The Jim Crow Era Versus the Civil Rights Era

The Jim Crow Era Versus the Civil Rights Era

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles. 

Coulter on Race — Part 1

 Coulter on Race — Part 1

Thomas Allen

Below are some impressions that Ann Coulter gives on race in her book Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (2012). My comments are enclosed in brackets except for the summary paragraphs at the end.

[Coulter is a racial nihilist who practices the new morality of sacrificing Blacks and other races on the altar of humanity. Thus, she worships integration and the resulting amalgamation. Therefore, despite being a Negrophile, she has no qualms about genociding Blacks: She is a strong proponent of policies that result in their genocide.]

She writes, “Racial filters paralyze logical thinking” (p.39). Where crime is involved, she wears no racial filters. However, in most other realms, racial filters paralyze her logical thinking — especially about the South.

Consequently, she is a Dixiephobe and derogates Southerners and is especially venomous toward poor Southern Whites and “rednecks.” Most Southerners are barely civilized. Disdain is all that she has for Southerners who have not been reconstructed in the image of Yankeedom.

She notes that Northerners discriminated against poor Southern White who migrated North during the World War II era in search of better wages and a higher standard of living. Northerners discriminated against the slothful and industrious, the irresponsible and responsible, and the crude and sophisticated Southerners alike without distinguishing between them. She excuses this discrimination because Northerners could not be expected to examine each Southerner individually. [That is, Northerners were judging by ethnicity and not by character. Yet, Whites, especially Southerners, are expected to examine each Black so that they can judge by character instead of by race. Is this because all Blacks have saintly character? To say otherwise is proof of racism.]

The only positive feature that she finds in Southerners is that usually, they support more of her political views instead of those of the Democrats' — civil rights for Blacks are an exception. [However, she is unable to forgive Southerners for supporting segregation and the Democratic Party.]

Nevertheless, she does praise the Confederate soldier. [Her admiration for Confederate soldiers and their decedents seems to be mostly limited to them being great warriors, who can be used to enforce foreign policies that she favors.]

At least she is correct about why Confederate soldiers fought: “Confederate soldiers fought because they lived in the South — not because they held a brief for slavery” (p. 195). [She could have added that if Lincoln had not invaded the South, there would have been no war.] However, she errs in believing that the war was primarily about slavery. [Slavery was better protected within the Union than outside it.]

Black culture, especially the inclination of Blacks toward criminal and antisocial behavior, grew from Blacks imitating Southern culture — primarily the culture of poor Whites and rednecks — and not from slavery. [Since most Blacks were around the more sophisticated and cultured Whites, plantation owners, than around crude rednecks and poor Whites, why did they adopt the culture of the latter instead of the former?] Voting for Democrats is one of the many bad habits that Blacks got from Southerners. [Are the want-to-be-Democrat Republicans any better than real Democrats?]

According to her, the more civilized Blacks are descendants of Blacks who lived under the influence of the Puritan Yankee.

During the Jim Crow era, Black married at a higher rate than Whites. Until President Johnson, the welfare system did not subsidize unmarried women with illegitimate children. Under Johnson, the welfare system began subsidizing illegitimacy. During Coulter’s beloved Civil Rights Era, Black marriages had plummeted to 30 percent by 2010.

While condemning the Jim Crow Era and praising the Civil Rights Movement that led to the Civil Rights Era, she describes how well-dressed Blacks were during the Jim Crow Era. Moreover, during the Jim Crow Era, Blacks had a growing middle class built on merit with married parents and intact families. However, during the Civil Rights Era, the intact Black family has greatly decreased, and a Black middle class based on affirmative action has replaced the real middle class of merit.

Coulter implies that the Civil Rights Movement is the greatest event in human history, and the civil rights acts are the greatest laws ever enacted. Yet, every social issue that Democrats promote that Coulter loathes grew naturally from the Warren Court’s desegregation ruling and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, both of which she extols.

Like many people, she confuses integration with desegregation. [Because most Blacks and Whites prefer associating with their own race, desegregation always leads to integration and then forced integration. Forced integration is necessary to prove that desegregation has occurred.]

Nevertheless, she praises President Nixon for his activism in forcing integration and imposing quotas [euphuistically called affirmative action]. While supporting affirmative action, she complains about discriminating against White college applicants. [What does she expect when affirmative action demands discrimination against Whites to prove that affirmative action has been applied?]

She has no qualms about using the government to deny people the use of their property when necessary to force integration. [Freedom of association has no meaning for her.]

While Republicans were treating Blacks as equals before the law, Democrats were placing Blacks above the law. [Then, as usual, most Republicans copied the Democrats in placing Blacks above the law. They even began to outdo the Democrats with affirmative action, set-asides, and the like.]

Coulter blames Johnson’s Great Society programs for the rise of Black criminals. [Opposing these programs were many segregationist Democrats, whom she disdains as the vilest of all creatures — even lower than liberal Democrats. Also, Republican support was needed to get these programs through Congress. Furthermore, Republicans have never done anything to eliminate these programs when they held power.]

Then, she discusses crime. A rare incidence of violence by a White against a Black gives Blacks an excuse for demonstrations and riots. Any Black shot by a policeman becomes a beloved member of the community. Accusing police officers, especially White officers, of racism and criminal activity if they injure or kill a Black has become a favorite pastime of Blacks, politicians, and the media. Frequently, these accusations lead to criminal prosecution.

When the media, politicians, or Blacks accuse a White person of injuring or killing a Black, the White person is automatically guilty even if the Black is the perpetrator. Moreover, most of the accusers continue to believe that the White person is guilty after a jury finds him innocent. [Perhaps, this is because of the way Black juries treat Black defendants.] Often, Black jurors refuse to convict an obviously guilty Black defendant.

White racism is used as an excuse to justify crimes by Blacks. According to the liberal media, no Black is ever guilty of a crime against a White person even if the evidence shows that the accused Black is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt — even if the Black confesses to the crime. [If it were not for White racism, all Blacks would be as holy and saintly as Saint Martin Luther King the Divine, who has supplanted Jesus in holiness and saintliness.]

While Whites feel no compulsion to defend Whites who are guilty of violent crimes, Blacks feel compelled to defend Blacks who are guilty of violent crimes. White liberals display the same compulsion as Blacks.

Coulter notes that in 1986 Blacks committed 49.1 percent of all homicides despite comprising only 12 percent of the population. In 1986, only 2.6 percent of the homicides were White-on-Black. Blacks killed three times as many Whites as Whites killed Blacks. Blacks killed 16 times more Blacks than Whites did. [Consequently, Blacks are their own worst enemy.]

Whenever a White kills or seriously injures a Black, the media, liberals, and many conservatives overflow with compassion and sympathy for the Black. However, when a White is a victim of a Black, they ignore the White victim.

She remarks, “A corollary to the hysterical overreporting of any white-on-black crime is that black-on-white hate crimes will be utterly unreported by the media, except in the town where it happened” (p. 54). While Black-on-White crimes are seldom tried as hate or racial crimes, White-on-Black crimes are often tried as hate or racial crimes.

A lack of White-on-Black crime evidences that White racism against Blacks is not the country’s greatest problem. [On the other hand, Black-on-White crimes show that Black racism against White is a major problem.] Additionally, the few White supremacists in the country are impotent and not much of a threat to anyone.

Ordinary Blacks do not defend violent Black criminals throwing rocks at police officers. However, Democrats did defend Blacks throwing rocks at the police. [Since most Blacks are Democrats, is she saying most Blacks defend these Black criminals? Probably not. Nevertheless, to accuse Democrats in general for defending these Blacks is to accuse Blacks in general for defending them.]

Because Blacks are victims of criminals at a higher rate than are Whites, many of them want a strong police presence in their neighborhoods. [Yet, when serving on a jury, many of these same Blacks are inclined to let an obviously guilty Black criminal go free.]

American does have a crime wave; it is Blacks assaulting Whites. On the rare occasion when Whites attacks Blacks, the liberal media cover it ad infinitum for weeks and months.

Coulter discusses the O.J. Simpson trial and Mark Fuhrman in detail and how Blacks rejoiced at a not guilty vote. Also, she discusses the conviction of Fuhrman for using the N-word and his sterling character. [Fuhrman was a detective involved in the Simpson case and a key witness against Simpson.] She remarks, “Only one felony conviction came out of the O. J. Simpson trial for a double murder so brutal that one victim’s neck was severed to her spinal cord: the perjury conviction of Los Angeles detective Mark Fuhrman, for lying about having used the N-word nine and a half years earlier”(p. 127). About the result of the Simpson trial, she writes, “In 1995, Americans discovered it was considered a graver offense to use ‘the N-word’ than to cut a woman’s head off” (p. 127).

Coulter condemns Black race riots primarily because of the poor image that they give Blacks. [Apparently, image is more important than the deaths, injuries, and destruction that these race riots caused.]

She seems surprised that few of the 1960s race riots were in the South, the home of Democratic segregation and the Klan. Most of the 1960s race riots were outside the South. This apparent contradiction, she accredits to States and cities in the North and on the West Coast being lenient on crime. If Northerners had only treated Blacks as harshly as they treated Southerners and Irish immigrants, they would have trained Blacks to be good, law-abiding citizens. [Could it be that most race riots of the 1960s and afterward occurred outside the South because race relations in the South were better than elsewhere in the country? Coulter’s Dixiephobia prevents her from considering this possibility.]

Nevertheless, the South gets the blame for the riots in Northern cities during the 1960s. Liberals thought Southern Klansmen had captured Northern police departments. While liberals treat Blacks like spoiled brats who are never held accountable for their actions, the media blames to police for the bad behavior of Blacks.

Coulter discusses the Rodney-King riot in some detail and shows how the media aided it. She cites some heroic deeds of Blacks during the riot. Also, she discusses the trial of the police officers who arrested King. After the Los Angeles jury found the officers not quality, President Bush the Elder order the Attorney General to investigate. The investigation led to a trial where two of the officers were convicted. She complains about the federal trial convicting two of the four police officers. [Southerners well understand this double jeopardy. Whenever a local jury found a White person not guilty of a crime against a Black, the federal government would try the person again for the same crime but with a different label.]

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Part 2.

More Thoughts on Social Issues

More Thoughts on Social Issues

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are dysgenics and the welfare state, debt to society, abortion and vaccination, and how major corporations react to Black communities.

Dysgenics
From the late nineteenth century to after World War I, most Progressives were eugenists and pushed their eugenic programs through governments. With the rise of Hitler, eugenics began to fade in popularity. By World War II, most Progressives, who by now were becoming Liberal Democrats, had become dysgenicists. Now, dysgenics dominates the United States, and eugenics is vigorously condemned — from one end of the political spectrum to the other. Dysgenics is a leading cause of the deterioration of the United States, Europe, and many other parts of the world.

Since the days of President Franklin Roosevelt, Progressives have been promoting dysgenics by their promotion of the welfare state. Under dysgenics, low-quality people, nonproducers, are rewarded for breeding, and high-quality people, producers, are penalized. High-quality people are taxed, i.e., forced, to support low-quality people through various welfare programs. Thus, high-quality people must not only support their own families with what the taxman leaves them, but they must also support the families of low-quality people. The more money that low-quality people receive through various welfare programs, the less money high-quality people have. Because high-quality people must support low-quality people and their children, they have less money to support their own families. Therefore, they have fewer children. While the population of low-quality people, nonproductive people, is rising, the population of high-quality people, productive people, is declining. A larger percentage of Blacks are on welfare than any other race. Therefore, dysgenics is working for the survival of their species, while it is leading to the extinction of the White species. (The only thing that has served to check the growth of low-quality people is another progressive program — abortion.)

Debt to Society
One often hears about a criminal paying his debt to society. A criminal’s debt is to the victim of his crime, that is, to an individual or group of individuals. It is not to an amorphous abstraction called “society.” (Society is the aggregate of the people who cooperate to improve their individual and collective circumstances through production and exchange.) Society has not suffered from his crime; individuals have. Consequently, his debt is to individuals and not to society.

Moreover, the way the system has been set up, the victim helps pay for the punishment of the criminal. Taxpayers, which include victims of crime, pay for the punishment (or rehabilitation for the more progressive) via tax-supported incarceration. Punishment should focus on requiring the criminal to pay the victims of his crime with penalties. Instead, currently, the victim pays for the punishment of the criminal. Unless the court orders the criminal to pay restitution at the time of sentencing, the victim can only recover his loss through a civil suit against the criminal.  Even then, the victim ends up paying for the punishment (prison time, supervision while on parole or suspended sentence, etc.) of the criminal via taxation.

Abortion and Vaccination
Progressives and their kindred declare that the government should not tell a woman what she can do with her body. Therefore, abortion should be legal: A woman has the right to an abortion. (Pro-life adherents are not objecting to what a woman does with her body. They object to what she and the abortionist do to the body of another person: her baby.)

However, when vaccination is the issue, most of the pro-abortion people favor the government telling women what they must do with their bodies. That is, they favor forced vaccination. Thus, a woman should not have the right to control her body by refusing a vaccination. Further, denial of the right to refuse a vaccination extends to young females. Parents should not be allowed to refuse vaccinations for their daughters. Consequently, the government has the right, or even the obligation, to tell a woman what she must do with her body with respect to vaccinations.

Another argument used by the pro-abortionists in favor of abortion is that the government does not tell men what to do with their bodies. Yet, this claim is not true. The government forces males to be vaccinated to attend public schools and often even private schools. Moreover, the government forces men to be vaccinated when it forces them to war and die for the politically powerful.

A major difference exists between antivaccine people and pro-vaccine people. With rare exception, antivaccine people do not want to forcibly prevent people from being vaccinated. They want people to be informed about vaccination, its pros and cons, and to decide for themselves whether they and their children are to be vaccinated. They favor freedom of choice. On the other hand, most pro-vaccine people want to force people, especially children, to be vaccinated. Preferring coercion, they do not favor people making an informed decision. Accordingly, they oppose freedom of choice. In this respect, they are like Marxists and Puritans. Thus, antivaccine people favor freedom while pro-vaccine people oppose freedom.

Racial Actions of Major Corporations
Companies are falling all over themselves to fund radical Black racist groups in the name of fighting White racism, which is systemic, in the name of helping Black communities. If these companies really wanted to help Black communities, they would build their plants and offices in these communities and give the inhabitants of these communities priority in working in these plants and offices. Moreover, they would use the inhabitants of these communities to build the plants and offices. To show their commitment to these Black communities, they would require the managers and supervisors of the plants and offices to live in that community — and not live in a gated segment of the community.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen

More social issues articles.

Gun Control

Gun Control

Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: This article was written in 1988.]

    Gun controllers are out to disarm the country. They use many false arguments to support their untenable position. They seek to disarm private citizens and leave them at the mercy of criminals and omnipotent government, which is the ultimate criminal.
    Most gun controllers are liberals, and nearly all liberals are gun controllers. All gun controllers are statist, and most are political, social, and economic egalitarians, who abhor the physical equality that guns bring.
    Gun controllers display their hypocrisy by advocating harsh laws against law-abiding gun owners while cuddling criminals. They have a lax attitude toward real crime. They persist in putting dangerous criminals back on the streets as quickly as possible. Then they propose to disarm the law-abiding citizens, who are threatened by these thugs. (The American Civil Liberties Union shows the perverse hypocritical mind of a good liberal. It has advocated registering firearms and licensing owners, yet it is ready to go to court to prevent school officials from checking student lockers for illegal weapons.) Their objective appears to be to use criminals to frighten a disarmed populace into demanding more oppressive laws and a stronger police state.
    Gun controllers plan to disarm the population piecemeal until all handguns and long guns are removed from the general population. If they were to try to ban all guns at once, their opposition would be too great; and they would be trounced and routed.
    Gun controllers usually take the approach of advocating banning “Saturday night specials” (whatever that is) in the name of fighting crime. (Is it not amusing that these worshipers of the “poor” want to disarm the poor, who are victimized by criminals more than the well-to-do, by outlawing cheap guns?) Eliminating this class of firearm will not reduce crime. Then the gun controllers will push for abolishing all handguns in the name of reducing crime. Even this ban will not reduce crime — as will be shown below. Next, the gun controllers will go after rifles and shotguns. He can now achieve his goal of banning all privately owned guns, but crime will still not be reduced.
    If everyone, except the police and military, were completely disarmed, the government (police and military) would possess a monopoly of legal firepower. The disarmed civilians would stand naked before the government and would become, like the Chinese peasants, defenseless victims of whatever the government wishes to do with or to them. To have a defenseless populace is the gun controllers’ goal. Only when the people lack the means to resist effectively oppressive government will the liberals feel secure in remaking mankind in their own image. (A government that cannot trust an independently heavily armed citizenry is a government that cannot be trusted and is in need of replacement.) Even if criminals were initially disarmed along with the law-abiding, they would soon rearm themselves by stealing weapons from the police and military. The disarmed population would be easy prey for them.
    Great Britain has very stringent gun laws. Private ownership of a gun is allowed only under the most extraordinary circumstances. Carrying a gun is illegal. Since Great Britain abolished the death penalty in the late 1960's, the use of firearms in the commission of crimes has risen dramatically: thus evidencing the deterrent effect of capital punishment.
    Great Britain also depicts the path followed by gun controllers. Handguns were banned to curb violent crime. Naturally, this ban proved a failure. So the government did what governments are prone to do; instead of admitting that it was wrong and repealing its bad laws, it extended controls to long guns. There is much greater use of guns in crimes today with stringent gun control laws than there was before 1920 when there were no gun control laws.
    To conceal their real reason for disarming private citizens, gun controllers resort to a number of sophisms.
    Gun controllers often claim that much of today’s crime problem arises from a heritage of frontier violence and lawlessness. This myth is debunked by a study done by Roger McGrath, a professor of history at UCLA.
    McGrath’s study shows that shootings generally occurred among roughnecks, badmen, hoodlums, and other similar characters. The law-abiding citizens, the young, the old, and women (except prostitutes) were seldom involved in shootings. These people have now become the principal victims of many of today’s shootings.
    His study also shows that the crimes that are most common today — robbery, theft, burglary, and rape — were of no great significance in the old west. Rape was almost nonexistent. A principal reason for the lack of these crimes was the widespread ownership of firearms. This widespread ownership of firearms and the willingness to use them contributed greatly to the relative safety of the average citizen.
    Highwaymen hesitated to rob stagecoaches with armed guards. Instead, they held up unguarded coaches. Then they usually limited their theft to the express box. They feared taking money and valuables from passengers, for they knew such action would put an angry posse of citizens ready to turn to vigilantism on their trail. Fear of swift and sure penalty deterred their greed.
    Banks were seldom robbed because employees were armed. Individuals were seldom robbed because most were armed and willing to fight. Most victims of robbery were staggering drunk. Again fear of swift and sure penalty deterred the thief's greed.
    McGrath’s study shows that instead of encouraging crime and violence, the widespread private ownership of guns discourages them. The law-abiding citizen is more secure armed than he is disarmed.
    Gun controllers claim that guns need to be controlled to prevent accidental death by shooting. They claim that accidental death by gunshot is at or near the top of the list of accidental deaths. On the contrary, accidental death by shooting is near the bottom. Less than 2 percent of all accidental deaths are caused by firearms. Almost 27 times as many people die of automobile accidents as from accidental shootings. More than six times as many die of falls; and three times as many, from drowning. If the objective is to reduce accidental death, causes other than firearms need to be emphasized.
    Gun controllers claim that registration and licensing will reduce death by shooting as well as the number of violent deaths in general. Unfortunately, this claim is false. Two deadly objects exist in the United States in approximately the same number. One object is registered, and its users are licensed while the other object is seldom registered and its users are seldom licensed. Which object is involved in the greater number of deaths? The gun controllers would claim that the unregistered object with unlicensed users would cause a greater number of deaths. They would be wrong. More people in the United States die by automobiles than by firearms. There are about as many privately owned firearms in the United States as automobiles. Most firearms are unregistered and most of their users are unlicensed. Automobiles are registered, and their users are licensed. Yet the automobile is involved in more deaths. Almost 40 percent more people die of automobile accidents than from gunshots, including murder and suicide. Registration and licensing do not deter death.
    Registration is often more of a hindrance to police than a help. Criminals steal most guns used in crime. Registration does not lead police to the criminal but to the unfortunate person whose gun has been stolen and who must now prove his innocence.
    Cuba and Germany offer examples as to why the registration of firearms needs to be opposed. In Cuba Batista, who ruled Cuba before Castro, required gun owners to be licensed and to register their guns. The police records contained a description of the weapon along with its owner’s picture and fingerprints. When Castro overthrew Batista, he confiscated all the guns in Cuba: A task that Batista’s registration system made very easy.
    In Germany, Hitler enacted a law that required a person to have a permit to buy a gun and another permit to own a gun. Of course, Jews and other undesirables, those in the greatest need of weapons to protect themselves from Hitler’s oppression, were denied permits. The permits left a paper trail that made the confiscation of guns very easy. Hitler was, however, thoughtful enough to exempt high-ranking governmental officials, the police (regular and secret), and certain other governmental agents from his gun control law. Thus, he disarmed the victims of his oppression while arming their oppressors.
    Gun controllers claim that homeowners are safer if they offer no resistance to burglars and that homeowners are more likely to be injured if they resist with a gun. Gun controllers often claim that a person who uses a gun for protection is more likely to be injured than someone who offers no resistance. They also claim that private ownership of guns does not deter crime. A study by Dr. Gary Kleck of Florida State University refutes these claims.
    He estimates that firearms are used defensively by private citizens about one million times per year in the United States. In more than 60 percent of these incidents, handguns are used. He has found that guns are used more often defensively than criminally. Most of the time the weapon is not fired and the criminal is not injured. Less than 2 percent of the time is anyone killed or wounded. Between 1500 and 2800 criminals are killed annually by private citizens using firearms in self-defense. This is about two and a half to seven times as many as are killed by police.
    Kleck’s study shows that victims of robbery or assault who use guns for protection are less likely to be attacked or injured than are victims who respond otherwise, including not resisting at all. There is a much greater chance of being hurt during an assault (two and a half times as great) or robbery (one and a half times as great) by not resisting at all than by using a gun for protection. In a majority of cases where a person who uses a gun for protection is injured, the injury preceded the use of the gun to resist. Also, those who use guns against would-be robbers are less likely to lose their property than those who use other means of resistance or who do nothing.
    The chances of a burglar or other violent criminal encountering a private citizen who will use a gun against him is as great as being arrested. Of course, the potential victim wielding a gun is much more of a deterrent than the future threat of an arrest because the consequence is immediate and potentially more severe than any punishment offered by the legal system.
    In the United States where many households are armed, burglars tend to avoid occupied dwellings. In countries where private gun ownership is much less than in the United States, burglars are much more likely to enter occupied houses. Burglars fear facing an armed homeowner. This fear reduces confrontations between burglars and victims. The result is fewer deaths and injuries. Thus, firearms reduce death and injury.
    The armed homeowner and storekeeper offer a much greater deterrent to crime than do the police and court system. The police and court system are not designed to prevent crime, but to apprehend and punish after a crime has been committed. The armed homeowner and storekeeper offer a quick, sure, and severe penalty that is directly and immediately related to the crime. This action is a much greater deterrent to crime than the police and court system where arrest and conviction are lengthy and uncertain.
    Kleck’s study also shows that where gun ownership and training are highly publicized, crime tends to decline. His study clearly demonstrates that laws that reduce the ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens would benefit the criminals of society. Widespread ownership of guns by the law-abiding reduces crimes and their concomitant injuries and deaths.
    Gun control laws make self-defense a crime. Perhaps the most notable case is the Bernhard Goetz case. Goetz shot four men in self-defense on a New York subway. The jury found him innocent of all charges brought against him except violating New York’s gun law. For violating that law he was sentenced to six months in prison, fined $5000, and directed to undergo psychiatric treatment (shades of the Soviet Union) plus other penalties. There are other examples of people being punished for using a gun in self-defense. A man in the District of Columbia holds three burglars with his pistol until the police arrive to take them into custody. The three thieves are set free while the man is charged with possessing an improperly registered handgun. In Massachusetts, a man shoots and kills another man who is trying to knife him. The jury acquits him of all charges, but the judge sentences him to the mandatory one-year imprisonment for failing to obtain a license for his handgun. In Oak Park, Illinois a filling station operator is arrested for possessing a handgun (private ownership of handguns is prohibited in Oak Park) when he used it to shoot at some robbers that held him at gunpoint. The result of gun control laws is to penalize an otherwise law-abiding citizen.
    Firearms are the “great equalizer.” They enable a small weak person to stand on equal footing with a larger, stronger adversary. Is it not odd that the same egalitarians who constantly aver the political equality of democracy, economic equality of socialism, and social equality of integration object so strongly to the greatest physical egalitarian invention of man, the gun? They oppose private ownership of guns because they realize that their mad dreams of equality can only be achieved by oppression. If the victims of their egalitarian nightmare are armed, then the victims are on more equal footing with the government and are more capable of successfully resisting oppression.
    In the present union, which Yankeedom controls, law-abiding Southerners must always fear having their guns confiscated and, thereby, being placed at the mercy of criminals and despotic government. The time has come to alleviate this fear. The time has come for a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States in which law-abiding Southerners may possess guns without fear of molestation and may use them to protect themselves from criminals and despotic government.

Copyright © 1988 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on social issues.

The Dirty War: America’s Race War

The Dirty War: America’s Race War
Thomas Allen

[Note: The following is an excerpt from a manuscript originally written in 2000-2002. Although some of the statistics may be dated, more recent statistics continue to support the conclusion of this paper. Some minor editing has been done to omit references to sections of the manuscript not included here.]

The War
On January 14, 1995, a young white man and his wife were finally enjoying an evening together after the birth of their twins five weeks earlier. When they left a gas station in Kentucky, three carloads of black teenagers began chasing them and finally shooting at them. The chase ended when a bullet struck the young man’s heart. He died of the wound the following day. He was assassinated for the high crime of being so proud of his Southern Aryan heritage that he was flying a Confederate flag, which was also the emblem of his high school football team, on his truck. Two of his assassins were convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. One irony of this tragedy was that one member of this gang of killers had been a guest in this young man’s home as part of a Bible study group.

The assassination of this young man can be laid at the feet of the NAACP. At its 1991 national convention, the NAACP declared war on the Confederate flag and everything that it symbolizes—liberty and the Aryan race.[1] Since then, it has ceaselessly ejaculated abhorrent and false diatribes against this flag and all that it symbolizes.

In 1993, about 16 months before the assassination, the Kentucky unit of the NAACP demanded that eight school systems in Kentucky cease all usage of the Confederate flag and the "rebel" mascot. One of these schools was the high school from which this young white martyr had graduated. This ultimatum of the Kentucky NAACP came right after the young man graduated high school and married his sweetheart.

One of the first items acquired by the newlyweds was a pickup truck with a metal toolbox in the back. After they purchased the truck, the young husband attached a metal post to the toolbox and affixed a Confederate flag to the pole. The truck also had a battle-flag car tag on the front bumper. At that time Confederate flags and emblems were common in Kentucky and Tennessee.

After being married for a little over a year, the couple had twins. As the twins were born premature, they remained in the hospital for several weeks. Just before New Year’s Day, they brought the twins home.

On January 14, 1995, the couple left their two children in the care of the wife’s mother and went out to dinner. After dinner, they did some shopping. On the way home, they stopped for gas.

While he was filling his gas tank, a carload of Negroes pulled into the gas station parking lot. One of the male Negro passengers leaned out the car window, pointed at the young couple, and laughed. Then the car moved beside another carload of blacks.

After the young couple left the station, the young man, who was driving, noticed two cars following them. When he realized that the cars were chasing them, he pushed his wife to the floor and sped away. The blacks chased after them. Finally, one car pulled alongside the truck. A black teenager pulled out his pistol and fired seven shots. A bullet found the young white man’s heart.

He did not know that the bullet hit him until he saw the blood. He told his wife that she would have to drive. While still running from the Negroes, they switched seats.

Then the car with the black gunman pulled in front of their truck to force them to stop. As the gunman pointed his pistol at the wife, she swerved off the road, drove up two embankments, and escaped. She drove to a hospital where her wounded husband was treated. The bullet had hit his heart, and he died of his wound the next day.

Although this crime was never treated as a hate crime, it was a hate crime in the truest sense. This young man was assassinated for only one reason: He was flying the Confederate flag on his truck. He was assassinated to honor Martin Luther King. Not unexpectedly, black leaders and liberal whites who suffered terminally from negrophilia-albuphobia[2] tried to blame the victim for the crime.

As the above story illustrates, a race war is being fought in America. The unspoken evidence of this war is everywhere. The massive exodus of whites from the larger cities evidences this war. It is seen in the previously unheard-of security measures that people are taking. Blinding lights flood parking lots. Wealthy neighborhoods are gated and guarded. Alarm systems have become a common household item. Everywhere are neighborhood watch signs. Rare is the store that does not have closed-circuit cameras. Clerks taking in money behind the protection of bulletproof glass are growing. Most stores limit the cash in their cash registers. All these security measures show that Aryans are at least vaguely aware that they are in the midst of a war and that they are the targets. Unfortunately, because of the anti-white lies with which the albusphobes have inculcated them, most do not, or at least refuse to do so openly, recognize and acknowledge that they are involved in a race war. The objective of this race war is the extermination of the Aryan race.

A race war is being waged in the United States, and most people do not even know it—or at least they refuse to acknowledge it. Although this war has been going on for four decades, it has mostly been concealed from its victims. Well, this statement is not exactly true. The truth is worse. The war has not been concealed so much as it has been described such that the victims are presented as the perpetrators.

Anyone reading newspapers, watching television, or listening to the radio would soon conclude that America is engaged in a race war. They would conclude that white America is trying to annihilate black America. Whites are the perpetrators. Blacks are the victims.

The truth is the opposite. Contrary to the propaganda, whites are not seeking to destroy blacks. On the contrary, blacks are seeking to destroy whites. Far more whites are victims of blacks than blacks are victims of whites.

This war, which Paul Sheehan calls the "Dirty War,"[3] has been going on for 40 years. It has claimed 25 million victims and has taken almost as many lives as the Vietnam War.

This war is not a conventional war where the opposing sides are identifiable by their uniforms. It is more like a guerrilla war and a civil war, yet it is not like either. Unlike a civil war, the overthrow of the established government is not the objective. It is worse than the traditional civil war, for the government has allied itself with the enemy to wage war against its citizens. The guerrillas in this war are not irregular militias who are mostly organized to overthrow the established government or drive it from a particular territory. The guerrillas in this war are primarily criminal thugs who have no intention or inclination to overthrow the established government. They wage this war out of hate. They hate their victims—not necessarily personally, but because they are members of an identifiable race. Thus, Negroes hate Aryans and seek their destruction.

This war is not fought like a conventional war or even as a guerilla war. It appears as crime. The casualties appear as victims of crime. For nearly the last 40 years, black Americans have waged this criminal war against white Americans.

This rise in black crime against whites began in the 1960s with the civil rights movement. As integration replaced segregation, Negroes began their war against Aryans. As whites have made more concessions to blacks and as society has become more integrated, this black war against white America has escalated and intensified. Between 1964 and 1994, Negroes killed 45,000 Aryans. This number of deaths exceeds the number of Americans killed in the Korean War (34,000) and is closing in on the number killed in the Vietnam War (58,000).[4]

Since 1965, blacks have committed at least 170 million crimes against white Americans. This Dirty War is destroying America, yet the major news media and political parties are covering it up.

Governments at all levels, especially the federal government, and the news media have made a concerted effort not only to conceal this war but also to make the victim race appear as the perpetrator. One almost never hears of a black being tried for a hate crime. Yet whenever a white viciously attacks a black, the crime is presented as a hate crime against blacks even when race is not an issue. The myth that all Aryans are by nature racists with uncontrollable hatred for Negroes and other colored people and lust to kill them at every opportunity must never die. Hand in hand with this myth is the myth that the Negro is a mild-mannered, peace-loving being who would never harm anyone if it were not for white oppression.

The following crime statistics clearly show that blacks are warring against whites.

Crime Statistics
The crime statistics prove the existence of the Dirty War. They show that Aryans are much more often victims of black criminals than Negroes are victims of white criminals.

Since 1975, violent crimes have grown more than four times faster than the population. Young blacks are twelve times more likely to be arrested for murder than young whites. About 20 percent of the more than 6.6 million violent crimes[5] are interracial, i.e., about 1.3 million are interracial crimes. (In 1985, 629,000 interracial crimes occurred.[6] Thus, in 10 years interracial crime has increased, more than 12-fold.) About 90 percent of the victims of race crimes are white. (Why does the United States Justice Department only concern itself with the 10 percent against blacks?) In 1994, blacks murdered, robbed, assaulted, or raped more than 1.1 million whites while whites murdered, robbed, assaulted, or raped only about 135,000 blacks. The United States have seven times more whites than blacks. Blacks commit 7.5 times more violent interracial crimes than whites. On a per-capita basis, blacks commit 50 times more violent crimes than whites. Blacks murder whites at a rate 18 times greater than whites murder blacks. Blacks murder more than 1600 whites per year. Blacks are truly waging a war against white Americans.[7]

The same disparity appears with nonviolent crimes.[8] In 1992, 27 million nonviolent crimes were committed. Of these crimes, blacks committed 31 percent against whites. Whites committed only 2 percent against blacks.[9]

According to Walter Williams,[10] a black economist, in the United States blacks commit 54 percent of the murders, 42 percent of the forcible rapes, 59 percent of the robberies, and 38 percent of the aggravated assaults.[11] Yet blacks make up only about one-eighth of the population.

Most of the time blacks are the victims of black criminals. Of murdered blacks, 93 percent were murdered by other blacks—so much for white racists killing blacks.[12]

Nevertheless, blacks commit more crimes against whites than they do against blacks. Blacks commit 1.58 million crimes per year against whites as compared to 1.34 million crimes per year against blacks.[13] Thus, black criminals choose white victims more than half the time.

Pat Buchanan affirms Williams’ assertions. Buchanan presents statistics[14] that show that blacks commit eight times more assaults than whites, blacks commit nine times more rapes than whites, blacks commit 14 times more murders than whites, and blacks commit 19 times more armed robberies than whites. Black neighborhoods are 35 times more violent than white neighborhoods.

The 1991 Justice Department statistics show that blacks committed 20,204 rapes against whites, but whites committed only 100 rapes against blacks. For robberies, 167,924 whites were victims of black robbers while only 7031 blacks were victims of whites. Blacks assaulted 431,670 whites; whites assaulted only 49,800 blacks. For all other violent crimes, 572,428 involved black perpetrators and white victims while only 55,301 involved white perpetrators and black victims.[15]

To state crime statistics another way, whites commit 63 crimes per 100,000 whites against blacks. Blacks commit 3494 crimes per 100,000 blacks against whites. Thus, the typical Negro is 56 times more likely to commit a violent crime against an Aryan than is the typical Aryan against a Negro.[16]

A majority of the victims of black perpetrators are white. Aryans are the victims in more than 56 percent of the violent crimes committed by Negroes. On the other hand, Negroes are the victims in less than 3 percent of the violent crimes committed by Aryans.[17]

[Editor's Note: The original contains a table that summarizes the percentage of young adults under criminal justice control. That table has been omitted.] Black males account for the largest fraction of the people between 20 and 29 years of age who are under criminal justice control. Yet this age group accounts for less than 1 percent of the American population.[18]

In the age bracket 18 to 34, one-third of the Negroes are in the criminal justice system.[19] That is, they are in prison or on probation or parole or out on bond.

The incarceration rate for whites nationwide rose from 116 per 100,000 in 1984 to 203 per 100,000 in 1993, a 75 percent increase. The rate for blacks increased from 723 per 100,000 to 1432 per 100,000, or a 98 percent increase, during the same period.[20]

[Editor's Note: The original contains a table that shows that crime rates of whites in the United States are similar to crime rates in Europe. That table has been omitted.] Blacks commit far more crimes on a per-capita basis than whites.[21]

Negrophiles use these statistics to argue that the criminal justice system is biased against blacks. Yet the opposite is true. The criminal justice system favors blacks over whites because blacks are convicted less often than whites.

Racism in the court system favors blacks, not whites. In 12 of 14 felony categories tracked by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, conviction rates are lower for blacks than they are for whites.[22] Black jurors are much more inclined to let an obviously guilty black defendant go free than white jurors are to let a white defendant go free.

According to the standard liberal prattle, poverty causes black crime. Williams refutes this claim. He shows that the murder rate between 1900 and 1929 rose from 1.2 per 100,000 people to 8.4. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, the murder rate fell to 6.3. By 1960 it was down to 4.7. However, as integration began to grow rapidly, the murder rate rose. It had reached 9.5 per 100,000 in 1993.[23]

According to the 1993 U.S. Justice Department survey, "Highlights from Twenty Year Surveying Crime Victims," 1.3 million white Americans were victims of violence by blacks. Only 130,000 (or about one-tenth as many) blacks were victims of white violence. When these numbers are adjusted for the relative differences in population, they show that blacks are about 60 times more likely to engage in interracial violence than are whites. This survey also showed that blacks murder whites about 18 times more frequently than whites murder blacks.[24] Blacks are 325 times more likely to participate in a gang robbery attack on a white than a white is on a black.[25]

As the crime statistics show, a large-scale race war is being fought in America. The aggressor in this Dirty War is the Negro; the victim is the Aryan.

Immigration
If having to war against domestic Negroes was not enough, the albusphobes have opened the borders to colored immigrants. Although most of these immigrants, legal and illegal, are Turanians and mestizoes from Latin America and Turanians and Melanochroi from Asia, they are just as destructive of the Aryan race and Aryan society as are Negroes. A million or more of these immigrants are pouring into the United States annually. They are destroying white communities. By significantly contributing to crime and mating with Aryans to breed them out of existence, they are part of the genocidal war against whites. They provide an important cadre in the Dirty War to annihilate the Aryan race.

Presently, one million legal immigrants enter the United States annually. Another 300,000 enter illegally. By 2050 immigrants will outnumber native Americans two-to-one.[26] In 1996 more than one million immigrants were naturalized. Nonwhites account for 85 percent of these immigrants. Before 1965, about 85 percent of the immigrants came from Europe. Today about 15 percent come from Europe.[27] At the present rate of increase in the nonwhite population, barely a majority of the population of the United States will be Aryans in 2025.

Most of these immigrants are non-Aryans, i.e., they are Turanians, Melanochroi, and Negroes, and hybrids. Most of them are from countries alien to the Western Civilization of Europe. Even most of those from Latin America, which Western Civilization has heavily influenced, find it alien. Such a culture is foreign to the vast majority of Turanians and mestizoes who are flooding the United States.

Most of these immigrants are unskilled and have a high birth rate. As their numbers increase, the living standard of the common American will decline. The more their numbers grow, the more their Third World culture of poverty and corruption will prevail.

To aid in the Dirty War against Aryans, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has unlawfully granted thousands of criminal aliens citizenship. These new citizens are free to stay in the United States and prey on their fellow citizens. They are just more troops in the war against white America.

Evidence of the INS hostility toward white America is found in Chester County, Pennsylvania. The police released illegal aliens when the INS refused to pick them up for processing or deportation. The objective of the INS is no longer to protect America from undesirable or illegal immigrants. Its objective has become to help transform America into a Third World country. Its objective is to destroy white America and the Aryan race.

To obfuscate the number of nonwhite immigrants, the Census Bureau classifies all people from the Middle East, North Africa, and Egypt as white. True, many of these people are white (of the Aryan species). However, many are brown (of the Melanochroic species[28]).

Furthermore, the Census Bureau generally counts Mexicans as white, although no more than 10 percent are white. Ninety percent are Indians and mestizos.

The albusphobic controlled United States government has opened the borders to nonwhite immigrants. Nonwhite immigrants are an important source of troops in the Dirty War to destroy white America. Immigration is leading to the genocide of the Aryan race in America.

Hate Crimes
Robert Patterson correctly defines a "hate crime" as "violence done to the black race or any individual thereof."[29] This definition is the one used by the liberal media, the political elite, and other albusphobes although they would not state it so bluntly or clearly. Proof that this definition is the correct one is that whenever a Negro is the victim of a crime and the assailant is unknown, the assailant is assumed to be white, i.e., Aryan.

Under this definition of "hate crime," hate crimes seldom occur. Blacks are rarely victims of white criminals. However, if "hate crime" meant a crime against a person of another race because of race, then hate crimes would be common events. Many blacks attack whites because they are white.

In 1995, 7947 hate crimes were reported; of these crimes, 4831 (or more than 60 percent) race was the motivation. Blacks were victims of 2988 (61.9 percent) racially motivated hate crimes. Whites were victims of 1226 (25.4 percent) racially motivated hate crimes.[30] These statistics give the impression that whites commit far more hate crimes against blacks than blacks do against whites. What goes unsaid is that about six times more whites live in the United States than blacks. Consequently, when adjusted for population, a white is 2.6 times more likely to be the victim of a hate crime than is a black. (As these statistics deliberately underreported the number of whites who are victims of hate crimes, the likelihood of a white person being a victim of a hate crime is higher.) Thus, blacks commit proportionally more hate crimes than whites.

Another important item concealed by these numbers is how perpetrators and victims are counted. Perpetrators are classified by race. Victims are classified not only by race, but also by ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation. Thus, if a white attacks a black, it counts as a white hate crime against a black. If a white attacks a Hispanic, it counts as a white hate crime against a Hispanic. However, if a Hispanic attacks a black, it counts as a white-on-black hate crime. (Actually, it should count as a Turanian on Negro hate crime for about 90 percent of the crimes because at least 90 percent of the non-Cuban Hispanics are Turanians [Indians] or mestizoes [Turanian-Aryan hybrids] and not Aryans [white].) Thus, lumping Hispanic Turanians and mestizoes with Aryans deliberately skews the statistics against Aryans.

Another fact that the gross hate crime numbers conceal is the severity of the crime. Most people associate murder, rape, aggravated assault, and other violent crime with hate crimes. However, about 41 percent of the recorded hate crimes are "intimidation," which may be no more than using a racial slur.

A war is being waged in America. Lawless Negroes and Mexicans are terrorizing whites. A reign of terror exists in America, and the United States government is orchestrating it.

This Dirty War against white America is destroying the power of middle-white Americans. The decline in the power of middle-white America has led to moral decay, more crime, more illegitimate births, more taxes, more welfare, more government, more drugs, deteriorating schools, and deteriorating communities.

Negroes and other races feel a great deal of hate for Aryans. Racial hatred underlies many (most) of the crimes against whites. Yet seldom are any of the crimes committed by Negroes against Aryans considered hate crimes. Albuphobes who control the government, media, big business, religion, and academia claim that a Negro cannot hate an Aryan because of race. If, by happenstance, such hatred does exist, it is the Aryan’s fault.

With a few exceptions, the national news media (along with governmental officials, business and religious leaders, and other albusphobes) have ignored most of these sadistic crimes. Perhaps these hideous crimes of Negroes violently attacking Aryans have become so common that such incidents are no longer news. Or is the national news media trying to cover up "America’s dirtiest little secret: black-on-white violence" as Earl Holt writes?[31]

The news media is quick to broadcast news about white crimes against blacks. Is it that these crimes are so rare that they are newsworthy? Possibly, for they are rare.

Perhaps it is also the Marxist framework guiding the news media. Under the Marxist way of thinking, whites are the exploiters, and blacks are the exploited. This is how the news media generally treat race relations: Whites oppress blacks. The news media typically ignore racial relations that do not fit this ideology. The news media are incapable of perceiving whites as treating blacks any other way. They are incapable of seeing blacks acting violently out of racial hatred. If a black does commit a violent crime against a white, it is nothing more than an oppressed slave rebelling against his oppressor. Thus, the news media ignore or downplay crimes committed by blacks against whites while broadcasting ad infinitum and ad nauseam crimes committed by whites against blacks.

The way that the news media report white-on-black crimes inspires black-on-white crimes. Interracial crime reporting gives the impression of large-scale white-on-black crimes with little black-on-white crimes, which is the opposite of the truth. Such reporting creates black animosity toward whites. It creates a desire to get even. Many black criminals have admitted that a motivation for their crime was a desire to "even the score" against whites.

The press has taught blacks to hate whites. It exaggerates crimes of whites against blacks. It rewrites history to present Aryans as greedy, vile oppressors and Negroes as innocent victims. The history of America is nothing but 500 years of white oppression of blacks. If it were not for white oppression, blacks would rule the planet and own all its wealth—so the liberal elite teaches.

A primary factor that contributes significantly to white victims of black criminals is ignorance of racial differences. Races have different temperaments. In general, Negroes tend to be impulsive, childlike, and cruel. Their most unspeakable crimes occur without prior planning. Like animals, they see a victim and attack without thought.

The media are not the only ones waging a genocidal war of words and concealment against Aryan America. Tax-supported universities and colleges are also important weapons in the annihilation of the Aryan race. They are the vanguard of the war, for they train the reporters and the leaders of government, business, and religion.

In the name of diversity, colleges and universities have become massive reeducation and indoctrination camps. They reeducate and indoctrinate whites to hate themselves. They teach nonwhites to hate whites. They inculcate their students with the lie that whites are the cause of all the world’s problems. If it were not for whites, the Earth would become the Garden of Eden. The only thing standing in the way of paradise is the Aryan race. The sole purpose of the Aryan race is to oppress people of color. Aryans are parasites living off the other races. Every great accomplishment credited to whites was stolen from another race. Elimination of the white race will fill the Earth with harmony, peace, and love. Universities, businesses, governments, and churches expend enormous resources teaching whites to despise themselves and teaching nonwhites to despise whites.

All this indoctrination serves one purpose: annihilation of the Aryan people, i.e., genocide. What is happening to the Aryans of America, happened to the Jews of Nazi Germany and various classes in communist Russia.

Black crime is changing the face of America. It will only become worse with time. The United States are at the threshold of a colored crime wave, the likes of which neither this country nor any other country has ever before seen. Hundreds of thousands of colored teenagers, the most violent age, are flooding the country. These children come from broken homes in crime-ridden neighborhoods, mostly in the inner cities. (An unofficial, but deliberate, policy of the United States government has been to create these broken homes and crime-ridden neighborhoods through the welfare state.) They are the progeny of low-intelligent parents. The religion of the secular humanists has inculcated them with hatred of the Aryan people. This breed of adolescents is much more violent than any who have come before them. They lack remorse and consciousness. The violence of their crimes was unthinkable even a decade ago. These are the new troops whom the albusphobes are employing to annihilate the Aryan race.

The purpose of this essay is not to instill or promote racial hatred or racial conflict. It is to inform open-minded whites (Aryans) about a war that is being deliberately waged to destroy them and their race. It is to inform them of genocide—the deliberate and systematic destruction of the Aryan race. This genocidal war is being concealed as crime.

Endnotes
1. Aryan is synonymous with white, and Negro is synonymous with black.
2. See Integration Is Genocide by Thomas C. Allen for a description of this disease.
3. Paul Sheehan, "The Race War of Black against White," The Truth at Last, 395, p. 9. (Originally published in The Sydney Morning Herald, May 20, 1995.)
4. Ibid.
5. Violent crimes are murder, rape, assault, and robbery.
6. "Statistics Prove Blacks Far More Violent," The Truth at Last, 402, p. 8.
7. New Century Foundation, The Color of Crime: Race, Crime, and Violence in America (Oakton: New Century Foundation, 1999). Paul Sheehan, "The Race War of Black against White," The Truth at Last, 395, p. 9. (Originally published in The Sydney Morning Herald, May 20, 1995.)
8. Non-violent crimes are burglary, larceny, car theft, and personal theft.
9. Paul Sheehan, "The Race War of Black against White," The Truth at Last, 395, p. 9. (Originally published in The Sydney Morning Herald, May 20, 1995.)
10. Williams’ explanation of these crime statistics probably disagrees with mine. However, I think we both would agree that if black leaders taught blacks to admire and respect the Aryan people and Western Civilization instead of despising and envying them and if the myriad of social and economic policies that inhibit the growth and development of blacks were abolished, black crimes would noticeably decline.
11. Walter Williams, "Black Writer on Black Crime," The Truth at Last, 403, p. 9.
12. Ibid.
13. National Association for the Advancement of White People, The Black War on White Americans: An Overview of U. S. Crime! July 13, 1999, http://naawp.com/popop.htm, Feb. 2000.
14. "Statistics Prove Blacks Far More Violent," The Truth at Last, 402, p. 8.
15. Charley Reeves, "Black Racism Is More Prevalent Than White Racism," Middle American News, December 1998, p. 15.
16. New Century Foundation, The Color of Crime: Race, Crime, and Violence in America (Oakton: New Century Foundation, 1999), p. 2. "Clinton ‘Hate Crimes’ Law Sets Up New Secret Police," The Truth at Last, 415, p. 3.
17. New Century Foundation, The Color of Crime: Race, Crime, and Violence in America (Oakton: New Century Foundation, 1999), p. 3.
18. "In the System," The Truth at Last, 386, p. 9.
19. "Racial Equality—Man’s Most Dangerous Superstition," The Truth at Last, 389, p. 7.
20. Robert B. Patterson, "The Africanization of Sports and Public Schools," Citizens Informer, vol. 25, winter/Dec. 1994, p. 12.
21. "U. S. White Crime Very Low," The Truth at Last, 401, p. 10.
22. Charley Reeves, "Black Racism Is More Prevalent Than White Racism," Middle American News, December 1998, p. 15.
23. Walter Williams, "Black Writer on Black Crime," The Truth at Last, 403, p. 9.
24. Earl P. Holt III, "The Undeclared War," Citizen Informer, Vol. 29, spring 1998, p. 1.
25. Jarad Taylor, Paved with Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America (New York: Carroll & Craf Publishers, Inc., 1992), pp. 93-94.
26. "Immigration Turning America into Colored Nation," The Truth at Last, 400, p. 9.
27. "Clinton Floods U. S. with Aliens, The Truth at Last, 395, p. 3.
28. Although Melanochroi have many Caucasoid features, they also have many Negroid features. Physically they frequently resemble Negroes more than some mulattos classified as Negroes.
29. Robert B. Patterson, "Hate Crimes," Citizen Informer, summer 1997, p. 12.
30. Samuel Francis, "Truth about ‘Hate Crimes,’" Middle American News, vol. 3, no. 2, Feb. 1997, p. 18.
31. Earl P. Holt III, "The Undeclared War," Citizen Informer, vol. 29, spring 1998, p. 1.

Copyright © 2009 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on social issues.