, King did not find an alternative to war. He and his followers warred against the South and then the rest of the country. Moreover, King’s followers have continued to war against Whites long after Whites had surrendered unconditionally to the Negroes — as Black Lives Matter protests and riots illustrate.)

Correctly, King states that he is no doctrinarian pacifist. (He proved that he was not with his war against the South.) He contends that the church “must call for an end to the arms race.” (P. 161.)

Then, King discusses his sufferings and the lessons that they taught him. Instead of reacting with bitterness, he sought “to transform the suffering into a creative force.” (P. 162.) His suffering drew him closer to God. (Whether his God is Yahweh, the Father of Jesus, is debatable.) 

In closing, King rejoices in his coming victory. However, he errs when he writes, “Old systems of exploitation and oppression are passing away; new systems of justice and equality are being born.” (P. 163.) (Unfortunately, the old system of exploitation and oppression was replaced by a new system of exploitation and oppression. Nevertheless, more equality exists today than when he wrote. However, since equality requires exploitation and oppression, more exploitation and oppression exist today than then. As a result, less justice exists today — for example, sending innocent Whites, such as  Derek Chauvin, to prison. Nevertheless, King would have little objection to today’s exploitation and oppression because Negroes are exploiting and oppressing Whites.)

King has a good understanding of some of the flaws of liberal theology. With a good degree of accuracy, he discusses flaws of both liberal theology and neo-orthodoxy and how each fails to describe correctly the nature of man. Further, he discusses how existentialism influenced him and his journey down the road of the social gospel. Also, he discusses his use of Gandhi’s technique. However, he fails to discuss his Communist training, such as the training that he received at the Highlander Folk School run by Marxist Myles Horton.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

The Real King

 The Real King

Thomas Allen

Most conservatives claim that Martin Luther King, Jr., is an archconservative. Many believe that he is the greatest conservative ever. Some have even deified him.

These conservatives present King as a nonviolent man of peace who abhorred violence. Let us see what King’s speeches and writings reveal in I Have a Dream: Writings and Speeches that Changed the World (James Washington, ed., Harper Collins Publishers, 1986, 1982) — specifically “I Have a Dream (1963), “ “Letter from a Birmingham Jail (1963),” and “The Time for Freedom Has Come” (1961).

In his “I Have a Dream” speech, King says, “There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day justice emerges.” (p. 103.) Thus, King, the man of nonviolence, promises turmoil and riots until the Negro gets what he wants, which is everything that the White man has.

Continuing, King asks, “‘When will you be satisfied?’ We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality.” (p. 104.) As long as the police use physical force against Negroes regardless of their guilt or resistance, the Negro will not be satisfied. The Negro must be allowed to riot without any penalty, and for the most part, they have been granted this privilege. Moreover, they are often rewarded for their rioting and looting.

Undertaking an action, such as trespassing, that could lead to a violent reaction is not a nonviolent act, even if it is called peaceful protest or civil disobedience. This is especially true if the purpose of the “nonviolent” act is to create tension leading to a violent response as King’s protests often did.

King has a reputation for being a nonviolent, peace-loving person. However, as revealed in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” he did not shy away from situations that he knew would result in violence. He threatened and even created turmoil to force community leaders to negotiate with him (p. 87), i.e., to surrender unconditionally to his demands.

In this letter, King writes that just laws are to be obeyed and unjust laws are to be ignored because it is not a law (p. 89). He writes, “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. . . . [A]n unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law.” (p. 89.) In King’s mind, laws forcing integration are just and should be obeyed, but laws forcing segregation are unjust and should be disobeyed. King errs. Since God separated the races (Acts 17:26: “. . . having determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation”) and ordained that they should not intermingle and intermarry, then racial segregation laws are just and racial integration laws are unjust. (God is the Great Segregationist. He brought about the greatest segregations ever recorded: the Towel of Babel and the Noachian Flood.)

Continuing, King writes, “. . . segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality.” (p. 89) Contrary to what King asserts, segregation laws are just and moral because they preserve the soul and personality of the races, but integration laws are unjust and immoral because they destroy the soul and personality of the races. Integration even leads to the genocide of the races.

Further, in this letter, King claims that segregation laws apply to Negroes but not to Whites (p. 89). Under a segregated school system, Negroes were assigned to Negro schools and Whites were assigned to White schools. Thus, the school segregation laws applied equally to both races. This was also true of most other segregated venues. (Negroes now demand the right to segregate themselves from Whites while wanting to prevent Whites from segregating from Negroes.)

Moreover, King considered White moderates a greater threat to racial integration than rabid segregationists. These moderates, like today’s liberals, were paternalistic toward Negroes (p. 91).

Also, King condemned passive Negroes for their complacency and the middle-class Negroes who prospered from segregation. They should eagerly and aggressively seek equality with Whites. Moreover, he condemned embittered Negroes who advocated violence and black nationalists. They should seek integration instead of separation (p. 91.)

Furthermore, in this letter, King writes, “If his [the Negro’s] repressed emotions do not come out in these nonviolent ways, they will come out in ominous expressions of violence.” Thus, King warns that if Whites do not surrender unconditionally to the Negro’s demands, violence will follow. Not only have Whites surrendered unconditionally, but many Whites also beg to be genocided. Yet, the Negro is still not satisfied.

Continuing, King writes, “Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love?” Based on the actions of King and his followers, they were extremists for hate. They expressed a great deal of hate toward Southerners and segregationists. Their actions caused people who otherwise love Negroes to hate them — or at least hated what they were doing. Worse, they caused Whites to hate Whites to the point that today many Whites want to genocide Whites.

King condemned the Birmingham police for their nonviolent handling of the demonstrators. Since the police were protecting segregation with nonviolent means, they were acting morally to preserve an immoral end — segregation — according to King. Near the end of his letter, King writes that “it is wrong . . . to use moral means to preserve immoral ends.”(p. 99.) (As noted above, King is wrong. Biblically, segregation is a moral end and integration is an immoral end.) King seems to have desired a violent reaction to the demonstration — so much for him being a man of peace.

In his article “The Time for Freedom Has Come,” King writes, “Paradoxically, although they [Negro students] have embraced Thoreau’s and Gandhi’s civil disobedience on a scale dwarfing any past experience in American history, they do respect law. They feel a moral responsibility to obey just laws. But they recognize that there are also unjust laws.” (pp. 79-80.) If Biblical laws and principles are just, as King affirms, then segregation is just while integration is unjust. From Genesis to Revelations, the Bible preaches racial segregation and at times ethnic segregation while condemning integration. (See “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?,” “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation,” and “Is Integration a Moral Law?” by Thomas Allen.)

Correctly, King writes that “an unjust law is one that is out of harmony with the moral law of the universe.” (p. 80.) However, he is wrong to consider segregational laws unjust. On the contrary, segregational laws are just while integrational laws are unjust. Segregational laws comport with the Scriptures; integrational laws do not.

Continuing, King writes that “an unjust law is one in which the minority is compelled to observe a code that is not binding on the majority.” (p. 80). Based on this remark, segregational laws were not unjust. Most were binding on Whites as well as Negroes. As noted above, segregated schools are a prime example of laws binding on both races. Laws prohibiting interracial marriage are another example.

Next, King writes, “An unjust law is one in which people are required to obey a code that they had no part in making because they were denied the right to vote.” (p. 80.) If true, the ten commandments and the other laws that Moses wrote in the Old Testament are unjust because no one had any part in making them. Throughout most of history, all laws have been unjust because people who were required to obey them had no part in making them. Even today, the same is true for minors because they have no part in making laws that apply to them.

In this article, King writes, “They [students] are seeking to save the soul of America.” (p. 81.) Unless the soul of America is large-scale enslavement of Negroes to the government via the welfare state, protection for all sorts of perversions (homosexualism, transgenderism, etc.), wokeism, and flooding the country with legal and illegal nonwhite immigrants, they failed. Nevertheless, if these evils, which seem to be what King wanted, are the soul of America, they succeeded. Moreover, if saving the soul of America required turning the United States into a communist country, which King wanted to do, they succeeded. (Communists backed King because he was instrumental in turning the United States into a communist country, and he was highly successful. The United States have implemented about 80 percent of the planks in the Communist Manifesto — see “Are the United States a Communist Country?” by Thomas Allen.) 

Further, King writes that “if our national government would exercise its full powers to enforce federal laws and court decisions and do so on a scale commensurate with the problems and with an unmistakable decisiveness,” the country could rid itself of the Jim Crow system. (p. 81). Thus, he shows his disdain for the Constitution and federalism when he writes that we could quickly and easily get rid of the Jim Crow system by using the brute force of the federal government, which was done.

Although King filled his speeches and writings with the word “nonviolence,” he left a trail of blood, destruction, and violence everywhere he went. So much for this man of peace.

King’s rhetoric cultivated Black hatred of Whites and turned Negrophilic Whites against realistic Whites. King is responsible for much of what is happening in America today that conservatives find abhorrent. Political correctness and wokeism are natural-outgrowth of King’s movement. However, King’s movement did lead to many special privileges for Negroes — privileges that Whites have never enjoyed.

Moreover, King implies that Negroes have no responsibility for their problems. The cause of all their problems is the White man — especially, Whites who believe that the White race is worth preserving and that next to physical separation, segregation is the best way to preserve the White race. Moreover, segregation also preserves the Negro while integration leads to his genocide.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

The Heritage Foundation on Critical Race Theory

The Heritage Foundation 

on Critical Race Theory

Thomas Allen

The Heritage Foundation (HF) has published a pamphlet titled Critical Race Theory: Knowing It When You See It and Fighting It When You Can. It discusses some errors and flaws of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and why it is wrong. In so doing, HF  reveals the defecation of neoconservatism: Its opposition is presented from a neoconservative perspective. HF’s arguments are based on racial nihilism and equality (as opposed to equity).

HF asserts that “in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the government rejected racial discrimination.” Regardless of its wording, this Act did not reject racial discrimination. Instead, it led to discrimination against Whites in favor of Blacks with quotas, affirmative action, and other privileges for Blacks.

Next, HF declares that “the civil rights movement affirmed that prejudice has no place in American life.” That is a lie. The civil rights movement has been built on prejudice against Whites.

Moreover, initially, the civil rights movement was aimed at the South although Southerners possessed no prejudice against Blacks. Collins English Dictionary defines prejudice as “an opinion formed beforehand, esp an unfavourable one based on inadequate facts.” Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary defines prejudice as “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.” The attitudes of Southerners toward Blacks were based on 400 years of observation, knowledge, thought, reason, and facts. They were not prejudging against Blacks. However, prejudice against Blacks may have existed in the North and West in areas where Blacks were rare.

Further, HF claims that “the vast majority of Americans we work and worship with, live and learn alongside, embrace the equal rights and dignity of all.” Thus, HF reveals its racial nihilism and support of policies that lead to the genocide of Blacks. Such a utopia exists only in the nightmares of self-loathing Whites and racial nihilists, nearly all of whom are White. If it were not for governmental coercion, much of this apparent harmonious integration and amalgamation would vaporize. Except for racial nihilists and those who hate their race, most people prefer associating with people of their own race. Moreover, the actions of most nonwhites show that they want to be superior to Whites and not just their equal.

HF notes that CRT “champions curricula and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs that separate individuals by race.” Separating individuals by race perseveres the races and is biblically supported. Apparently, HF prefers genocide. It wants to integrate and amalgamate the races, which is genocide.

Moreover, diversity and inclusion are incompatible. If diversity is to be preserved, segregation and separation are necessary. Inclusion requires integration and amalgamation.

HF idolizes the conglomeration of the races in America. Again, HF promotes breaking up the country, a civil war with one race dominating the other races, or genocide of the races via amalgamation into motley mongrel man. Amalgamation seems to be HF’s choice.

HF worships the civil rights movement though most of the problems that the country faces today have grown from the mentality that brought about the civil rights movement. (At the foundation of the civil rights movement were communists, and most of the problems of the country have grown from the communist mentality — see, “Are the United States a Communist Country?” by Thomas Allen.)

Although CRT errs in blaming the failure of Blacks on White, its solution is not as destructive as HE’s are. (Blacks are the blame for their failures; they need to accept responsibility for their own actions and the outcome of those actions.) HF’s solution is genocide via the amalgamation of the races into motley mongrel man.

Also, CRT errs in asserting the existence of White privileges. Whatever privileges that Whites may have had are long dead. Today, only nonwhites, especially Blacks, have special privileges.

One condemnation of CRT that HF has is its communist origin. Yet, HF has no qualms about the communist origins of the civil rights movement.

HF states that “children from intact families are less likely to spend time in prison or face poverty than children from non-intact families.” During the Jim Crow Era, most Black families were intact families, but during the Civil Rights Era, many Black families have become non-intact families. Yet, HF condemns the Jim Crow Era while praising the Civil Rights Era.

While CRT opposes meritocracy, HF supports it. In spite of meritocracy leaving Blacks in general at the bottom of the economic ladder, HF supports it. In the market system of the United States, which rewards merit when government coercion is absent, Whites, Turanians (primarily, East Asians), and Melanochroi (primarily Asian Indians and Pakistanis) in general will do much better than Blacks.

If admission to colleges and universities depended solely on merit, more Whites would go to colleges, and fewer Blacks would go — especially at the more prestigious universities.

HF favors school choice. Parents should be allowed to choose which school to send their children to. If White parents wanted to send their children to a school that allowed only White students, would HF find this acceptable? Likewise, with Black parents wanting to send their children to schools that only allowed Black students, would HF find this acceptable? It would probably condemn these choices and support outlawing such schools. Why? Because it wants to genocide Blacks — at least the policies that it promotes lead to the genocide of Blacks.

If the policies promoted by HF are implemented to their fullest, Blacks will fail behind White and other races educationally and economically because of the connate disabilities of Blacks, i.e., because of genetics. CRT recognizes this outcome; that is why it promotes special privileges for Blacks and the suppression of Whites.

HF offers two definitions of “equality”; both are chimeras. One is equal treatment under the law, and the other is equal opportunity.

Because people differ, true equality under the law is an illusion. The closest approach to it is everyone is arrested by the same officer and tried by the same judge and jury with the same defense attorney and prosecutor. Even then, equality would not be achieved because people differ on different days. 

Even in a more general sense, equality before the law cannot exist because of discretion. Thus, to start approaching equality before the law, law enforcers, prosecutors, and judges have to be stripped of any discretion. Even jury nullification, the bulwark against tyranny, has to be forbidden.

In “Gottfried and Equality,” I describe the delusion of equality of opportunity. A five-foot, fat, klutz does not have the same opportunity of becoming a professional basketball center as does a seven-foot, agile, athlete.  A dimwit does not have the same opportunity of becoming a doctor or engineer with a Ph.D. as does a genius. Genetics denies people equal opportunity.

The underlying principle of equality before the law and equality of opportunity is that everyone is identical. If that were true, everyone would have an equal outcome.

Because genetics discriminates against Blacks in most endeavors, CRT preaches equity, equality of outcome. A society can come closer to achieving equality of outcome than achieving equality of opportunity. Governmental coercion can cause equality of outcome, equity, to be approached. Genetics prevents equality of opportunity from ever being approached.

CRT leads to discrimination, demonization, and hatred of Whites and to granting special privileges to Blacks. HF’s policies lead to the genocide of Blacks and Whites. Under CRT, Blacks win and Whites lose. Under HF’s policies, both Blacks and Whites lose.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles. 

Some Comments on Blacks

Some Comments on Blacks

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are judging people by their character and not their race, comparison of antebellum Blacks to today’s Blacks, the Jim Crow Era.

Judging by Character and Not by Race
Most White libertarians, conservatives, liberals, and progressives like to boast about not noticing a person’s race. That is, they like to boast about being racial nihilists. They cite M.L. King’s statement: “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

However, in noticing a person’s race, White liberals and progressives far exceed libertarians and conservatives in their hypocrisy. White liberals and progressives are quick to notice a person’s race when elevating a nonwhite above a White, when praising a nonwhite race, or when castigating the White race. Most White conservatives seem to suffer from some kind of disassociation disorder. They want to be politically correct and not notice a person’s race. Yet, they also hesitate to dishonor their ancestors and commit racial genocide. Having a suicidal ideology, libertarians are most consistent at being racial nihilists.

Most nonwhites do not have the racial problems that inflict Whites. They acknowledge that they are a genetic people, and most still believe that their genetics are worth preserving. Many Whites are torn between considering themselves a genetic people or a propositional people where race and, therefore, genetics are irrelevant, and the White race is not worth saving. Regrettably, for the White race, many Whites, especially neoconservatives, libertarians, liberals, and progressives have decided that they are a propositional people.

Now, let us return to judging people by character and not by race. While one of these White people is walking down the street in Detroit, for example, he encounters a group of Black teenage boys heading toward him. On the other side of the street is a group of White teenage boys. (1) Is he going to hurry toward the Blacks and interview them and then cross the street and interview the Whites so that he can discern their character? To carry out this approach, he has to command the Whites remain where they are while he interviews the Blacks and the Blacks remain where they are while he interviews the Whites. (2) Is he going to continue to walk toward the Blacks to prove that he is not a racist, not prejudice, not bias, and does not judge people by their race? (3) Or, is he going to play the odds by crossing the street where the White boys are, thus showing that he judges people by their race? Be honest, which would you do?

Blacks Then and Now
In antebellum times, the plantation owner provided his Blacks with free housing, free food, and free medical care. Today, the United States government and State and local governments provide their Blacks with free housing, free food, and free medical care. Moreover, they outdo the plantation owner by providing their Blacks with even more free stuff.

However, some important differences exist between the two. By requiring his Blacks to work for their keep, the plantation owner gave his Blacks some sense of dignity. Moreover, he paid for their keep with his money. Governments do not require work from their Blacks; thus, they make their Blacks parasites. Furthermore, governments reward their Blacks for not working. Even worst, they reward their Blacks with other people’s money.

Fortunately, some Blacks have freed themselves from the plantation mentality. Unfortunately, many Blacks have not freed themselves from the plantation mentality. For them, freedom means freedom from work.

Jim Crow
Most commentators harshly condemn the Jim Crow Era of segregation for its cruelty, injustice, discrimination, etc. Little is said or written about that era that is positive.

The primary difference between Jim Crow in the North and the South is that in the North restrictions on Blacks was by custom. In the South, they were by statue. These restrictions on Blacks were also restrictions on Whites; thus, these restrictions worked in both directions. (One Black noted that Jim Crow in the South was better than Jim Crow in the North. At least in the South, a Black knew in which restaurants he could and could not eat. However, in the North, a Black had to endure the embarrassment of not being waited on to know that he was not allowed to eat there.)

Nevertheless, the Jim Crow Era did have a positive effect on Blacks. It gave them independence and taught them to rely on themselves — collectively and individually — and not to rely on whitey. Unlike today, when Blacks receive preference for welfare to Whites, under Jim Crow, Whites received preference. Therefore, Blacks had to rely more on themselves during the Jim Crow Era than now.

Moreover, the Jim Crow Era created a growing Black middle class. For that reason, the Communist strove to replace Jim Crow with civil rights and integration. They were highly successful. After the Civil Rights Era of integration supplanted the Jim Crow Era, Blacks became ever more dependent on the government. Via the welfare state, they became slaves of the great White plantation master in Washington and his overseers in the State capitals.

During the Jim Crow Era, Blacks had a higher moral standard than they have had under the Civil Rights Era. Then, they had more families with both a father and a mother than now. They had a lower percentage of children born out of wedlock than now. Also, Black sacrificed far fewer of their children to Lucifer at the abortion clinics than now. Moreover, the rate of crime for Blacks then was lower than now.

During the Jim Crow Era, few Americans suffered from the mental illnesses of Confederaphobia, Dixiephobia, albusphobia, and racial nihilism. Nearly all adhered to the old morality of racial preservation, especially the preservation of one’s own race. In the Civil Rights Era, a large and growing number of Americans suffer from Confederaphobia, Dixiephobia, albusphobia, and racial nihilism. Although most nonwhites still follow the old morality, most Whites now follow the new morality of sacrificing the races, especially the White race, on the altar of humanity.

Whereas Jim Crow laws gave Whites advantages over Blacks, Civil Rights laws give Blacks advantages over Whites. Further, Civil Rights laws give Blacks more advantages than Jim Crow laws ever gave Whites. 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 — especially Southerners and their society and culture.

The Jim Crow Era ended with the last major White resistance to forced integration, which occurred in Boston in the mid 1970s. Thus, ended Jim Crow.

Nevertheless, contrary to the popular myth, Blacks had many advantages and benefits under Jim Crow that they have lost during the Civil Rights Era.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

John Birch Society and Segregation

John Birch Society and Segregation

Thomas Allen

In the April 23, 2020, online New American, Alex Newman writes an article, “NeverTrumper Lies About Birch Society & Schlafly in ‘Daily Beast.’” In this article, he refutes what Ronald Radosh wrote about Phyllis Schlafly in “Phyllis Schlafly, ‘Mrs. America,’ Was a Secret Member of the John Birch Society,” the Daily Beast,  April 20, 2020.  Newman writes that Radosh is “a former Communist Party USA operative turned NeverTrump neoconservative Buckleyite.”

The discussion that follows is about what Newman writes about the John Birch Society (JBS) and its founder Robert Welch and their support of integration instead of what he writes about Schlafly. Most of what Newman writes in his article focuses on the JBS and Welch’s opposition to racial segregation and support of racial integration.

On racial issues, Welch and the JBS were at the forefront of political correctness. While attacking communism and communists, they supported the communist organized and led desegregation-integration movement.

Newman ardently objects to Radosh’s characterization of the JBS as a “far-right group infamous for its support of segregation.” On the contrary, the JBS was and still is dedicated to integration and, apparently, everything that has grown out of integration, such as, Black privileges and the movement to genocide the White race — although, most likely, Newman would argue otherwise.

Noting that the JBS has never supported segregation, Newman lists several notable Black activists who were members of the JBS: George Schuyler, Manning Johnson, and Julia Brown. Continuing, he adds that members of the JBS “helped lead the fight against racism, racial collectivism, government-enforced segregation, discrimination, and so on.” Except for racial collectivism, progressives, liberals, and communists also fought against these things.

Although it may have opposed governmental-enforced integration, the JBS has never been as vigorous in opposing government-enforced integration as it was in opposing government-enforced segregation. Moreover, it seems to have accepted segregation by custom (the Northern approach) while opposing government-enforced segregation (the Southern approach). Thus, the JBS is a right-wing Puritan Yankee organization out to reconstruct Southerners into its own image. (Most Southerners never wanted to force segregation in the North. However, most Northerners wanted to force integration in the South, but not in the North.)

Although Welch was a Southerner, he was a scalawag par excellence. Obviously, he believed that the Radical Republicans failed to remake the Southerner into the image of the Puritan Yankee.  Consequently, he sought to finish their work. While he failed to replace segregation with integration, the communists succeeded.

Newman remarks that National Review and its founder, William Buckley,  supported segregation into the 1960s. He condemns Buckley for claiming that Whites were more advance than Blacks and that Southerners should suppress voting by Blacks to preserve civilization. Apparently, Newman believes that the civilization of post-civil-rights America, with its increased sexual promiscuity, divorces, acceptance of homosexual marriages, abortions, crimes by Blacks, lost liberties, socialism, police state, drug abuse, power of the Establishment, etc., is superior the civilization to pre-civil-rights America.

Even as late as the mid-1960s, Buckley was fighting a rearguard action to save the White race and Western Civilization, while the JBS and Welch were rejoicing covertly their demise —at least that has been the result of their war against racial separation. (The communists knew this destructive result of integration, which is why they fought for it.) Later, Buckley repented his evil ways and adopted the politically correct racial view that Whites, especially Southerners, are the vilest creatures in the Universe — Welch would have been proud of him.

Next, Newman writes that Welch wrote an article, “A Letter to the South,” in which he argues against segregation in the South. In that article, Welch argues “that segregation was on its way out, that this demise was a good thing, and that the communist exploitation of the “civil rights” cause had set back this progress by a generation.” Welch was wrong. Within a decade after this article, the communist lead civil rights movement had won; integration had replaced segregation in the South. Only mop-up operations against the few remaining renegades and expansion into the North remained. Because of this victory for which Welch longed, the White race is on its way to extinction —and the American Black may not be far behind.

Although Welch condemned communist racial agitators for stirring up racial hatred and for impeding integration, they did achieve victory quickly and completely. For this victory, Welch should have been glad. Was Welch’s hostility toward the communists coming from his lust for glory, i.e., he wanted the credit for ending segregation in the South? Does this explain the hostility of the JBS toward communists?

On racial issues, Welch was an extremely progressive and indefatigable promoter of racial equality, which is among the most detrimental hoaxes that the Establishment, the ruling elite, has ever advanced. (For the unbiased, science has proven that the races are not equal. They differ in physical abilities, intelligence, temperament and many other aspects. As history has shown, races differ in their abilities to develop civilizations, technologies, and many other things.)

Being racial egalitarians, Welch and his fellow Birchers are a step away from being full-fledged socialist and communists. They believe that the several races of men are identical in attributes. Except for a few external physical features, which no one but a liar can deny, the races are identical and, therefore, equal. (Nevertheless, the races of man differ in blood and bone, which are not readily visible.) If the attributes of the races are identical and equal, then the attributes of each individual comprising the races must be identical and equal. From this egalitarian notion, socialists, especially communists, derive the logical conclusion that each individual should, therefore, be equal in wealth. However, Birchers have not come to this logical conclusion of racial equality. Consequently, they are not as logical in their reasoning as are socialists and communists. Is because the egalitarianism of the communists is more consistent and logical than that of the Birchers a reason that Birchers despise communism?

In the 1950s, most Southerners, both liberals and conservatives, and many Northerners opposed race-mixing. Only communists and their kindred and Birchers favored race-mixing, which leads to miscegenation, which is genocide — the destruction of the races. Thus, integration is genocide.

Apparently, Welsh and the Birchers who followed him in advocating integration did not care about the Black man. If they did, they would not have pushed policies that would eventually lead to his death.

Welch “openly promoted and supported an end to segregation” because ending segregation would result in “exposing evildoers and reduce government.” One must wonder what drugs Welch was taking to believe this nonsense. The death of segregation birthed an explosion in the size of the government. (More government is needed to enforce integration than segregation because integration is unnatural.)  Moreover, what vile evildoer has been exposed and, if exposed, has suffered any penalty?

Much of the hostility of the JBS and Welch toward communists and communism seems to come from the civil rights movement. While the JBS failed to replace segregation with integration, the communists succeeded. Does much of the JBS hatred of communists come from the communists succeeding where the JBS failed?

Welch is not the only leader of the JBS to support genocide via race-mixing. JBS President Emeritus John McManus also promotes genocide via race-mixing. (Also, see “A Letter: Miscegenation” by Thomas Allen.) Unlike most Blacks and other nonwhites, Welch and his fellow Birchers are racial nihilists who follow the new morality.

NOTE:
According to Eustace Mullins (Murder by Injection: The Story of the Medical Conspiracy Against America, 1988, page 200), the Rockefellers sponsored the JBS. Nelson Rockefeller bought the Welch Candy Company from Robert Welch, a 32nd degree Freemason, for a handsome price. For the principal officers of the JBS, Welch chose from his acquaintances at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). (Years later, the JBS would attack the CFR as a more dangerous group than the Communist party. Because of the support that the CFR gave the Soviet Union through its control of the US government, multinational corporations, and international financiers, the Soviet Union lived decades longer than it would have lasted without such aid.) As Buckley, who was a CIA operative (and a member of the CFR and Skull and Bones), and his National Review were established to control conservatives and the Right, so Welch and the JBS seemed to have been established for the same purpose. When the JBS credibility began to fade, Buckley gave the JBS free publicity by attacking it in his magazine.

According to Mark Hines (“A Good Reason to Leave the John Birch Society: Masonic Roots of Mormonism,” The Federal Observer, Vol. 06, No. 343, Dec. 10, 2006, http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=8610, accessed Dec. 10, 2006), the JBS “is a front organization set up to attract and control unsuspecting Patriots that wish to band together to make a difference in our Country.” He criticizes the JBS for collecting a great deal of money and expending much time and energy without ever accomplishing anything. Hines discovered that Mormons controlled the JBS. The Mormons had a different, even the opposite, agenda than the common members. Mormons pushed the Freemasonry agenda of globalism, which the common Bircher vehemently opposed.

In Kangaroo Court Versus the John Birch Society (“The Belmont Brotherhood,” http://watch.pair.com/belmont. May 5, 2006.), A.J. MacDonald discusses some founders and council members of the JBS and their connection with the Establishment, Insiders, Ruling Elite, Globalists, or whatever one wants to call them. Moreover, Welch’s view of Christianity is similar to that of an ultra-liberal “Christian” — far more humanistic, communistic, Masonic, and Illuministic than Christian. (Perhaps, this explains why Welch promoted policies that would lead to the genocide of the races that God created.) About Welch, Nicholas J. Bove, Jr. writes, “Welch has provided the most valuable service of all time to the Conspiracy. He founded an organization to neutralize millions of Americans from discovering what the true power behind the Illuminati really was.” (“The Belmont Brotherhood,” op. cit.)

According to Dr. Henry Makow, before founding the JBS, Welch had been a member of the Communist (Trotskyite) front League of Industrial Democracy ("The Zionist Billionaires Who Control Politics," Feb. 23, 2011, http://www.henrymakow.com/koch.html, accessed Feb. 24, 2011).

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

A Letter: South Africa

A Letter: South Africa

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1986 responding to an article by Ms. Frances Kendall in Reason magazine.]

    The solution to South Africa's problem offered by Frances Kendall is interesting. If implemented, I would be surprised that her solution would work without some significant changes. Based on the information in her article, her solution contains several major flaws.
    First, she recommends drawing cantonal boundaries without regard to tribal or racial boundaries. Thus, she proposes to commit the same error that has been committed in the rest of Africa. The colonial powers drew political boundaries with little regard to tribal or ethnic boundaries. When they withdrew, the colonial boundaries remained. The result of this disregard for tribal and ethnic boundaries has led to oppression and bloodshed all over Africa. This has happened in spite of the constitutions that most of these countries have which guarantee all sorts of rights for the people. There is no reason to believe that South Africa would be any different. Besides, most Swiss cantons are racially, ethnically, and culturally homogeneous. The German-Swiss and French-Swiss have much more in common than do the Zulu and Xhosa, who are traditional enemies. They certainly have much more in common than these two tribes have with the Afrikaner.
    Another flaw is the erroneous belief that a bill of rights is compatible with democracy. A bill of rights is as antidemocratic as a true monarchy. In a democracy the majority rules. The will of the majority must prevail if democracy is to live. The purpose of a bill of rights is to limit the political power of the rulers, which in a democracy is the majority. But if the power of the majority is limited, i.e., the majority cannot change the bill of rights at its whim, then some sort of minority rule exists. Where a minority rules, a democracy cannot exist.
    Another flaw is the absurd idea that the antidiscrimination provisions of the constitution would be used only against the central and cantonal governments, but not against private companies, associations, and individuals. One needs only to look at the Second Reconstruction of the South in the United States to see how ridiculous this concept is. During the Second Reconstruction of the South, antidiscrimination laws have been aimed as much at, or perhaps even more so, the private sector as they have been aimed at the State and local governments. There is no reason to believe that the Black rulers of South Africa would allow Whites even in a totally White canton to refuse to sell, rent, or provide services to a Black who enters or tries to enter that canton.
    She also proposes to allow communists and other terrorists to participate in formulating a new government for South Africa. Unless she desires despotic socialism, which she seems to abhor, allowing communists to participate is highly questionable. Although there may be one, I know of no instance in the third world where communists have been allowed to participate in formulating a government without the communists or at least despotic socialists eventually ruling.
    In her article, she offers no method to keep the central government from becoming more powerful by usurping the rights and powers of the cantonal governments and the people as the central government has done in the United States and, to a lesser degree perhaps, in Switzerland. Most likely, the usurpation would occur more quickly and more completely in South Africa for at least two reasons. First, there is no tradition of independent cantonal government. Second, her solution seems to require the central government to antedate or be created simultaneously with the cantonal governments; thus, the cantonal governments will appear to be creations of the central government.
    The only difference between her solution and the predictions of the prophets of doom is the method by which the Afrikaner will perish and the amount of time involved. If war comes as the prophets of doom predict, the Afrikaner may perish. But he will die like a man fighting for his race, culture, and homeland. (Oh, if only the rest of the West had this courage!) If her solution is implemented, the Afrikaner will surely perish. But he will die like a wimp as he is bred out of existence. (To die like wimps seems to be the insatiable desire of the West, not only for the Afrikaner, but for all that is European in race and culture.)
    There is, I believe, a better solution to the South Africa problem than the cantonal solution offered by Kendall, and that is, what I would term, the States’ rights’ solution, which, unlike her cantonal solution, requires true decentralization and dispersal of political power.
    First, the boundaries of the cantons should be drawn along tribal, ethnic, racial, cultural lines. This would ensure that the inhabitants of a given canton would have a common language, tradition, culture, heritage, etc. It would greatly reduce internal conflict within a canton.
    Next, instead of adopting a democratic form of government for the central and cantonal governments where rule is by the will of the majority, a republican form of government where rule is by law and where each important political faction and segment of society can be guaranteed some degree of representation should be adopted. The principle of “one man, one vote” should be abandoned. Representation should be proportioned primarily on the basis of the tax base and not on the basis of population. Voting should be weighted in accordance with the amount of taxes paid. The more taxes a person pays, the more votes he should have. This is the market concept of the more wealth a person has, the more “votes” he has in the market, applied to the political process.
    Perhaps the reason that Switzerland is among the freest of countries is that it was one of the last (maybe the last) in the non-Islamic world to grant suffrage to women. In the United States, the rapid acceleration in the growth of government and the decline of liberty began within a decade after women gained the “right” to vote. With few, if any, exceptions, as the franchise has expanded, the government has grown and liberty has declined. With political equality, democracy, has come economic equality, socialism. If liberty is one of Kendall’s objectives, democracy is not the panacea that she believes it to be. As John Randolph of Roanoke proclaimed “I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality.” In other words, one can have liberty; one can have equality; one can have neither; but one can never have both.
    Perhaps the most important principle that needs adopting is Calhoun’s doctrine of concurrent majority. Under this principle, each canton would have the right and power to veto acts of the central government, as far as that canton is concerned, that are, in the opinion of the canton, unconstitutional or unduly infringe upon the rights of the canton and its citizens. This principle could be applied at the cantonal level where important segments of society could have the power to veto acts of the canton as far as the acts apply to that segment. Likewise, each canton should possess the ultimate veto and have the right to secede without molestation or armed conflict.
    To protect the cantons from the central government and to preserve their rights and the rights of their citizens, the cantonal governments should have control of a significant part of the armed forces.
    The plan proposed by Kendall probably will not solve South Africa’s problems. It will surely not save the Afrikaner. The plan that I have briefly outlined above may not solve South Africa’s problems either. However, it does offer the Afrikaner a much better chance of surviving. (I am convinced that the West will accept no solution short of turning South Africa into a Soviet colony with a Black-led puppet government.)
    As an unreconstructed Southerner, my sympathy and empathy are with the Afrikaner. I believe that Western civilization may well live or die with him. Just as the South stood against the world and fought and died for all the nobleness of Western civilization 125 years ago, so today does the Afrikaner. I wish him victory.

Copyright © 1986 by Thomas C. Allen.

More political articles.

The Chinese Virus

The Chinese Virus

Thomas Allen

Presented below are a letter-to-the-editor on the Chinese Virus, a.k.a. the COVID-19, a.k.a. the Chinese flu, and some observations about this virus.

LETTER

A disease far more dangerous and deadlier than COVID-19 is consuming America. That disease is the stupidvirus. At least 90 percent of Americans seem to be infected with the stupidvirus. With rare exceptions, all “our” political leaders and the presstitutes are infected with the supper stupidvirus.

According to https://www.worldometers.info, globally, between January 1 and April 7 of this year, there have been:
129,952 seasonal flu deaths this year.
11,359,394 abortions this year.
82,601 deaths of mothers during birth this year.
449,247 deaths caused by HIV/AIDS this year.
2,194,818 deaths caused by cancer this year.
262,131 deaths caused by malaria this year.
1,335,939 deaths caused by smoking this year.
668,391 deaths caused by alcohol this year.
286,574 suicides this year.
360,746 road traffic accident fatalities this year.
81,043 deaths from COVID-19.

The deaths from COVID-19 are inflated. It includes nearly every death associated with COVID-19 even if the real cause of death is something else.

If “our” political leaders were really concerned with saving lives, they would end abortions. Likewise, the presstitute would be urging ending abortions. Eliminating abortions would have eliminated two-thirds of the deaths since January 1 at no cost.

Unfortunately, “our” political leaders do not care about saving lives. They just want to concentrate all power in their hands, and the presstitutes are aiding them. Worse, most people are begging “our” political leaders to enslave them.

“Our” political leaders and presstitutes lie to us all the time. First, they tell us that wearing masks does no good. Now they tell everyone to wear masks, and some want to make wearing masks mandatory. Why should we believe anything that these known liars tell us? Regrettably, most people suffer from the stupidvirus. Thus, they can no longer think critically or rationally.

The presstitutes have done an excellent job of terrorizing the people into total hysteria. As a result, “our” political leaders have destroyed the economy and the US and State constitutions, especially the inalienable rights of assembly and religion. At least the people are learning to be good communist slaves. (My wife, who is a refugee from a communist regime, witnessed in her country under communism what is now occurring in this country.)

OBSERVATIONS
Some observations about the Chinese Virus plandemic follow.

– The presstitutes have managed to impress on the minds of a large number of Americans, the sheeple, that line from Zulu: “You are all going to die!”

– “Our” political leaders and the medical industry are stating more cases of the Chinese Virus than they are actually occurring. Anyone who dies who has a coronavirus or has been around someone who has or is suspected of having COVID-19 coronavirus is listed as dying from the Chinese Virus. (Coronavirus is one of the viruses that causes the common cold.) Moreover, the tests used to detect COVID-19 have many false positives, that is, these tests show more people infected with the Chinese Virus than there really are. Further, the tests do not even check for the Chinese Virus; they check residue left by the virus itself.

– The models used to estimate the number of cases of the Chinese Virus and the number of hospitalizations and deaths from the Chinese Virus are extremely inaccurate. They grossly overestimate. These models are frequently revised, and new and lower estimates are projected. Thus, the projected deaths for the United States have been revised downward from 90,000 to 81,000 to 61,000. These are the models that “our” leaders, especially governors and mayors, are using to institute totalitarian controls to destroy the economy and enslave the sheeple.

– People should not believe anything that a high-ranking member of the CDC says. (1) High-ranking federal bureaucrats are notorious liars, and nothing that they say should be believed until verified by independent sources. (2) The purpose of the CDC is not to protect or promote the health of the American people. Its purpose is to protect and promote big pharma and the medical industry. Protecting health is incompatible with protecting big pharma and the medical industry as they profit from sick people and not from healthy people. (3) Members of the Deep State and its sympathizers and antitrumpers run the CDC. Good examples of why no one should be employed in the federal bureaucracy for more than 10 years are the power-hungry control freaks at the CDC.

– Big pharma, the presstitutes, “our” political leaders, and the sheeple are clamoring for a vaccine to protect people from the Chinese Virus. By the time a vaccine is developed, it may not be effective because the virus would have most likely mutated. However, the primary purpose of vaccines is not to protect; it is to debilitate and make people dependent on the medical industry with big pharma at the helm. (Some of the proponents of the vaccine anticipate that the vaccine will kill more people than the Chinese Virus.) More important, vaccinations can be used to inject tracking devices into people. Further, some of the vaccines under development are deigned to change the DNA of the vaccinated person.

– The symptoms of the Chinese Virus match those of zinc deficiency. Chloroquine, one of the drugs being used to treat people ill with the Chinese Virus, is a zinc isonophore and has been highly effective in curing people infected with the Chinese Virus. Is the disease credited to the Chinese Virus really a zinc deficiency?

– Of course, an inexpensive cure, such as zinc and chloroquine, must be rejected because big pharma cannot make a fortune from them. Moreover, being paid by big pharma, presstitutes pooh-pooh cheap cures and lobby for a vaccine. Big pharma and the medical industry do not want to cure the Chinese Virus. They want to manage it. Big money is made in managing instead of curing. Unlike curing, which requires short-term treatment, managing requires perpetual treatment.

– Next to micromanaging our lives, “our” political leaders believe that ever more debt will defeat the Chinese Virus. Their solution to the Chinese Virus is to increase the national debt by trillions of dollars and to encourage businesses to incur more debt. Since the national debt is so high that it will never be paid, adding more trillions of dollars does not matter. Actually, all this new debt is supposed to cover the deliberate destruction of the economy. It is a bribe to keep the sheeple from waking up and revolting.

– Since face masks interfere with facial recognition technology, how long will be before “our” political leader outlaw the wearing of masks in public? Further, the common appearance of people wearing face masks in public makes life easier for thieves. They can now enter a store or bank wearing a mask, and no one will notice them being out of the ordinary.

– If anyone wants to know how the German people allowed the National Socialists to gain control of Germany, all he needs to do is to look at how the people are letting their governors establish despotic police states in their States in the name of saving them from the Chinese Virus. Hardly anyone is protesting this despotic tyranny.

– When (if?) this war against the people in the name of protecting them from the Chinese Virus ends, the presstitutes, Democrats, and other antitrumpers will blame President Trump for the destruction of the economy. Yet, governors in collaboration with the presstitutes have destroyed the economy. First Democratic governors began shutting down their States’ economies. Then, the presstitutes scared many Republican governors into closing down their States’ economies. This deliberated destruction of the country’s economy seems to be a conspiracy to bring down Trump. Most antitrumpers hope that it does. (States whose governors have not shut down their States’ economies seem to have fewer cases of and deaths from the Chinese Virus than the States whose governors have aggressively attacked their economies. These noncontrolling governors have let the people and businesses decide for themselves what protective measures are appropriate. That is, they treat their citizens like adults instead of like children.)

– One thing that has received little attention is the likelihood of the Greatest Depression that will probably occur from the governors’ deliberated destruction of the economy. Most likely, millions of premature deaths will occur as a result of the Greatest Depression. Thus, possibly to save a few thousand lives today, millions of lives will be sacrificed in the future. (Adherents of the Chinese Virus plandemic claim that the destruction of the economy will not reduce the number of deaths credited to the virus; it merely spreads the deaths over a longer period.)

– Most governors and mayors are power-hungry control freaks, who care nothing about the constitution of their State or the US Constitution. Violating their State constitutions and the US Constitution, they have closed all businesses that they consider nonessential. (No business is nonessential. If it were, it would have no customers and would soon be out of business.) Nonessential is completely subjective. Some governors consider abortion clinics nonessential since abortion is by choice. Other governors consider abortions essential. (From my perspective, liquor stores and tobacco shops are nonessential. However, these businesses will be among the last that any governor would close. If they were to close them, they would have to contend with rioters violating their social distance ukases. Moreover, bodyguards, chauffeurs, gardeners, maids, butlers and babysitters including daycare are nonessential because people can do these jobs for themselves. Likewise, takeout meals at restaurants are nonessential because people can cook at home.)

– Most governors consider churches as nonessential, and the sheeple and wimpy clergymen are letting them get away with it. Thus, most pastors resort to delivering their messages over the internet. (The internet can serve as an auxiliary, but it should not substitute for physically assembling.) At least, this makes separating pastors who follow God’s law from pastors who follow man’s law easy.

– The US Constitution forbids the US government from preventing the unalienable right of assembly. It provides no exceptions, including plandemics, for the government to violate this right of assembly. Using the fourteenth amendment, the US Supreme Court has extended this guarantee to cover State and local governments. Therefore, whenever a governor or a mayor interferes with the right of assembly, such as forbidding gatherings of more than 10 people, he violates his oath of office. All governors and local officials who have placed restrictions on assembly need to be indicted for violating their oath of office and removed from office. This will never happen because the sheeple prefer being treated like children instead of adults. They prefer safety to liberty. However, by abandoning liberty for safety, they will end up with neither —and rightly so, because they deserve neither.

– Most governors treat the people of their State as though they were children. They believe that people do not have enough intelligence to take action to reduce the likelihood of contracting the Chinese Virus. Perhaps, these governors are right. Most people are responding like young children by believing whatever the government tells them and submitting to all sorts of governmental tyranny with hardly a protest.

– This plandemic is being used as an excuse to implement every totalitarian idea conceivable. It is being used as an excuse to track everywhere people go and everything that they do. Governments are considering using cell phones to track everyone’s movements in real time. Moreover, progressives and other statist want to use the plandemic as an excuse to implement a social credit system similar to that in China to control people’s behavior (a Puritan’s dream). They want to require people to have the government’s permission to travel, work, and shop.

– “Our” political leaders and presstitute are striving to create distrust of one’s neighbors and even one’s family members. They are encouraging people to spy on each other. Thus, stupid sheeple whose lives are so dull and boring that they have to attend to other people's business report people who are four feet apart instead of six feet, crowds of eleven, and other violations of arbitrary unlawful edicts. Consequently, people no longer trust one another and society degenerates. Such is the modus operandi of communists.

– If the Chinese Virus plandemic is a psychological operation (psyop) as some speculate, then it has been highly successful. Those behind it never dreamed that they could have terrorized the masses so quickly and easily into total hysteria begging to be enslaved and begging to live in poverty as they beg to have their economy destroyed.

– Even if the Chinese Virus plandemic is not a psychological operation, control freaks in government and their presstitute coconspirators must be partying with great joy. With ease, the presstitutes terrorized the sheeple into total submission to the control freaks in government — thus, enslaving themselves to the control freaks.

– The United States are no longer the home of the brave and the land of the free. Now, they are the home of the fearful and the land of the slave.

– At least one good thing has come from the Chinese Virus plandemic. Now, we know that we do not need all those expensive school buildings to educate children. Also, we do not need to bus children to and from schools. Unfortunately, the people who suffer from the stupidvirus have so destroyed their brains that they can no longer think critically or rationally, so they have not learned this lesson.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Review of McBreen’s article on Black Protest at Syracuse University

Review of McBreen’s article on Black Protest at Syracuse University

Thomas Allen

In his article “Black Students at Syracuse U Protest in Favor of Self-Segregation,” November 23, 2019,  Keleen McBreen rebukes Black students who are protesting. These students want to be allowed to opt-out of rooming with White students in the college dormitories.

He starts his article by declaring that the protest “would have Martin Luther King Jr. rolling over in his grave.” The implication is that King would object to the goal of the protesters to segregate. McBreen, as are all the other Infowars reporters and especially its boss, Alex Jones, is like nearly all conservatives concerning King. They actually believe that this Communist sympathizer and frontman was a conservative. (With each passing day, distinguishing between a communist and a conservative becomes more difficult, especially in the social realm. They may be right: The communist King has transformed into conservative King without ever changing his position on anything. After all, the United States have already implemented about 80 percent of the planks of the Communist Manifesto.)

If the protest would cause King to roll over in his grave, it would be in support of the protesters. King did not promote integration for the sake of integration. He demanded integration for many reasons, none of which are those proclaimed by his conservative toadies. First, it satisfied his lust and the lust of his comrades and handlers by destroying the South and genociding the Southerner. Moreover, it leads to the destruction of the White race in America. Reducing the White race to insignificance would make the United States easy prey for the communist. (As the White race has declined, communism has become more prevalent.) Furthermore, King sought integration because it makes Blacks a privileged class, the new American royalty, and advances Black power. King’s integration has gone a long way in elevating Blacks to superiority, in converting the United States to communism, and in reducing Whites to insignificance.

McBreen writes that this protest results from “liberal indoctrination at American colleges,” which leads to negative effects like the reasons for this protest. Liberal indoctrination demonizes Whites and glorifies nonwhites.

This protest shows that many Blacks still adhere to the Old Morality of protecting, preserving, and promoting their own race. McBreen, like most conservatives and libertarians, adheres to the New Morality of scarifying the races, especially the White race, on the altar of humanity. The New Morality amalgamates humanity into motley mongrel man or, as William Carr calls him, UNESCO man. At least, McBreen wants to sacrifice the Black race along with the White race on the altar of humanity and his corrupt conservative (or is it libertarian) ideology. Unlike McBreen, Alex Jones, and most conservatives and libertarians, these Blacks know that segregation preserves while integration destroys.

(Although Jones and his staff adamantly oppose globalism, they promote policies of globalism that lead to the dissolution of the races [species] of man, which is a goal of globalism, illuminism.)

Whites are hellbent on annihilating themselves. If the White race survives, it will be because nonwhites refuse to associate with Whites.

This protest also illustrates the hypocrisy of American universities in particular and America in general. If a group of White students were protesting to have the privilege of opting out of having nonwhite roommates, the only attention that the administrators would give them would be to expel them. (Nearly all Black leaders maintain that Blacks should be allowed to segregate, but Whites should not have the right or privilege to segregate themselves. Many Whites, especially liberals, agree.)

McBreen is correct about one thing. Students who hate Syracuse University are free to leave. They are not prisoners of the University.

Moreover, if the school administrators yield to this demand for segregation, Black students will demand more. When will the demands stop? Will the demands continue until Syracuse University is a completely Black university void of any non-Blacks?

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.