Natural Rights

Natural Rights

Thomas Allen

What are natural rights? According to natural rights doctrine, the rights of a free people come from the laws of nature, which God has ordained. Unlike what many people claim or seem to believe, natural rights do not come from governments, i.e., states.

Nevertheless, much disagreement exists about natural rights. One ethnicity’s concept of natural rights often differs from another’s concept. The natural rights of a Christian, even a nominal Christian, country differ from those of a Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu country. Europeans, South Asians, East Asians, American Indians, and Africans have different concepts of natural rights — if they have any concept of natural rights at all.

Still, most people consider natural rights to be life, liberty, and property, plus the right and means to support and defend them. However, much disagreement occurs about liberty, property, and their protection.

Except for warmongers, proponents of abortion, and advocates of genocide, most people consider the right to life a natural right — at least for members of their ethnicity.

Before 1861, most Americans considered freedom of speech, religion, association, and assembly to be among the natural rights of liberty they were to enjoy. (The natural right of liberty did not include libertinism, public immorality, sexual perversion, and trespass against other persons or their property. Today, however, these are the natural rights of liberty, and traditional pre-1861 liberties are not.)

Many other societies do not consider these liberties to be natural rights. Today, in America, many of these liberties are being suppressed. Freedom of association died with the advent of the Civil Rights Era.

  Further, much disagreement exists over the right to own property and to use it as the owner desires, provided he does not trespass against another. This was the commonly accepted concept of property rights in the United States before 1861. This natural right is fading away. Except for some small personal items, it hardly exists in some countries. In socialist and fascist countries, the government regulates, i.e., controls the use of property — especially real property. Even in the United States, property rights are restricted via excessive taxation, zoning, and other laws that restrict the use of property, and the like. Moreover, while some, like the founding fathers, consider collective property, such as race, ethnicity, culture, and heritage, worthy of protection, others, like progressives and libertarians, do not. In America today, the latter now prevails over the former.

Many people consider the freedom from want to be a natural right. Where freedom from want is considered a natural right, the ownership of property is not a natural right. Freedom from want depends on forcibly taking property from people who have earned it and giving it to people who have not earned it.

Also, people dispute over the appropriate means to defend the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Does an individual have the right to defend his life, liberty, and property with deadly force? Although some jurisdictions allow the use of deadly force by an individual to defend life, others do not. Rare is a jurisdiction that allows an individual to use deadly force to defend property, and even rarer is one that allows a person to use deadly force to defend liberty. Instead, most, if not all, societies depend on governments to defend the natural rights of the people. Yet, governments, especially those that have morphed into states, are the greatest enemy of natural rights.

The United States were founded on the concept of the natural rights to life, liberty, and property and their protection. This concept of natural rights was the foundation of the constitutions of the several States, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of 1787. Moreover, the concept that sovereignty rests in the people of each State was another foundation of these constitutions.

People are not free because, at any particular moment, their government is not violating their rights. They are free if they force their government to live within the bounds of the constitution that establishes it — such a constitution being approved by the body politic, i.e., the people who wield political power in the territory under that constitution.

Today, Americans are not free because the federal government ignores most of the bounds of the Constitution that establishes it. Likewise, the State governments operate beyond the bounds of their constitutions. And the people let their governments violate the laws under which they are supposed to operate — mostly because the oligarchs, who control the federal government, have bought them with their (the people’s, i.e., the taxpayers’) money. To a lesser extent, State governments have acted likewise.

Unlike the federal government, which has strictly delegated powers beyond which it is not supposed to exceed, State constitutions grant their governments the authority to legislate on all matters where they are silent. Further, State governments are not to trespass against any restrictions that their constitutions place on them. Thus, all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are denied, while State governments have all the powers not denied.

Free people do not allow their governments to go beyond the limits of their constitutions. Therefore, Americans are not free because their federal and State governments act beyond these limits. Moreover, much of the rest of the world is not free because their governments exceed their constitutional limits. The exceptions are countries like North Korea and China, which were not free to start with because the ruling oligarchs set no limits on governmental power, and, therefore, they can never exceed their limits.

Unless the people rise and enforce their constitutions, they will continue to live in tyranny, i.e., live under an unlawful, arbitrary, and unrestrained government. To free their people, the States need to oppose the federal government and beat it back into the bounds of the Constitution. Similarly, the people of each State need to rise and force their State back into its constitutional bounds.

To force the federal government to return to its proper bounds, a powerful weapon that the States may use is to cease cooperating with the federal government in enforcing unconstitutional federal laws. However, to do this, the States would have to give up the bribe money that the federal government pays them. Probably, all States lack the fortitude and integrity to do this.

Nullification is another weapon that States may use. However, to be effective, the States need to arrest and jail any federal agent trying to enforce the nullified law. Again, probably all States lack the fortitude and integrity to do this.

Being sovereign, the people have the duty to force both the federal government and their State governments to operate within the bounds of their constitutions — with arms if necessary — hence, the reason for the Second Amendment of the US Constitution and similar clauses in their State constitutions. 

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

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.

Some Comments on Race and Ethnicity

Some Comments on Race and Ethnicity 

Thomas Allen

 

Discussed below are the difference between race and ethnicity, the invalidity of genetic testing for racial and ethnic ancestry, Yankees and Northerners, and albusphobes.

Race and Ethnicity

Human races are species and, therefore, are biologically and genetically like any other species. A racial type is like a variety or subspecies. An ethnic group is a cultural subdivision of a human race. For example, Melanochroi (Homo brunus) is a species of man. Among its varieties are Saharan-Hamite, Eastern-Hamite, Egyptian, Oriental, Dravidians, and Indo-Iranian. Its ethnicities include the Fellata, Ethiopian, Fellahin, Bedouin, Tamil, and Baluchi.

A major difference between race and ethnicity is its life. With a few exceptions, a race lasts forever after God creates it if Revelation is given a broad interpretation. According to Revelations 7:9, a great multitude out of every nation, of all tribes, peoples, and tongues stand before the throne of God and before the Lamb, Jesus. Unless all these nations, tribes, and peoples are of the same race (species of man), then all extant races should have representatives in the kingdom to come. (Some species of man have become extinct, such as Neanderthal and the giants like the Nephilim. Whether any of them are in heaven is unknown. However, if the Universalists are correct, they along with all other humans will be there.)

On the other hand, ethnicities are transitory. They are born and later die, at least on earth, although they may survive for thousands of years. Nevertheless, Revelations shows that many ethnicities (nations, tribes, and peoples) will last forever.

Ethnic and Racial Ancestry

Various companies promote discovering one’s ethnic (Pole, Japanese, Zulu, Tuaregs, etc.) and racial (Aryan, Melanochroi, Turanian, Negro, Indo-Australian, and Khoisan) makeup. This is done by comparing a person’s genetic sample to genetic samples of various ethnic and racial groups.

For this comparison to be valid, a person’s genetic sample has to be compared with a standard. Furthermore, the standard has to be pure with no admixtures from any other ethnic or racial group. Thus, for validity, a pure and unpolluted gene pool is needed for Poles, Japanese, Zulu, Tuaregs, and each of the hundreds of other ethnic groups.

On the other hand, we are told that no pure ethnicities or races exist. Everyone is a mongrel. All ethnicities and races are mixtures of each other. If true, then discovering one’s ethnic and racial ancestry by genetics is a hoax and a waste of resources.

Yankee and Northerner

Most Whites in the United States who originate outside the South fall into two groups: the Yankee and the Northerner. Yankees are Whites who fit the description given in “The Puritan Yankee,” “The Yankee,” and “Cusson’s Description of the Yankee” all by Thomas Allen. Whites originating outside the South who do not fit the description of the Yankee are Northerners. (During Lincoln’s War, many Northerners were called “Copperheads.”) Like Southerners who are not scalawags, Northerners are deplorables. Although inferior in number, Yankees are superior in power and influence. Unfortunately, many Northerners follow the lead of the Yankees, which results in confounding the two because it makes these Northerners almost indistinguishable from the Yankees. Consequently, Yankees and Northerners are often confused and used as synonyms.

Albusphobes

Albusphobia is an intense aversion for the Homo albus species of humans, i.e., an intense aversion for the Aryan or White race. Luciferians, self-hating H. albus, and racial nihilists are the three major types of Whites who are albusphobes. Luciferians are mostly found in the ruling elite and their underlings. They seek to offer the H. albus species to Lucifer, their master, because it is the species created in the image of God. Self-hating H. albus (self-hating Whites) hate their species so much that they seek its annihilation. Many progressives and liberals and some libertarians are self-hating H. albus. The largest group is the racial nihilist. Racial nihilists are indifferent to the existence of all human species, especially H. albus. They do not consider any human species worth preserving, especially H. albus. Most Whites are, or at least act like, racial nihilists.

Many nonwhites are albusphobes. A few nonwhites are Luciferians. Some are racial nihilists. Others are so albusphobic that they are willing to sacrifice their own species to genocide H. albus. However, many nonwhites are not albusphobic per se; they merely seek to preserve and promote their own species. Most nonwhite albusphobes are averse to the H. albus species but not to the extent of scarifying their own species to genocide H. albus. This group desires and seeks the death of H. albus without sacrificing themselves.

Because White albusphobes have united with nonwhite albusphobes to genocide H. albus, H. albus is doomed to extinction. Only if Whites begin loving their own species as much as nonwhites love theirs and began promoting the preservation of H. albus, can H. albus be saved from extinction.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Israel Identity

Israel Identity

Thomas Allen

Israel Identity, also called British-Israelism, Christian Identity, and Kingdom Identity, claims that the lost tribes of Israel became the Germanic and Celtic tribes that invaded Europe and settled in Western Europe. The following presents Charles Weisman’s version of the Israel-Identity doctrine as it relates to salvation as given in Is Universalism of God? In this book, Weisman refutes the doctrine of the Universalists that all humans are eventually saved regardless of race or merit.

Weisman appears to be a Calvinist — only more so. Calvin believed that God arbitrary chooses whom to save to everlasting life and whom to condemn to everlasting torment without any foreknowledge of merit. (Thus, Calvin declared that God is not omniscient.) Unlike Calvin, who seems to believe that people of every ethnicity and race have a chance of salvation, Weisman seems to argue that only the unmixed descendants of Israel are saved. However, he is somewhat fuzzy about non-Israelite Whites. Sometimes, he seems to allow the descendants of Abraham (except the Arabs) and possibly Heber a chance of salvation. At other times, he seems to include non-Hebrew Whites in the salvation lottery, but, at other times, he excludes them.

Like all Israel Identity adherents, Weisman includes all Israelites and their modern-day descendants in the salvation lottery. Nevertheless, he is unclear about which Israelites are saved. Does God save nearly all, most, many, or just some? (Israel Identity adherents run the gamut from nearly all to just some.) According to Weisman, if a person is saved, he is merely a robot whom God has programmed to believe in Jesus — although he is not this blatant. As mentioned above, Weisman is hazy about whether God chooses any non-Israelite White for salvation, although he seems inclined to believe that God does not choose any non-Israelite White for salvation. However, he is certain that God chooses no nonwhites for salvation, and, by that, He condemns all nonwhites to eternal damnation.

At the time of Israel’s birth, circa 1844 or 1837 B.C., and the Israelite migration to Egypt around 1715 or 1706 B.C., Whites inhabited most of the Middle East, and much of Egypt and North Africa. Whites also inhabited Europe then. Consequently, Whites vastly outnumbered the Israelites, who were probably less than 100 persons. (Pure Israelites were 13.)

As far as known, none of Israel’s sons married their sisters. Thus, none of Israel’s daughters-in-law were true Israelites. According to the Bible, Joseph married an Egyptian by whom his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, were born. (According to most Israel Identity adherents, the descendants of Ephraim inhabit England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Manasseh’s descendants inhabit the United States.) How can the descendants of Israel’s sons be pure Israelites if their mothers were not genetic Israelites?

Since the Israelites settled in lands, such as Mesopotamia, Syria, Asia Minor, North Africa, and Europe that already had a population of Whites greater and often much greater than the Israelite immigrants, what happened to these non-Israelite Whites? The Israelites did not kill all of them or even most of them. Apparently, the Israelites lived among these other Whites or alongside them.

Moreover, how does one distinguish between an Israelite White European and a non-Israelite White European? Like other Israel Identity adherents, Weisman does not satisfactorily answer this question. The closest that he comes to an answer is to declare that the people of the Nordic racial type are true Israelites. If true, this suggests that other Whites are either non-Israelite Whites or a mixture of Israelite and non-Israelite Whites.

As God saves only true Israelites, then He condemns these other Whites to eternal death. Consequently, since only a small number of Europeans are Nordic, God condemns most Whites to eternal death. (Exposure to the sun is the easiest test to determine if one is a Nordic. While most Whites tan when they expose themselves to the sun, Nordics redden.)

That most Israel Identity adherents are Nordic is highly unlikely. Moreover, that most Israel Identity adherents are some pure descendants with no admixture of non-Israelite Whites is even more unlikely. Therefore, if Weisman is correct, few, if any, Israel Identity adherents qualify for God’s salvation lottery.

In his book, Weisman exposes the error of the doctrine of the Universalists that all humans regardless of race or merit are eventually saved to everlasting life in heaven. He does so by arguing that God chooses only Israelites for salvation to everlasting life. Nevertheless, at times, Weisman suggests that some non-Israelites Whites are saved, while at other times, he suggests that no non-Israelite Whites are saved. Like other Israel Identity adherents, he fails to explain how one distinguishes between an Israelite White and a non-Israelite White. However, he is certain that God chooses not to save any nonwhites.

In part, Weisman condemns the Universalist salvation doctrine because it reduces the need for repentance and salvation and removes the fear of judgment; thus, it creates a false sense of security. Such notions encourage licentiousness and otherwise unchristian, unholy lifestyles. Yet, the salvation doctrine of Weisman does the same thing — even more so. As God has already decided whom He will save, then how a person behaves or what a person believes is irrelevant. If behavior and belief are important to salvation, then God programs the person to be saved how to behave and what to believe.

Since God never saves nonwhites, then their behavior and beliefs do not matter. They may as well live by their passions and appetites. Likewise, the same is true for Whites. Since no one knows for sure whether he is an Israelite or whether God has chosen him — although, like all other Israel Identity adherents, Weisman is convinced that he is an Israelite whom God has saved — he may as well act the way that he wants to act and believe whatever he wants to believe. God’s choice and his ancestry decide his salvation and not his behavior or beliefs.

However, Weisman is correct in that Universalism is an egalitarian doctrine that  leads to and encourages the sin of miscegenation. Moreover, Universalism is a false doctrine. Nevertheless, the Israel-Identity doctrine that Weisman substitutes for it is highly questionable.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious 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.

The Conservative Threat to the White Race

The Conservative Threat to the White Race

Thomas Allen

    Perhaps, the greatest threat that the White race faces today is the so-called White conservative spokesmen and leaders because their attack is unsuspected. They are Trojan horses.
    With rare exception, conservative leaders promote, or at least accept without protest, conditions that will genocide the White race. Sadly, most do not even know that which they condone leads to genocide. However, their ignorance does not lessen the genocide; most likely, it makes it more certain. Unfortunately, even if they know, most probably would not object to these conditions.
    Moreover, these conservative leaders do not even realize that the Black race and what little remains of the American Indian will be destroyed with the genocide of the White race. Blacks and other non-Whites are the tools of genocide. This is especially true since many of these conservatives do not oppose flooding the country with Indians and mestizos from Latin America and Melanochroi and Turanians from Asia, who are also being used to genocide the White race.
    A major cause of this problem is that most conservative live in fear of the “R” word — “racist” — although they are by definition racist (all Whites are racist by definition). They need to get over this fear. With more than 280 definitions, “racist” has become a meaningless word whose sole purpose is to smear the person against whom it is hurled.
    Furthermore, many conservatives have fallen in love with “diversity,” so much so, that distinguishing their worship of diversity from that of a liberal is often difficult. However, few acknowledge that integration and amalgamation destroy diversity. Real diversity can only be achieved with segregation and separation. Unfortunately, most of the conservatives who oppose diversity want to replace it with amalgamation, the melting pot. Amalgamation is nothing more than racial suicide, i.e., genocide.
    Another cause is that most conservatives do not know what a nation is. They believe that a nation can be multiracial and multiethnic. However, they confuse “nation” (a people) with “territory” (a country).  A nation or nationality is a people of the same biological race (species) who have a common origin, culture, language, and history and who have common traditions and customs. A country can be multiracial, multiethnic, and multicultural, but a nation cannot. When in their praise of nationalism, they imply or even state that a nation can be multiracial, they are covertly supporting genocide.
    Also, many conservatives show an inability to distinguish between a biological race and ethnicity or between a biological race and a nation. For example, Danes are an ethnicity and a nation of the White or Aryan race, while Zulus are an ethnicity and a nation of the Black or Negro race within the country of South Africa. Both Poles and Portuguese are ethnicities and nations of the Aryan race. Catalans and Basques are ethnicities of the Aryan race who live in the multiethnic country of Spain.
    What is the genocide that these conservative leaders condone? It is amalgamation through miscegenation. When two or more races interbreed, they are destroyed, which is genocide, i.e., the systematic annihilation of a race.
    Besides the fear of being smeared as “racist,” another reason that these conservatives fail to condemn miscegenation as genocide is ignorance. Most fail to realize that interracial mating is genocide because it is subtle and slow. This is ignorance that kills.
    Regrettably, others promote this genocide for the nefarious reason that they are agents of the ruling elite, who seek to annihilate the White race for satanic reasons (it is the race created in the image of God).
    These conservative leaders and spokesmen are much more dangerous to the White race than liberals. Their conservative followers know the hatred of liberals for Whites and their desire to destroy them. However, because of the conservative credentials of these conservative leaders, their followers give less attention to, or even ignore, the hostilities that these conservative leaders have toward the White race. Often, these leaders conceal their animus by praising Whites, expressing a desire to preserve or protect Whites, and protesting discrimination against Whites.
    Beware, if a conservative leader or spokesman (1) continuously or vigorously insists that he is not a racist, (2) praises Martin Luther King, (3) believes that a nation can be multiracial, (4) responds to racial diversity with amalgamation, which he calls assimilation, i.e., the “melting pot” principle, (5) does not object to interracial marriages, (6) gives the impression that the Black man is the same as the White man except that his skin contains more melanin and his hair is curlier,  (7) claims there is only one race: the human race, and (8) objects to aliens illegally entering the country, but expresses no concern about non-Whites entering if they do it legally, he may be an agent of the ruling elite, a coward, or an ignoramus. In any event, conservatives who value the White race need to jettison these traitorous conservative leaders. Such conservatives apparently place little or no value on the White race, the White gene pool. Any person who does not advocate the preservation of his own race and nation (ethnicity) — his gene pool — is a traitor to his people.

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.