Genocide of Southerners

Genocide of Southerners

Thomas Allen

To destroy the culture of an ethnic group is to destroy that ethnicity — just as deliberately killing members of an ethnicity leads to the destruction of that ethnicity. Both scenarios result in genocide or attempted genocide.

Now, let us look at some definitions of genocide. These definitions show that what has been happening to Southerners since the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation has been genocide.

1. John Cox: “Genocide aims to not only eliminate individual members of the targeted group but to destroy the group’s ability to maintain its social and cultural cohesion and, thus, its existence as a group.”

2. The Armenian Genocide Museum: “[Cultural genocide is] acts and measures undertaken to destroy nations’ or ethnic groups’ culture through spiritual, national, and cultural destruction.”

3. Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary: “the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.”

4. Merriam-Webster, legal definition: “acts committed with intent to partially or wholly destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.”

As these definitions clearly show, Yankeedom and the oligarchs have been trying to genocide Southerners for more than 160 years. The following outlines this genocide.

The genocide of Southerners began early in Lincoln’s War with the wanton killing of children and women. Lincoln’s army killed them directly and indirectly through starvation. Moreover, Lincoln’s army deliberately destroyed public buildings, private houses from stately houses to slave quarters, churches, and cultural sites. Their deliberate destruction of Southern life and culture had nothing to do with war. Such deliberate destruction was genocide.

This genocide continued through the First Reconstruction as Republican bureaucrats and politicians further destroyed Southern culture and Southerners. Carpetbaggers, scalawags, and Blacks backed by the Union army looted and otherwise destroyed the South. So successful was their war to destroy the South through impoverishment, that Southerners needed more than a century to recover. 

Following the First Reconstruction, the genocide subsided somewhat and Southerners began to recover their culture. This era was when Southerners erected most of the statutes and memorials to their heroes.

With its Brown v. Board of Education (1954) ruling, the Warren Court began the Second Reconstruction and signaled the renewal of the genocide of Southerners. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Loving v. Virginia (1967), which legalized miscegenation, became highly important weapons in the genocide of Southerners.

While genociding Southerners via miscegenation, the Yankee oligarchs through their agents — primarily scalawags, carpetbaggers, and Blacks — attacked the culture and symbols of the South. A major casualty was the Confederate flag. Among other casualties were songs such as “Dixie” and “Carry Me Back to Old Virginny” and most songs that contained the word “slave” or praised the South. Statues and memorials of Southern heroes were torn down. Even streets, buildings, institutions, and military bases were renamed to remove references to Southerners. The cultural genocide of Southerners is almost completed.

Although the genocide of Southerners during the Second Reconstruction (1954 to present) has not been one of physically killing Southerners, it has been rapidly destroying their culture and heritage. Once an ethnicity’s culture is destroyed, it is dead though its people may continue to live.

Most people seem to believe that for genocide to be real, it must occur over a few years — a decade at most. They are wrong. Assyrians have been enduring off-and-on genocide and ethnic cleansing longer than have Southerners. Muslims have been trying to genocide Assyrians longer than Yankees have been trying to genocide Southerners.

The genocide of Southerners began with the deliberate and wanton killing of Southern civilians during Lincoln’s War and continued during the First Reconstruction. During the Second Reconstruction, the genocide of Southerners has focused on erasing their culture and to a lesser extent via miscegenation.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern 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.

Economic Advantage

Economic Advantage

Thomas Allen

One argument that libertarians and other proponents of free trade use is economic advantage. That is, if country A excels in producing agricultural products and country B excels in producing agricultural implements, A benefits from trading its agricultural products for country B’s agricultural implements instead of manufacturing them itself — and vice versa.

For example, the South excelled in producing cotton and tobacco. Great Britain excelled in manufacturing fabric, tools, and other manufactured products. So, the South traded its agricultural products for British manufactured goods and vice versa. For that reason, the North imposed protective tariffs on manufactured products to give itself an economic advantage over Great Britain.

However, few libertarians and other proponents of economic advantage see any advantage of one race or culture over another. To them, all cultures and, especially, races are equal. If they acknowledge that races and cultures cause economic advantage, then they would have to advocate policies to protect and preserve racial and cultural differences and, consequently, racial and cultural advantages. To keep the advantages of different races and cultures from disappearing, they would have to promote segregation and separation, which is highly politically incorrect.

Libertarians and other proponents of free trade either ignore or fail to realize the importance of race and culture. Race determines culture, and culture determines economic advantage.

Although the natural resources of a country are important, race and culture are more important. They decide if anything is done with them and what is done with them. Africa is a prime example of race and culture determining economic advantage. Great mineral treasures and agricultural potential lie in Sub-Sahara Africa. From their creation, Negroes and Khoisans have inhabited this region. Yet, they did little to develop it. Until the Aryan settlers arrived, the Negro’s most important export was slaves — first to the Melanochroi and then to the Aryans of Europe and later New England. Aryans developed Africa’s mineral resources and agricultural potential.

An example of cultural impact on economic advantage occurred in Europe during the Middle Ages. The Church prohibited the charging of interest on loans. So, if a clergyman, king, nobleman, or merchant needed to borrow money, they had to borrow from the Jews, who were not covered under the Church’s anti-usury edict. Thus, culture gave Jews an economic advantage in lending and later banking.

To retain and maintain economic advantage, racial and cultural advantages, i.e., differences, have to be protected and preserved because economic advantage grows out of racial and cultural advantages. To retain and maintain cultural advantage, races have to be protected and preserved because culture grows out of race. (Race precedes culture and, therefore, makes a culture.) Segregation and separation are the only sure way to preserve and protect the races, and, thus, they are the only ways to maintain economic advantage. Goods and services can cross borders without people (immigrants) crossing borders freely — especially, immigrants of different races and alien cultures.

Contrary to what libertarians and other proponents of free trade may believe, racial and cultural diversity and, therefore, advantages and differences are at least as important as, if not more important than, economic advantage. All are necessary for the well-being of mankind. Economic advantage depends heavily on culture, and culture is the product of race. Therefore, if economic advantage is to be retained and maintained, the races have to be protected and preserved. Only segregation and separation can protect and preserve them, and, by that, retain and maintain economic advantage.

Copyright © 2019, by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on economics.

Review of Boudreaux’s “Questions for Immigration Skeptics”

Review of Boudreaux’s “Questions for Immigration Skeptics”

Thomas Allen

Like most libertarians, Donald Boudreaux is a proponent of open borders and unrestricted immigration from the third world. In his article “Questions for Immigration Skeptics,” he faults several issues that opponents of open borders and unrestricted immigration use to support protecting the borders and restricting immigration. Below, are responses to some of the issues that Boudreaux identifies.

Using a common libertarian argument, Boudreaux contents that the mostly unrestricted immigration between 1607 and World War I resulted in a boom in the culture and economy of the British colonies and later the United States. Virtually unrestricted immigration of northern and western Europeans during this era was economically beneficial to European immigrants.

However, was this unrestricted migration of Europeans an economic and especially a cultural boom for the North American Indian? It certainly was not a boom for the Indian tribes that are now extinct. Moreover, this unrestricted immigration was such a cultural boom for the Indians that many no longer know the language of their ancestors, with many of these languages having become extinct. Much of what remains of traditional Indian culture is fading.

Boudreaux complains that placing restrictions on immigration reduces the freedom of Americans, both Blacks and especially Whites, by reducing the opportunity to mate with people of other races and thus hastening their extinction by breeding themselves out of existence. Thus, for Boudreaux and other libertarians, flooding the country with third-world nonwhite aliens is a great benefit. These nonwhite aliens offer White Americans the great benefit of amalgamating with them. Because of such miscegenation, the hated White race becomes extinct, which is a goal of liberal democrats and progressives and apparently of libertarians and neoconservatives. As most libertarians and neoconservatives are White, they must be consumed with self-hate.

Oddly, many libertarians agree with the desire of the liberal democrats, progressives, and neoconservatives to destroy the White race, Christianity, and Western Civilization — that is to destroy the foundation of libertarianism. (Has libertarianism ever risen in any other culture, religion, or race?)

Paradoxically, Boudreaux and other libertarians prefer flooding the country with evermore statists, as though enough of them are not already here. They want more people who have little used for a free market economy and see the government as the solver of all problems. Does not the country already contain enough people with this mentality?

Boudreaux complains that placing restrictions on immigration reduces the freedom of Americans to interact with non-Americans commercially. If so, such restriction of interaction is not significant. Most products that Americans buy are manufactured by non-Americans or contain parts manufactured by non-Americans. Furthermore, many agricultural products that Americans eat are grown by non-Americans. Even much of their computer services are provided by non-Americans. Apparently, Americans do not have to import non-Americans to interact with them commercially.

Another freedom that Boudreaux identifies that restricted immigration obstructs is learning from non-Americans. This complaint is so absurd that it hardly requires a response. With today’s internet and electronic communication systems (cell phones, television, radio, etc.), little restrictions exist for learning from non-Americans outside of China, North Korea, and a few other extremely authoritarian countries.

As an argument for open borders, Boudreaux notes that from Washington through the Garfield administration, the US government did not restrict immigration. If a duty of the government is to protect and control the country’s borders, the US government failed to perform this fundamental duty.

He fails to notice two important things. First, the people who were entering the country then came as true immigrants; they did not come as invading hordes of colonists as they are coming today. Second, except the Negro slaves and Chinese laborers, who were considered more as guest workers than immigrants, nearly all these immigrants were White Europeans and, therefore, of the same race (White), culture (Western Civilization), and religion (Christianity) as the Americans for whom the founders wrote the Constitution.

One great benefit of not restricting immigration during the antebellum era was that a large number of radicals from the failed Revolution of 1848 fled to the United States. Uniting with the Puritan Yankees, they succeeded in bringing Lincoln to power in 1861. To him, Americans owe the type of government that they have today — an all-powerful central government that claims the right to control everything, not only in this country, but also throughout the world, and seeks to do so. Bordeaux and other libertarians should rejoice; for this is the fruit of unrestricted immigration. Instead, they object to the results of their policy of unrestricted immigration.

One aspect that Boudreaux and other libertarians ignore is that before the early nineteenth century, Europeans came to the United States as colonists and not as immigrants. They came to supplant the Indians. They did not want to assimilate into the Indian culture. If any assimilation were to occur, the Indians would have to assimilate into the European culture.

Likewise, a large number of people entering the United States today come as colonists and not as immigrants. They have no intention of assimilating. Some, such as La Raza, admit as much. They want to retake the Southwest through colonization. Whites can assimilate with them or leave.

Like many libertarians, Boudreaux is so myopic that he only sees the potential benefits of unrestricted immigration, if all the things that he claims result from unrestricted immigration are truly beneficial. He all but ignores the culture, social, and racial destruction; to the extent that he does consider them, he finds their destruction desirable. However, liberal democrats and progressives are well aware of the destructiveness of unrestricted immigration, which is why they promote it.

Just as the Eastern Indian tribes learned earlier, the Plains Indians came to learn what happens when a people fail to protect their borders from unrestricted immigration. Failing to stop, much less restrict, immigrants from entering their country, the Plains Indians, like the Eastern Indians, lost their country. Moreover, these immigrants, who were really colonists, drove the Indians who had survived the genocidal wars to exterminate them to reservations, most of which were on undesirable land. Apparently, these open-borders-unrestricted-immigration proponents, who are mostly White, want Whites and, for that matter, Blacks to go the way of the North American Indian.

Open borders and unrestricted immigration have reduced the North American Indian to insignificance. Therefore, Bordeaux and other libertarians who promote open borders and unrestricted immigration must not care much about the North American Indian. Moreover, they do not care much about Whites or the American Negro. Unrestricted immigration will reduce them, if they survive the genocide, to the status of the North American Indian because Melanochroi and especially Turanians are coming to colonize the country. In general, Melanochroi and Turanians have little uses for Whites (Aryans) and none for Blacks (Negroes). Thus, libertarians, liberal democrats, progressives, neoconservatives and other proponents of open borders must disdain Whites and Blacks and adore Turanians, except the North American Indian, and Melanochroi.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Allen.

More political articles.

Libertarians Versus Marxists

Libertarians Versus Marxists

Thomas Allen

Libertarians and Marxists are more alike than many realize. Libertarians agree with Marxists on at least one thing: economics is the most important factor in life and takes precedence over everything else. Like Marxists, libertarians believe that economics is the principal cause of social organization. Both treat economics like a religion. To them, country (a territory), nation (an ethnicity), race, culture, and the like have little or no value, especially if it conflicts with economics. (However, unlike libertarians, Marxists find some value in these collectives as tools to create turmoil.)
    Marxists and most libertarians believe that people need to be liberated from nationality, ethnicity, sex (distinguishing between male and female), and religion. Marxists believe that the best way to accomplish this goal is through socialism, whereas libertarians believe that capitalism is the best way.
A major difference between libertarians and Marxists is that Marxists know that they must impose their will on their opponents and proceed to do so. For the most part, libertarians fail to realize that they must force their will on Marxists and other statists and suppress them to establish a libertarian society. Persuasion will not stop those who feel compelled to run other people’s lives. Only force will stop them.
Another real difference between libertarians and Marxists is that libertarians favor little or no government while Marxists favor absolute government. Still, this difference is highly important, for a Libertarian regime guarantees much more liberty than a Marxist regime, which guarantees none. While Marxists want to use the government to destroy culture, etc., Libertarians object to using the government to protect and preserve culture, etc.
Unlike Marxists, who are nearly always wrong about economic issues, libertarians are usually right. However, on social issues and other noneconomic matters, both are usually wrong.
While Marxists promote homosexuality and other sexual perversions, unlimited immigration, and miscegenation to destroy society, Libertarians offer no objection to such destruction, especially when their beloved multinational corporations are promoting the destruction of society. However, libertarians seem to value the family more than Marxists do; at least, they are not as negative toward the family as Marxists are.
Genocide is another similarity between Marxists and libertarians. Genocide by Marxist is obvious. With mass murder, deportation, and integration, genocide by Marxist is too overt to ignore. On the other hand, Libertarians genocide in more subtle ways. For example, few libertarians would object to the Chinese overwhelming the Tibetans in such numbers that the Tibetans would cease to exist. However, most would object to the Tibetans trying to protect their ethnicity by such actions as prohibiting intermarriage and keeping the Chinese out of their community. Most libertarians object to using governmental power to protect and preserve races and ethnicities.
Whereas Marxists see the government as the priesthood of their god, libertarians view government as the priesthood of Satan (even if they do not believe in Satan). On the other hand, libertarians view corporations as angels, while Marxists present them as pure evil (although most Marxists are owned, directly or indirectly, by these corporations). As long as corporations promote the destruction of society and the enslavement of the people, libertarians do not object if the corporations do not collaborate directly with the government in the destruction. Likewise, Marxists do not object. Only when a corporation collaborates with the government to gain a market advantage do libertarians criticize the actions of a corporation.
However, libertarians and Marxists do disagree on some political correctness. Marxists favor political correctness no matter who imposes it because it is an effective weapon in destroying a society and a country. Libertarians only object to political correctness if the government imposes it. Yet, if their beloved corporations promote political correctness, they find it acceptable.
In summary, neither Marxists nor libertarians oppose the annihilation of noneconomic collectives, such as country, nation, race, religion, and culture. Whereas Marxists do not oppose using the government to destroy these noneconomic collectives, libertarians do. Nevertheless, libertarians have no objection to the government allowing and even encouraging, their destruction. Moreover, libertarians promote preventing the government from doing anything to protect them.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Judging People by Their Character

Judging People by Their Character

Thomas Allen

    Martin Luther King said,  “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Progressives, liberals, libertarians, neoconservatives, academics, old media personalities, and most religious leaders, constitutionalists, and conservatives continuously dote over this saying of King.
    Most of these doters (idolaters?) have elevated King to sainthood, and many have defied him. They have even placed King above Jesus. People may blaspheme Jesus with immunity. Blaspheming Jesus even receives support from governments and the old media, and often receives indifference from the new media. However, to tell the truth about King brings condemnation from nearly all spectrums of society — from right to left. Moreover, those who fail to saint King are universally vilified as racists. (Therefore, people are judged not by their character, but whether or not they worship, or at least esteem above all others, King.) Such acceptance of the treatment of King and Jesus proves that King has supplanted Jesus as the central figure of religious and even nonreligious America. King has replaced Jesus as the representation of God on Earth. King’s teachings are esteemed far more than Jesus’. While the government church, public schools, bans Jesus, they indoctrinate King’s dogmas.
    However, these doters never investigate or consider the character of the womanizing King, who left a trail of destruction and blood as he fornicated across the country. They overlook his betrayal of his wife with his adultery. (If a man will betray his most sacred vows, such as his marriage vows, how can he be trusted with less important things?) Also, they do not consider or try to find out what King meant by “content of their character.” As judged by King’s actions, only non-Whites and White Marxists had any content of character worth possessing. If a White is not a Marxist, he has a low quality of character. To King, skin color, i.e., race, and Marxist character appear almost synonymous. Moreover, if Saint King’s character is so sterling, why do federal agencies have to conceal the information that they have collected about him?
    To judge people by their character requires unlimited resources, unlimited time, and an extremely long lifespan. Being finite with highly limited resources and time, people are forced to judge by categorization. Race is perhaps the best categorization to use to judge character, especially when immediate judgment is required. (An example of judging character by race is the Black cab driver who refused to take passengers to Black neighborhoods at night as occurred in the District of Columbia some years ago.) When known, ethnicity, which is a subdivision of race, may be an even better indicator of character than mere race.  (For example, if one knows that he is dealing with a Yankee, he knows, with high probability, that he is dealing with a person of a meddlesome, self-righteous, and generally low character.) Moreover, the Bible endorses the use of ethnicity, and by that race, to judge character. In Titus 1:12, Paul writes, “. . . the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.”
    The following two tables illustrate racial differences in character. Table 1[1] shows more recent studies while Table 2[2] shows earlier studies.

    For most of these characteristics, genetics plays an important role, often the dominant role, in their determination. Of course, exceptions exist. However, they are exceptions because they are not the expected.
    Professor Lynn supports the conclusions in the above tables. He shows that psychopathic personality is, to a significant degree, genetic and varies by race. Blacks have a high psychopathic personality while East Asians have the lowest. Whites are between them. Blacks are less able to sustain consistent work behavior than are Whites and East Asians. Conduct disorder (lying, stealing, truancy, fighting, vandalism, sexual precocity, cruelty, and the like) is about twice as high among Blacks as among Whites. Blacks are much more likely to fail to keep their financial obligations than are Whites. Moreover, Blacks are much more aggressive than Whites or East Asians, and, therefore, commit many more crimes in proportion to their population. East Asians are the least likely to commit crimes. Domestic violence is much higher among Blacks than among Whites. Furthermore, Blacks have much more difficulty forming stable, long-term loving relationships than Whites or East Asians, who are more likely than Whites to form such relationships. Also, Blacks have more sexual partners than do Whites, who have more than East Asians. Blacks are more impulsive than are Whites. Whites are more likely to delay gratification for a greater reward than are Blacks. Moreover, Blacks are more reckless and take greater risks than do Whites or Asians. Blacks are less likely to use contraception than Whites, and, thus, have more unplanned babies and more sexually transmitted diseases than Whites and East Asians. Furthermore, Blacks are more likely to abuse and neglect their children than are Whites. Lynn cites numerous studies to support his conclusion.[3]
    Professor Levin shows that Blacks and Whites have different concepts of morality, mostly because of genetics. He defines morality as the rules that people want everyone to follow and that they want everyone to want everyone to follow. He uses honesty as an example. Thus, acts that most Blacks find morally acceptable, such as theft, drug use, and preoccupation with sex, most Whites reject. The opposite is also true: What Whites find morality acceptable, Blacks often reject. Because of genetics, “Black children cannot be expected to respond as white children do to externally imposed white socialization.”  Also, because of genetics, Blacks are more likely to kill with firearms because they lack the genes to restrain them from killing with weapons that they did not invent. Levin gives other examples.[4] Thus, race is a strong indicator of morality and values and, by that, character.
    Nevertheless, other categorizations can be used, but they are not nearly as accurate or precise as race. For example, occupation may be used as a shortcut or a preliminary judgment of a person’s character when one lacks the time and resources to know the person on a personal level. Certain occupations, such as the stereotypical politicians (the more prestigious the office, the lower the character), lawyers, used car salesmen, burglars, old media personalities and their bosses, and establishment hierarchs and their agents, indicate poor character. However, most occupations are useless as indicators of character. Moreover, determining a person’s race at a glance is much easier than determining a person’s occupation.  Likewise, nearly all other categorizations, including socioeconomic status, are inferior to race as an indicator or predictor of character.
    Intelligence offers another judgment of character without intimate knowledge. It is largely inherited and varies with race. The intelligence of Blacks on average is about a standard deviation below that of Whites. The intelligence of East Asians on average is slightly above that of Whites. For better or worse, genetics controls the character of a lower-intelligent person more than it does the character of a higher-intelligent person because the higher-intelligent person is more likely to use his intellect to control his character for better or worse. That is, highly intelligent people are much more likely to use their intelligence to overcome their genetically influenced good and bad character traits than are low-intelligent people. Even so, character is more of a guide for intelligence than intelligence is for character. That is, character directs intelligence more than intelligence directs character. Thus, intelligence is not a good indicator of character. Furthermore, determining a person’s intelligence quickly is often difficult. As intelligence is related to race and as race is easier to determine, race is a better indicator of character, even if it is just used as a surrogate for intelligence.
    Genetics, culture, and environment form character. Intelligence is predominately determined by genetics: Genetics accounts for about 70 percent of a person’s intelligence. Intelligence creates culture and greatly controls or regulates environment. Therefore, genetics is the dominant force behind character. As race results from genetics, race is a good indicator of character.
    Here is the test. If you are walking down a dark street at night and you see a group of Blacks coming toward you and if you look across the street and see a group of Whites, would you cross the street? If so, you are not only judging character based on race, but you are also a racist. Be honest: Your life may depend on it.
     People who rely on race to judge character will be accused of being prejudiced. However, using race to judge character is not prejudice. T.B. Matson, an integrationist, defines “prejudice” as “a prejudgment, or judgment not based on knowledge or experience. It implies an opinion based on insufficient or irrelevant data.”[5]  This is a good definition. According to this definition, judging character by race is not based on insufficient or irrelevant data. People who judge character based on race are not making a judgment in a vacuum or based on irrelevant or insufficient data. Their judgment is based on statistics, knowledge, observation, and experience.
    Real prejudice is displayed by people who claim that the races are identical, equal, equivalent, or interchangeable, except for a few unimportant surface features such as the type of hair, the shape of the nose, or the color of skin.  They claim that the races do not differ in intelligence, temperament, or character or in any other nonmorphological trait. To support their assertion, they offer no evidence, studies, or facts. Moreover, they offer nothing but violence and coercion to counter and suppress the information, studies, or evidence that show that the races do differ genetically, innately, in intelligence, temperament, character, and other nonmorphological traits. Their resort to force proves that these people have nothing more to support their claim of racial equivalency except their personal biases and prejudices.
    In conclusion, when one lacks the time and resources to learn personally, with a good deal of interaction, the character of an individual, race serves as perhaps the best surrogate available in judging character. Besides, why would one want to waste valuable time and resources to learn personally the character of another only to discover that his character is despicable?

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on social issues.

Endnotes
1. J. Philippe Rushton, Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1995), pp. 25, 48-49, 51-52, 58.

2. J. Deniker, The Races of Man: An Outline of Anthropology and Ethnography (London, England: Walter Scott, Limited, 1900), p. 121. Charles Morris, The Aryan Race: Its Origin and Its Achievements (Chicago, Illinois: S. C. Griggs and Company, 1888), pp. 24-27. A. H. Keane, Man Past and Present, revised by A. Hingston Quiggin and A. C. Haddon (Cambridge, 1920), pp. 41, 85, 133, 164, 219, 255, 333, 439.

3. Richard Lynn, “Race and Psychopathic Personality,” A Race Against Time: Racial Heresies for the 21st Century, ed. George McDaniel (Oakton, Virginia: New Century Books, 2002), pp. 204-211.

4. Michael Levin, “The Evolution of Racial Differences in Morality,” A Race Against Time: Racial Heresies for the 21st Century, ed. George McDaniel (Oakton, Virginia: New Century Books, 2002), pp. 266-271.

5.  T.B. Matson, Segregation and Desegregation: A Christian Approach (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1959), pp. 47-48.

Libertarians and Immigration

Libertarians and Immigration

Thomas Allen

    Most libertarians have an unlibertarian view of immigration if they value property rights. Like liberals and neo-conservatives, most libertarians favor open borders and unlimited, unrestricted immigration.
    On the other hand, libertarians are staunch advocates of property rights. No one should go on another’s property without the owner’s consent. To enter without approval is an act of trespass.
    The libertarian position on open borders conflicts with their position on trespass and property. As every piece of land in the United States is owned by some person, no one can enter without the consent of the owner. To do otherwise is an act of trespassing. Whenever an individual enters illegally, he is trespassing.
    If a libertarian does not believe that such an act is trespassing, he should “practice what he preaches.” He should allow anyone who wants to enter his house to enter at any time. If someone wants to move in with him, he should allow that too. If he does not, he is a hypocrite.
    Moreover, many types of property are collectively owned and can only be collectively owned. Culture, race, ethnicity, and nation (as opposed to country) are among such properties.
    (Likewise, liberals, neo-conservatives, and all other proponents of open borders need to open their own houses to all comers. Moreover, they need to provide these roomers with free meals, free clothes, free entertainment, etc.  Unlike libertarians, liberals place little value on property rights unless the trespass is against their own property. However, in spite of their worship of collectivism, liberals and neo-conservatives place little value on naturally collectively owned property like culture and race.)
    The American Indians failed to control immigration. As a result, many tribes have vanished along with their cultures. Because the Neanderthals failed to stop the immigration of other races, they perished. The Romans failed to control immigration, and their culture vanished. Not only did the Romans not control immigration, they, like the United States, encouraged it. (Unlike the United States, at least the immigrants who overran Rome were racially kindred.) Many more examples can be given to show that uncontrolled, unrestricted immigration results in the death of culture, race, ethnicity, and nationality.
    If libertarians want to be consistent, they need to abandon their position either on immigration or on property rights.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on politics.