Founding Principles of the Governance of the United States

Founding Principles of the Governance of the United States

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are some of the founding principles of the United States. They are the relationship of church and state and the destructiveness of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Separation of Church and State

In “Religious Liberty and the Genius of the American Founding,” Imprimis (December 2024 | Volume 53, Number 12), Glenn Ellmers argues that America’s founders solved the problem of establishing the sacredness of the law while avoiding religious conflict and persecution. They combined human reason and divine revelation to establish religious liberty. (First, today, the country lacks reason. Second, whose religion is used to establish the sacredness of the law? Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all claim to be descended from Abraham’s religion. Yet, they are incompatible with each other. Further, Hinduism, which is growing rapidly in the United States, is even more incompatible.)

The Founding Fathers recognized that people “are born into both a physical and moral world that” they did not create. American politics was built on this foundation. (Unfortunately, many American political, religious, academic, business, and other leaders have been diligently working to destroy this foundation.)

Next, Ellmers discusses the problems that the Founding Fathers solved. “First, they solved the split between piety and citizenship by supplying a common ground for morality.”  With reasoning, people can understand the difference between virtue and vice. Thus, “the law can enforce moral precepts that are acknowledged by both political and ecclesiastical authorities.” (What about vices that some religious authorities recognize as vice, but political authorities do not? Gambling is an example that some religious authorities condemn, but many political authorities do not. Through State-sponsored lotteries, some States use gambling as a source of revenue. This action prevents them from considering gambling as immoral, although some religious authorities do.)

“Second, this common ground of morality makes it possible to delineate in a clear way the political and religious realms.” Thus, “the separation of church and state becomes possible.” The Declaration of Independence’s “teaching about the laws of nature and nature’s God establishes a kind of political theology, a non-sectarian ground of legitimacy that makes the laws ‘sacred’ without getting the government involved in theological disputes about the Trinity, faith versus works, etc.” 

“Third, the Founders solved the problem of religious persecution. Because the government and the churches can agree on a moral code that is compatible with both reason and revelation, each can operate in its proper realm without intruding on the other.” Consequently, a religious test for office was prohibited. (Although no government today requires a religious test for office, some States in the early years of the United States did.)

(What happens if the law is used to protect immorality instead of prohibiting it? Abortion and sexual immorality, such as homosexual acts and miscegenation, are examples. Abortion and abortionists are protected in many States. Likewise, homosexual marriages and miscegenation are protected in all States. Yet, traditional Christianity condemns them as sins that should be legally prohibited. When the political realm [reason] conflicts with the religious realm [revelation], the political realm prevails, at least in this world, because it wields the rifles.

In spite of the separation of church and state, today, the political realm has chosen the religion of secular humanism as the state religion. When it conflicts with the other religions, the political realm [the government] nearly always sides with secular humanism.)

The Fourteenth Amendment

The  Fourteenth Amendment is unconstitutional because it is incongruent with fundamental principles of the Constitution that it amended. Not only was it ratified unlawfully and illegally, but it also violates at least three basic principles underlying the Constitution. 

(1) The Fourteenth Amendment usurped the sovereignty of the people of each State and gave it to the oligarchs who controlled the federal government. Before the Fourteenth Amendment, the States were independent nations that were members of a federation. The federal government was their agent that attended to foreign affairs and a few domestic issues. It had no sovereignty. Accordingly, the Constitution of 1788 was a contract between independent sovereign republics, which created an agent, the federal government, to carry out specific and limited activities. The Fourteenth Amendment voided that contract and usurped all the sovereignty and powers of the States, the parties to the contract, and placed them in the federal government. Now, the States have only those powers that the federal government condescends to grant them. Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment changed the United States from a federation of sovereign republican States to an empire.

(2) It changed the fundamental principle of citizenship. Before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, individuals were considered citizens of the United States by being citizens of a State. After the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, individuals became citizens of a State by being citizens of the United States.

(3) (This one will really anger most people, especially conservatives and libertarians.) The Constitution was written by Whites, for Whites, and only for Whites. The Fourteenth Amendment changed the Constitution from being monoracial to being multiracial by making Negroes citizens. Consequently, it changed the United States from a White country for Whites only to a multiracial country (and all today's problems with nonwhite immigration). 

Consequently, because the Fourteenth Amendment is incompatible with the underlying principles of the Constitution and is, therefore, unconstitutional, courts should ignore it until it is repealed.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States were independent sovereign republics. After Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States lost their independence, sovereignty, and republican form of government and became little more than administrative districts in a consolidated empire.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Miscegenation Is Genocide

Miscegenation Is Genocide

Thomas Allen

Genocide is the systematic destruction of a race of people. If carried to its conclusion, miscegenation results in the destruction of at least one, often both, of the races that are intermarrying. Thus, miscegenation is genocide.

To illustrate this point, let us consider an island with 50 men and 50 women of race M and 50 men and 50 women of race T. The 50 men of race M kill the 50 men and 50 women of race T. What is the result?  Genocide. Race T has ceased to exist.

Again, the 50 men of race M kill the 50 men of race T. They then rape the 50 women of race T, who then have hybrid offspring of mixed-race MT. Or, the 50 women of race T voluntarily become the wives of the men of race M and have children with them. The result is still the same; they have hybrid offspring of mixed-race MT. Finally, if the men of race M have no sexual relationship with the women of race T, the women of race T have no children. What is the result of all three of these scenarios? Genocide. Race T ceases to exist when the last woman of race T dies.

One may say that these are obvious incidents of genocide because violence and murder are involved. However, what one fails to realize is that genocide can occur without violence and can even be voluntary.

Let us return to the example island. The 50 men of race M lust (or desire or whatever verb one wants to use) after the 50 women of race T and marry them while the 50 men of race T lust after the 50 women of race M and marry them. No violence or force is involved. Each man and woman freely and voluntarily chooses his and her mate. The offspring of these mixed marriages are of mixed-race MT. When the last man and woman of race M or race T dies, that race ceases to exist. What is the result?  Genocide. Both races have ceased to exist.

Many definitions include “deliberate” extermination as part of the definition, but not all definitions do. Whether something is deliberate or not is irrelevant if the result is the same. Some definitions use “kill” while others use “exterminate” to show that genocide can be accomplished by means other than killing. 

Now let us look at two definitions of 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. American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition: “The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.”

According to Jim Cox's definition, miscegenation leads to genocide because it not only eliminates individual members of intermarrying races by eliminating their racial offspring, but it also destroys their ability to maintain the social and cultural cohesion of the race by eliminating the existence of the race.

Miscegenation also meets the definition of the American Heritage Dictionary.  When interracial mating becomes widely accepted, it becomes systematic and widespread and leads to the extermination of the races involved. 

Genocide can just as likely be voluntary as it can be involuntary. It can be murder when one race deliberately kills another. It can be suicide when one race deliberately kills itself by breeding itself out of existence. The only real difference between genocide by murder and genocide by miscegenation is that genocide by miscegenation usually takes longer. In both cases, the results are the same. The race ceases to exist.

Thus, miscegenation is genocide. That it is voluntary does not make it any less evil or sinful. Are homosexual acts any less sinful when they occur between consenting adults? Are adultery and fornication any less sinful when they occur between consenting adults? Is genocide any less sinful when it is voluntary (miscegenation) instead of done by force (murder)? The answer to all these questions is no. They are all sins. 

The only way to avoid the sin of miscegenation and the resulting genocide is to outlaw it and punish those guilty of the crime of miscegenation.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Traditional American Conservatism

Traditional American Conservatism

Thomas Allen

What are the underlying principles of traditional American conservatism? They are the protection and promotion of traditions, heritage, religious values, traditional sexual roles, strong nuclear families, native fertility above replacement levels, racial integrity, strong borders, immigration restricted to the native race, and a common national identity. That is the preservation of the nation in the true senses and its culture, civilization, and way of life. (A nation or nationality is a people who have a common genetic ancestry, culture, language, and history; who have common traditions and customs; and who are capable of forming or constituting an independent country.) Upon this foundation can be built such values as freedom of speech, a free-market economy, and private ownership of weapons sufficient for the people to defend themselves from a tyrannical government.

Conservatism is not a dedication to abstract propositions, such as “democracy” or “all men are created equal.” Such conservatism is a pseudo-conservatism. Pseudo-conservatism includes neoconservatism, establishment conservatism, progressive conservatism, compassionate conservatism, national conservatism, and other types of conservatism that accept big government managerial liberalism (the welfare state, warfare state, governmental oversight and management of the economy, and homogenization including integration and amalgamation), i.e., the managerial liberal state — all these types of conservatism fit under the umbrella of big government conservatism. (Further discussion of big government conservatism is below.)

Unlike wokesters, progressives, liberals, libertarians, and most big government conservatives, traditional American conservatives do not condone the depravity of the reprobate mind. Thus, they do not accept the public display and promotion of homosexual activity, transgenderism, and other sexual perversions including interracial sexual activity, which the Bible condemns. Transgenders are mentally ill and should be treated as such. Homosexuals and transgenders should receive no special privileges as they do today in the Western World.

Furthermore, feminism and the effemination of men are detrimental to strong nuclear families and, therefore, should be opposed. (Today, most conservatives find sexual perversion, transgenderism, feminism, and the effemination of men acceptable or at least not worthy of opposition.) Traditional American conservatives promote masculinity and strength.

Moreover, traditional American conservatives are racial preservationists and abhor racial supremacy (the desire to rule other races) and especially racial nihilism. On the other hand, nearly all big government conservatives are racial nihilists.

Also, traditional American conservatives reject the notion of equality including equality of opportunity (equality of opportunity can only be proven by equality of outcome). They know that equality is a lie, and to strive for it leads to despotism. People differ in build, strength, beauty, health, intelligence, character, personality, disposition, temperament, etc. — all of which genetics causes to some degree. Since men and women differ significantly, they cannot be equal. Moreover, people who are born into wealthy families have advantages and, therefore, opportunities that people who are born into poor families do not have. Consequently, these differences prevent equality including equality of opportunity. Differences mean inequality. Consequently, equality is a chimera. 

Thus, what passes for conservatism today in the United States is not traditional American conservatism. It is big government conservatism, which is as destructive as progressivism and liberalism.

Big Government Conservatism

Big government conservatives do not seek to roll back the managerial liberal state; they seek to make it more efficient. Now, conservatism is little more than an accounting department for the managerial state. These conservatives prefer to make government more efficient and, by that, a greater threat to liberty, than to reduce the size and reach of government.

For the most part, big government conservatives are the progressives from a decade ago. That is, they have adopted the policies and philosophy that progressives had about a decade ago. The acceptances of homosexuals and homosexual marriages are good examples of this phenomenon. Moreover, within ten years, big government conservatives will accept drag queens performing before school children. Thus, big government conservatives do not stand for any moral principles or any principles that they consider worth fighting for. They definitely disagree with John C. Calhoun, who said “I hold concession or compromise to be fatal.” Big government conservatives are always ready to compromise and concede; for them, that is a success.

Like progressives, liberals, and libertarians,  big government conservatives deny the importance of genetics. Consequently, the environment causes all differences, and the government is responsible for leveling or equalizing the environment to make all people equal whether equal in opportunity or equal in outcome. 

Moreover, big government conservatives strive to appease the leaders of the left. Consequently, they accept liberal pluralism of diversity, inclusiveness, multiculturalism, multiracialism, etc., or at least they do not aggressively oppose liberal pluralism. On the contrary, they vigorously accept and promote multiracialism and often brag about accepting the other aspects of liberal pluralism.

Unlike traditional American conservatives, big government conservatives do not want to dismantle the managerial liberal state. Instead, they want to capture it and use it for their own purposes.

References

Henderson, Ian. “Why Russia and China Are More Conservative Than the West.”  Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. July 2022. Pages 14-17.

Francis, Samuel. “The Managerial Revolution: A Reformation.” “The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.” December 1992.

The Z Man. “Conservatism: The Total Failure of Conservatives.”  February 7, 2022. Accessed February 9, 2022. <https://www.takimag.com/article/the-total-failure-of-conservatism/>

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

A Look at a Proponent of the Lincoln Constitution

A Look at a Proponent of the Lincoln Constitution

Thomas Allen

A proponent of the modern US Constitution that Lincoln and the Radical Republicans as furthered developed by Presidents Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and carried to fruition by the Warren Court gave the United States claims that it is superior to the one that the founding fathers gave the country. To support his claim, he cites several Supreme Court rulings: Baker v. Carr, Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

An explanation of each of the aforementioned Supreme Court rulings follow:

– Baker v. Carr: This ruling gave federal courts absolute power over drawing legislative and Congressional districts. This ruling led to establishing electoral districts of equal population on the principle of one person, one vote for State legislatures and congressional districts. Thus, States had to draw districts that shifted representation from rural areas to urban areas. Consequently, rural areas, which are typically more conservative than urban areas, lost political power. Moreover, at the time of this ruling, more Blacks lived in rural areas than in urban areas in the South. Thus, shifting representation from rural to urban areas resulted in under-representing Blacks. To overcome this problem a covert quota system was imposed on the Southern States. To ensure Black representation (overrepresentation) and to guarantee the election of Black candidates, Blacks and Negrophiles are concentrated in the districts that guarantee that Black candidates are elected. However, the States are forced to draw district boundaries so that such an outcome is not obvious.

– Roe v. Wade: This ruling legalized abortion. As a result, a large number of Black babies have been murdered. As a weapon to genocide Blacks, this ruling has been highly effective. Without abortion, the Black population would be much higher than it is.

– Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka: This ruling outlawed school segregation and led to the integration of Blacks into White society. Consequently, Blacks have been integrated and amalgamated with Whites. Integration is amalgamating Blacks with Whites, and, thus, it is leading to the genocide of Blacks. Consequently, this ruling has been a leading cause of the genocide of the American Negro.

– Lawrence v. Texas: This ruling legalizes homosexual activity. Thus, homosexual activity among Blacks was encouraged and increased. With Black men having sex with other men and Black women having sex with other women, the opportunity to reproduce is greatly reduced. Again, another ruling leading to the genocide of Blacks.

– Obergefell v. Hodges: This ruling legalized same-sex marriages. It leads to the genocide of Blacks in the same way that Lawrence v. Texas does.

Amazingly, this proponent omitted Loving v. Virginia. This ruling legalized interracial marriages. More than any other ruling of the Supreme Court, this ruling has resulted in genociding Blacks as interracial marriages have exploded over the years since this ruling. Thus, because of this ruling, Blacks are being bred out of existence, which is genocide. 

Although most of these rulings are hostile to White supremacy, they also promote the genocide of Blacks. Thus, they are far more harmful to the American Negro, the American Black, than is White supremacy. At least White supremacy promotes policies that preserve the Black race while these rulings lead to policies that genocide Blacks.

According to this proponent, these rulings have undone many of the racist rulings and laws of the past. For him, White supremacy is highly destructive of liberty. Also, for him, liberty is civil rights. Based on the Supreme Court rulings that he cites, he is a homophile and an albusphobe (and subconsciously a Negrophobe).

This proponent believes that White supremacists control the country and that the 1619 Project is the true history of the United States. (At least, he is partially correct. The founding fathers did establish the United States under the Constitution of 1787 as a White man’s country. [See “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?” and “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen.]) Further, he believes everything that the establishment and ruling elite indoctrinate about race and is an adherent of Critical Race Theory.

Being a proponent of the Lincoln constitution, he must also approve the dysgenic results of the Lincoln constitution. The Lincoln constitution has brought the welfare state, which has led to the degeneration of Blacks. The welfare state encourages the reproduction of low-quality people and discourages the reproduction of high-quality people. Thus, Blacks with lower IQ and character — low-quality Blacks — are paid to reproduce. Moreover, high-quality Blacks, Blacks with higher IQ and character, are more likely to marry outside their race — thus, leading to the genocide of higher quality Blacks.

Furthermore, this proponent of the Lincoln constitution believes that the races of man are fictions, i.e., a social construct; therefore, the races do not exist. Yet, he denies the logic of his belief because he believes that White supremacy and racism are the country’s biggest problems. Logically, if the races do not exist, then White supremacy and racism cannot exist. If the races do not exist, then no one can be superior to or discriminate against a nonexistent race. Consequently, civil rights laws and court rulings on racial integration are unnecessary and are an irrational intrusion on the rights of the people in the name of a fiction. It would be better for Congress and the courts to confess the truth that races do not exist and, therefore, racial supremacy, racial discrimination, and racism do not and cannot exist. Thus, all civil rights issues are resolved.

As shown above, the constitution that Lincoln gave the country is not only detrimental to liberty, it also genocides the American Negro. Moreover, it creates irrational and illogical people like this proponent of the Lincoln constitution.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Why I am not a Republican

 Why I am not a Republican

Thomas Allen

I am not a Republican for many of the same reasons that I am not a Democrat. Both promote destructive policies — only the Democrats generally promote them with more alacrity and vigor and are more successful.

The comments that follow are directed at the Republican and Democratic leaders and their spokesmen and apologists in the media. Although they are not directed at the rank-and-file Republicans and Democrats, most of the rank-and-file do adhere to and follow their leaders in the matters discussed below.

Republicans and Democrats are proponents of “American Exceptionalism.” This exceptionalism is the creed of equality, democracy, and universal natural rights, which both promote. This creed is the defining principle that makes America America. However, they disagree somewhat about what constitutes “natural rights” and especially what equality means.

Both Republicans and Democrats prefer the constitution that Lincoln (as furthered developed by Presidents Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and carried to fruition by the Warren Court and especially Justice William Brennan), which is the current constitution, to the constitution that the founding fathers gave the country.

While Democrats only give constitutional government lip service, Republicans claim to believe in constitutional government. Yet they have done nothing to reduce the size of the federal government. As under Democrats, the federal government continues to grow under Republicans — perhaps, not as fast, but it still grows.

An example of the hypocrisy of the Republican support of constitutional government is the unconstitutional Department of Education. When Republicans controlled the federal government, it did nothing to abolish the Department of Education despite their promise to abolish it. Instead of abolishing the Department of Education, they have used it to consolidate federal control of education in the United States, which is why the Democrats established it. Thus, the Republicans have collaborated with the Democrats to give the federal government control of education in the United States.

Republicans and Democrats both revere Father Abraham (Lincoln) and St. Martin Luther King the Divine — only Republicans more so than Democrats. Republicans have even elevated them to Deity.

Like Democrats, Republicans are racial nihilists and promote a multiracial and multicultural country and society. Both are globalists. Neither have any objections to miscegenation, and both promote other policies that eventually genocide the American Negro.

Both Republicans and Democrats promote diversity as a strength and great virtue. Therefore, both ignore Madison’s warning about too much diversity, which plutocrats use to transfer ever more wealth and power to themselves. Thus, plutocrats control both parties.

Although Democrats ardently support abortion, Republicans do not oppose abortion — their rhetoric to the contrary. In spite (or because) of abortion being a highly successful weapon in the genocide of the American Negro, Democrats have ardently promoted abortion for more than a half-century. Except for their rhetoric, Republicans stopped seriously opposing abortion decades ago.

Both are Lincolnian-Hamiltonians. Nonetheless, Democrats prefer much more governmental intervention in the economy than do Republicans. Thus, Democrats are much more fascistic than are Republicans. Whereas Democrats are proponents of a command-and-control economy, Republicans favor a market economy — at least in rhetoric. (Republicans claim that they support a free-market economy, which they do not. Otherwise, they would move to abolish all the regulatory agencies, which are unconstitutional anyway, of the federal government.)

Contrary to their assertion otherwise, Republicans support the welfare state. Democrats strongly promote the welfare state for the same reason that Bismark, the archconservative German chancellor, did. (Bismark instituted the welfare state in Germany: The welfare state makes governmental control of the people easier because people who receive benefits from a welfare program are less likely to object to other governmental programs.) The primary difference between the Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans want to make controlling people more cost-effective.

Like the Democrats, Republicans like to create problems and then like the Democrats express outrage at the consequences. Many of the problems that both Republicans and Democrats rail against result from the welfare state, which both endorse and support.

Despite their rhetoric during political campaigns, both support the warfare state. They prefer war to peace. Neither object to using the United States military to bully other countries and to interfere with their internal affairs. After all, war is necessary to impose the American creed of equality, democracy, and universal natural rights on everyone. More important, war transfers ever more wealth and power to the rich and powerful, who control the federal government.

Both the Republicans and Democrats support the police state. Moreover, with the Transportation Security Administration, secret warrants and arrests, indefinite detention, and torture centers, Republicans have led the charge. All this has been done in the name of the war on terrorism, which is really a war on the American people. (Terrorism results from the foreign intervention and meddling policies of the Republicans and Democrats.)

Just as the Democrats accept the thief of the 2020 presidential election, so do the Republicans. Without Republican succor, Democrats could not have stolen the election. Even the Republican-controlled Supreme Court abandoned its constitutional duty to rectify the illegalities of the election — and so did Republican-controlled State legislatures.

Both Republicans and Democrats reject intergenerational duty to ancestors and posterity. If they cared about their posterity, governmental debt would not be exploding. If they cared about their ancestry, they would not promote conditions that lead to racial and cultural genocide, yet they promote programs and policies that lead to racial and cultural genocide. 

Neither Democrats nor Republicans want to dismantle the leviathan federal government and return to the constitutional government of the original Constitution. Both want to use it to advance their agendas. They consider the Constitution to be so elastic that they make it a worthless scrap of paper.

Neither supports the doctrine of States’ rights except when they can use the States to oppose a policy that the other party advances with which they disagree. 

Republicans and Democrats are hostile to traditional conservatives, who are the true conservatives. In marginalizing traditional Southern conservatives, both parties have been highly effective.

Nevertheless, Republicans and Democrats do differ in some aspects. Democrats are more vindictive and spiteful than Republicans. On the other hand, Republicans are recreants. While Democrats are bold, Republicans are timid.

Democrats are Dixiephobic, Confederaphobic, and albusphobic. Except for neoconservatives and establishment conservatives, Republicans are generally not Dixiephobes or Confederaphobes. Moreover, not all Republicans are albusphobes.

While Democrats are fervent supporters of gun control even to the point of disarming the American people, Republicans are hesitant in imposing more gun control. Nevertheless, Republicans are always ready to comprise and support more gun control. Furthermore, Republicans have not removed any restrictions on gun ownership when they controlled the presidency and Congress.

While Democrats favor restricting energy production and usage, Republicans favor cheap and abandon energy. However, as with its other principles, Republicans are always willing to compromise away cheap and abandon energy.

As for COVID-19, the Republican approach has been much less authoritarian than has been the Democratic approach. Moreover, Republicans who did take an authoritarian approach to COVID-19 have been much more eager to relinquish their control than have been Democrats.

Most Republicans favor lower taxes, and Democrats favor higher taxes. Nevertheless, both favor exploding federal budgets.

Republicans are eager to compromise and abandon their principles (if they have any). Perhaps, Republicans compromise their apparent principles so easily and quickly is because their real principles differ little from those of Democrats. Contrastingly, Democrats resist compromise and abandoning their principles as evil as they may be. 

Democrats are on the left and so are the Republicans. Both are socialists (mostly of the democratic fascist variety) at heart; only the Democrats are more open and honest about being socialists.

Another major difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats are about a decade ahead of Republicans. (The homosexual agenda evidences this conclusion. For years, Democrats have promoted homosexual marriages and finally succeeded in legalizing them over the objections of Republicans. Now most Republicans accept homosexual marriages.)

Most of the time, arguments and disagreements between Republicans and Democrats are about details and strategies and not about principles. 

The above description of Republicans explains why most establishment conservatives and neoconservatives loath President Trump. Trump deviated from too many of these Republican standards. Yet, many people supported Trump because he did deviate from some of these positions that Republicans had stolen from Democrats.

For the most part, Republicans are imitation Democrats; they just lack the courage to become full-fledged Democrats. The reason that I am not a Republican or a Democrat is that Republicans are too much like Democrats and Democrats are too much like Republicans.

Governor George Wallace once said that there was not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democrats and Republicans. That is still true, and a dime is worth only a fraction of what it was when he made this remark.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Coulter on Race — Part 2

 Coulter on Race — Part 2

Thomas Allen

According to Coulter, Republicans are the friends of Blacks, and Democrats are their enemies. Republicans have been ardent supporters of civil rights for Blacks and integration. Historically, Democrats have been opponents of civil rights for Blacks and supporters of segregation.

During the Jim Crow Era, segregationist Democrats were responsible for all the problems of Blacks. Now, during the Civil Rights Era, liberal Democrats are responsible for all the problems of Blacks. Liberal Democrats have crippled and retarded Blacks with leniency toward criminals and the rewarding welfare state. [Yet, Blacks continue to support liberal Democrats. But then, Blacks are never responsible for their problems and actions.]

The Democrats expelled the White segregationists from their party and began to attack White segregationists because the segregationists were causing the party to lose too many votes. [Now, Democrats not only support but also encourage segregation by nonwhites. Republicans like Coulter oppose segregation by both Whites and nonwhites.]

Coulter is highly critical of Democrats for “denying blacks the right to vote, to go to school, to sit in nonsegregated diners and to use the same water fountain as whites” (p. 163). [She is referring primarily to the Southern Democrats. Unless they failed to meet the qualifications for voting, which were the same for both Whites and Blacks once the grandfather provisions faded away, Blacks were not legally denied the right to vote. Moreover, no one prevented legally Blacks from going to school; Whites heavily subsidized Black schools. Also, she has a low opinion of Black diners since she implies that White divers were superior to Black diners. Now, Blacks are allowed to segregate diners, but Whites are not. If Blacks could not drink from White fountains, Whites could not drink from Black fountains.]

Coulter claims that Democrats have always favored racial discrimination. In the 1960s, however, it switched from discrimination against Blacks to discriminating against Whites. [Since World War II, Republicans have always favored Blacks over Whites. If not, when Republicans held power, they would have repealed all the laws and executive orders that discriminated against Whites in favor of Blacks. Moreover, discrimination shows discernment; Republicans seem to lack discernment.]

If liberals, the Democratic Party, and the media would cease poking the fires of racism, the flames of racism would be reduced to dying smoldering coals — so Coulter implies. [However, more than this is needed. For example, studies on racism, consciousness-raising sessions about racism, articles denouncing racism, and other actions against racism, all of which Coulter seems to endorse, need to vanish.] 

She writes, “Democrats’ commitment to civil rights has always been directly proportional to how much it helps them politically.” [The same is true of Republicans.] 

[While condemning Democrats, Coulter overlooks that most Blacks are Democrats. Consequently, she condemns her beloved Blacks with her attacks on Democrats.] 

While presenting Democrats as Negrophobes, she presents Republicans as Negrophiles. She brags that most Republicans were and are integrationists. In Congress, most Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [Therefore, most Republicans promote policies that lead to amalgamation and the resulting genocide of Blacks. Moreover, this act is the basis for progressive power.]

In addition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, she boasts about the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments that the Republicans ram through. [The thirteenth amendment did not free any slaves in the South; they were already freed before it was ratified. It freed slaves outside the Confederate States. The fourteenth amendment was adopted illegally. The fifteenth amendment did not give Blacks the right to vote in the South; they already had the vote before this amendment was proposed. It gave the vote to Blacks in the North where some States denied them the vote. Its purpose was to keep Northern State Republican —just as the Democrats want to give illegal aliens the vote because most of them will support Democrats.]

Furthermore, she vaunts about Republicans enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which conferred citizenship to Negroes after overriding President Andrew Johnson’s veto. Also, the Republicans passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867 and sent troops to the South to enforce it. [Thus, she displays her disdain for the South and Southerners and endorses oppression and tyranny if they are done in the name of promoting and protecting Blacks. The primary objective of these two laws was to finish destroying the South by stripping it of the wealth that Lincoln’s War had not destroyed and to use Blacks to humiliate and genocide Southerners. Aiding Blacks was only incidental to these laws. If the primary purpose of these laws were to aid Blacks as she claims, then upwards of half or more of the 1865-Black population would not have died during Reconstruction. Moreover, if Republicans were Negrophiles as Coulter maintains, their party platform would not have contained a clause to keep Blacks out of the territories.]

She does an excellent job of illustrating the hypocrisy of liberals. Correctly, she blames liberals for destroying the Black family.

Further, she blames the poor Black behavior on liberals because they did not punish Blacks for acting like redneck Southerners. Instead, liberals rewarded bad behavior and penalized good behavior. Such action has greatly harmed Blacks.

She identifies the beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Movement:

The only people who had ever benefited from the left’s lunacy on race were (1) professional blacks and (2) self-righteous white liberals, who congratulated themselves on their own ethnic sensitivity while moving heaven and earth to make sure their own kids didn’t go to school with black kids (p. 15).

[Since most conservatives echo the left’s position on race, they are just as loony and benefit the same as White liberals.]

She condemns Whites’ condescending to self-appointed Black leaders like Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Lewis Farrakhan.

Liberal reporters, most of whom are Whites, like to hurl the accusation of racism at conservatives and Republicans. Such accusations often destroy careers and reputations. [Instead of rejecting the accusation and attacking the accuser, most conservatives and Republicans accept the accusation and grovel at the feet of an unforgiving Black potentate and degrade themselves begging for forgiveness. Such reprehensible actions only cause loss of respect for the beggar and encourage future accusations.] Her advice for people who are falsely accused of racism is to declare: “You are a liar. That never happened” (p. 244). 

According to Coulter, White liberals have the luxury of being immune to the charge of “racism.” [However, that is changing as Blacks are lumping them with all other Whites.]

Using Al Sharpton as an example, she comments on the double standard of liberals, Democrats, and the media. They praised Sharpton for doing things that if Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell would have done, liberals, Democrats, and the media would have condemned them.

Coulter notes that liberals instill racial hatred in Blacks: “The problem with liberals’ constantly imputing racist hatred to white people was that it kept creating real racist hatred in black people—ending with real dead white people.” (p. 94.)

Overall, Whites are more tolerant of homosexuals than are Blacks. Yet, liberals, who adore homosexuals, did not condemn Blacks for their homophobia. Instead, they either ignore or justify their homophobia.

While liberals idolize Black criminals and revere Blacks who fake hate crimes, they have little use for honest Blacks. Moreover, liberals promote Black hostility toward Whites.

She condemns Franklin Roosevelt for putting a Klansman on the US Supreme Court, refusing to desegregate the military, giving Blacks make-work government jobs, and putting them on welfare. Thus, he brought Black advancement to a halt. Consequently, in the North, Blacks began supporting Democrats instead of Republicans. According to her, Southerners did not let Blacks vote. [When Blacks in the South were allowed to vote, they voted for her despicable Democrats.]

Although the liberal’s approach to helping the Negro was idiotic, at least according to Coulter, they picked the group that deserved special treatment. [Thus, Coulter endorses Black privileges denied to Whites.] She adds, “Civil rights aren’t supposed to be bounties for every self-obsessed group with a grievance” (p. 147). [Accordingly, civil rights are only for Blacks and are not for anyone else. Apparently, Whites with a grievance against Black privileges should be denied their civil rights because civil rights are only for Blacks.]

She criticizes liberals for using Blacks to promote issues that do not help Blacks, such as, national health care, abortion, and homosexual marriage — most Blacks do not support these issues. [Yet, they vote for Democrats who support these issues.] However, liberals have been successful in using Blacks to advance their progressive causes. [Progressivism grew out of Lincoln and the Republicans, whom Coulter adores.] Another complaint that she has about liberals is that they treat Blacks like children. [Conservatives often act the same by supporting special privileges for Blacks as Coulter does.]

Democrats want to expand civil rights victims to cover women, homosexuals, illegal immigrants, transgenders, and most other groups except heterosexual White males. Being a Negrophile, Coulter wants to restrict civil rights to Blacks.

According to Coulter, because Blacks suffered under slavery and Jim Crow, they deserve favorable treatment. [Favorable treatment for Blacks requires discrimination against Whites. So, what is the difference between Coulter and Democrats other than Democrats want to give other groups favorable treatment?]

Consequently, Coulter adamantly opposes the feminist movement and the shift of civil rights from Blacks to women. This shift moved Blacks “to the back of the bus” (p. 157). She disdains feminists promoting rare White-on-Black rape to advance the feminist agenda. So rare is White-on-Black rape that feminists have to resort to hoaxes. Between 2003 and 2008, no White-on-Black rapes were recorded. However, during this time, Blacks raped several thousand White women per year and raped Black women at an even higher rate.

Like Democrats, Coulter supports Roosevelt’s application of the Interstate Commerce Clause except that she extends it much further than he did[, which far exceeds that intended by the Constitution of the founding fathers]. Also, like liberals, she supports extending the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment to private companies[, which the authors of this clause did not intend]. Then she complains about Democrats expanding the Interstate Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause to women and other groups. 

Coulter discusses Bob Jones University and believes that its policy against interracial dating was silly and its theology was incorrect. However, its policy applied to both Blacks and Whites. Whites could not date Blacks, and Blacks could not date Whites. [Yet, she does not apply this reasoning to segregated schools. Blacks were assigned to Black schools, and Whites to White schools. Blacks could not go to White schools, and Whites could not go to Black schools. Both races were treated the same. Moreover, she shows that she has no concerns about supporting policies that lead to breeding Blacks out of existence. Also, she is wrong about prohibiting interracial dating as theologically incorrect. The Bible forbids interracial mating and marriages.] Anyway, Bob Jones repented of its evil ways and became politically correct by allowing interracial dating.

Coulter presents the typical Republican diatribe against Democrats. Republicans are Negrophiles; Democrats are Negrophobes. Republicans promote integration and, therefore, promote the amalgamation and genocide of Blacks. Democrats promote segregation and, therefore, promote the separation and preservation of Blacks. Segregationists are the only people whom she hates more than Democrats, who are almost synonymous with segregationists in her mind.

Moreover, she accuses Democrats of trying to destroy the country, which they are. Yet, she promotes policies that do the same thing although she is too blind with her love for Blacks and hatred for Southerners, segregationists, and Democrats to realize it. She promotes Whites surrendering their political power to Blacks. Wherever and whenever Whites have surrendered political power to Blacks, the results have been disastrous. Africa is a prime example. Other examples are the Southern States during Reconstruction and the major cities run by Blacks. Why does she think this time will be different? Democrats know that Whites surrendering political power to Blacks will be destroyed the country. That is the reason that they push this surrender. Why does Coulter want to aid them in bringing down the country?

  Coulter thought that America’s insanity with race and White guilt ended with the completion of the O.J. Simpson trial. However, this reprieve lasted for only a few years. As she notes, Obama brought back racism with his presidency.

Nevertheless, the election of Obama proves that America is not racist. Many Whites voted for Obama to prove that they were not racists. White guilt elected Obama to the presidency. She blames White guilt for electing many of the Black liberal Democrats to office and the resulting disasters that their policies cause. 

Coulter wants the country to move beyond race. However, liberal Democrats make just about everything about race. (Only two ways can her dream be achieved. One is the physical separation of the races, which is the Scriptural way and which she rejects. The other way is the complete amalgamation of the races to form motley mongrel man.)

One of the flaws of her book is that she fails to define “racism,” which is the soul of her book. Nevertheless, if you want to read a book written by a racial nihilist who practices the new morality of sacrificing Blacks on the altar of humanity, this is the book for you.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Part 1.

Balaam and the Doctrine of Balaam

Balaam and the Doctrine of Balaam

Thomas Allen

Balaam (d.c. 1459–1452 B.C.), son of Beor, lived in Pethor. He was an enchanter, a soothsayer, whom the Spirit of Yahweh touched. Chapters 22 through 24 of Numbers presents the story of Balaam.

The Story
Balak, King of Moab, summoned Balaam, who had come under the power of Yahweh, to come and curse the Israelites with his demonic magical powers. Balak promised to reward Balaam, if he cursed the Israelites. The Israelites had just defeated the Amorites, and Balak feared them.

Initially, Balaam told Balak that Yahweh had forbidden him to comply with Balak’s request. Again, Balak implored Balaam to come and curse the Israelites. This time God allowed him to go, but he had to deliver only the message that God gave him. Balaam went. However, instead of cursing the Israelites as Balak wanted, Balaam blessed them — foreshadowing their strength, the beauty and fruitfulness of their land, and their victories. Three times Balak sought Balaam’s curse; three times Balaam blessed the Israelites. Further, he foretold that Moab, Edom, Amalak, and Kail would become part of the Israelite empire. Later the Israelites slew Balaam in a battle with the Midianites (Numbers 31:8).

Needless to say, the blessings did not please Balak. He became angry with Balaam, ordered him to leave, and gave him no payment.

Later, Balaam went to the Midianites and delivered them a plan to defeat the Israelites with the fornication of miscegenation. Midianite women, who were Melanochroi or possibly Melanochroi-Aryan hybrids, seduced the Aryan Israelite men and corrupted them. (Corruption through miscegenation and interracial mating became known as the “Doctrine of Balaam.”) As a result of the sin of interracial mating, which led to idolatry, God delivered a heavy judgment on the Israelites.

Besides the “Doctrine of Balaam,” Balaam is also known for the “Way of Balaam” and the “Error of Balaam. “Balaam is a type of mercenary prophet, ambitious to exploit his gift financially” (Unger, p. 133) — hence, the Way of Balaam in 2 Peter 2:15. Also, Balaam blunders “in reasoning that God of necessity must curse the nation Israel because of its sins” (Unger, p. 133) — hence, the Error of Balaam in Jude 11. Fausset identifies the Error of Balaam as running greedily for a reward. Kennedy argues that the Way of Balaam and the Error of Balaam are synonymous with the Doctrine of Balaam, i.e., teaching fornication via interracial mating.

Apparent Contradiction

Numbers Chapter 22 – 20 And God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men are come to call thee, rise up, go with them; but only the word which I speak unto thee, that shalt thou do. 21 And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab. 22 And God’s anger was kindled because he went; and the angel of Jehovah placed himself in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him.

In verse 20, God tells Balaam to go with the men. In verse 22, God is angry with Balaam for going with the men as God had told him to do. Why?

Fausset opines that Balaam did not wait for the men to come and call. He writes “Certainly ‘God’s anger was kindled because he went’; for his going was in spite of the former plain prohibition; and the second voice was a permission giving him up in judicial anger to his own perversity (comp. 1 Kings xxii. 15), a permission too resting on the condition, which B[alaam] did not wait for, ‘if the men come to call thee’” (Fausset, p. 71, col. 3).

Clarke agrees with Fausset. In his eagerness, Balaam went to meet the messengers of Balak instead of waiting for them to come to him as God had directed. Because Balaam went without the messengers calling him, God became angry with him.

Smick opines that God became angry with Balaam because of his motive. Balaam went to receive the reward that Balak had promised instead of going to declare Yahweh’s message.

Longacre and Wade claim that the apparent contradiction occurs because verses 20 and 22 come from different sources. Verses 20 and 21 are from the Northern Israel narrative (E), which refers to the Deity as Elohim (God). Verse 22 comes from the Judahite narrative (J), which refers to the Deity as Yahweh (Jehovah or Lord in most English translations).

The Doctrine of Balaam

Revelation 2:14: But I have a few things against thee [the church of Pergamum], because thou hast there some that hold the teaching [doctrine] of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block [sin] before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication.

Fornication is any type of illicit sexual act. It means more than extra-marital sex. It means any proscribed sexual act, which includes interracial sex and mating. For example, homosexual acts are illicit sex and, therefore, fornication. Homosexual acts do not cease to be fornication if they take place within a marriage. Likewise, with interracial sexual acts, they do not cease to be fornication if they take place inside a marriage. Just as the Scriptures do not recognize same-sex marriages, they do not recognize interracial marriages. The fornication that Balaam taught was interracial sexual acts and miscegenation.

Additionally, the Doctrine of Balaam teaches the brotherhood of man and that only one race exists: the human race. Consequently, it promotes integration and interracial mating.

The open borders policy of the United States and nearly all other (formerly) predominantly White countries with their unlimited, unrestricted third world immigration greatly facilitates the Doctrine of Balaam. Most likely, that is why the Luciferian leaders of the West promote open borders. They seek to genocide the race created in God’s image: the Adamite, the Aryan, the White race. With nonwhites flooding these countries, can miscegenation be far behind? Interracial rape is now common in Western Europe. It has been common in the United States for decades.

The Doctrine of Balaam has become the controlling doctrine of the (former) White world. So far, for the most part, the other races have not fallen victims to the Doctrine of Balaam. Most African countries, especially those controlled by Negroes, seek to drive Aryans and even Melanochroi from their midst. The Turanian countries of Asia severely restrict immigration. Thus, the Doctrine of Balaam is primarily a White man’s disease and sin.

Interracial mating leads to hybridization. Total hybridization extinguishes the races that God created. God hates hybrid humans so much that He forbids a mixed bred person (mongrel, “bastard” in the King James) from entering His assembly (congregation) — Deuteronomy 23:2 (“No half-bred [mongrel] may be admitted to the assembly of the Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh” – NJB.) According to Ezra, if people are in an interracial relationship, they must separate, and if married, divorce. (The only act for which Jesus approves of divorce is fornication [Matthew 19:9]).

Any clergyman who does not teach about the sin advocated by the Doctrine of Baal, interracial mating and marriages, is failing his flock — especially in this age of forced integration and the flooding of the (formerly) White world with nonwhites. Any clergyman who accedes to the Doctrine of Baal or worse teaches it, is a disciple of the Devil. He deliberately leads his flock astray.

References
Allen, Thomas Coley. False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of the Races and Interracial Marriages. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 2001.

Clarke, W.K. Lowther, editor. Concise Bible Commentary. New York, New York: MacMillan Publishing, 1953.

Davis, John D. The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible. Revised and rewritten by Henry Snyder Gehman. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminster Press, 1944.

De Witt, Adam. “Be Ye Not Unequally Yoked Together Through Deceptive Love.”

Douglas, J.D., editor. The Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Jacobus, Melancthon W., Edward E. Nourse, and Andrew C. Zenos, editors. A New Standard Dictionary. New York, New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1926.

Kennedy, Arnold. “Balaam’s Doctrine –What Is It?”

Longacre, Lidsay B. “Number.” The Abingdon Bible Commentary. Editors Frederick C. Eiselen and Downey. New York, New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1929.

Peloubet, F.N. Treasury of Biblical Information. 1913.

Smick Elmer, “Numbers.” The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Editors Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1962.

Tenney, Merrill C., editor. The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1967.

Unger, Merrill F., Unger’s Bible Dictionary. 3rd ed. (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1960).

Wade, G.W. “Numbers” A Commentary on the Bible. Editor Arthur S. Peake. New York, New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, n.d.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Libertarianism and Social Issues

Libertarianism and Social Issues

Thomas Allen

Below, some flaws of libertarianism related to social issues are exposed. Discussed are libertarian views on contagious diseases, discrimination, transgenderism, the nature of man, morality, and adultery. The flaws discussed below may be more perception and image than reality. However, perception and image are often more controlling and important than reality.

Contagious Diseases
The underlying principle of libertarianism is that everyone should be allowed to do whatever he pleases that he can afford if he does not trespass against another person or his property.
If a person with a contagious disease transmits that disease to another person, has he trespassed against the person whom he infects? Can the person who is infected sue the person who infected him? Should a community be allowed to protect itself from a carrier of a contagious disease by preventing the infected person from entering their community? Since a significant number of illegal immigrants entering the United States have contagious diseases, these are important questions that libertarians need to answer.
Since libertarians seem to express no concern about letting an unknown, but significant, number of people into the country with contagious diseases, they must have a great deal of confidence that vaccines will protect them, even from diseases for which no vaccines have been developed. (This faith is not surprising when the esteem that libertarians have for multinational corporations is considered.)

Discrimination
With one exception, most libertarians object to discrimination. Although most libertarians abhor discriminating against people based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or political orientation, they oppose the government prohibiting people and companies from discriminating based on these reasons. Nevertheless, more libertarians seem to oppose discrimination based on race or sex than on religion or politics.
However, few libertarians object to discrimination based on wealth with many finding such discrimination agreeable. (This is a typical Yankee attitude.) For example, most libertarians object to “fair housing” laws that forbid private owners refusing to sell to a person because of race or putting restrictions in deeds to prohibit selling to people of specific races, although most libertarians find such practices reprehensible. However, few object of gated communities with high association fees designed to price nearly all of the undesirables out with extremely high housing cost. Thus, they find discrimination because of wealth acceptable. However, the person discriminated against is discriminated against and feels discriminated against; the reason for the discrimination is of secondary importance.
Another example is that most people discriminate in favor of family members. Most libertarians probably would not object to such discrimination if economics is not involved. For libertarians, economic trumps everything. It is the only acceptable reason for discrimination. Perhaps some libertarians find some exception to this dictum. They may object to discrimination against Blacks or homosexuals even if such discrimination is more profitable.

Transgenderism
All libertarians should oppose transgenderism because it is an act of fraud, but most do not. When a biological male (has a Y chromosome) tries to pass as a female (has no Y chromosome), that is a fraud. Likewise, the same is true when a biological female attempts to pass as a male. Nevertheless, how many libertarians really do consider transgenderism a fraud? (How long will it be before a person who dates a new person will require the date to provide a genetic test to prove his or her sex and sign a contract identifying what is accepted as conceptual sex?)

Nature of Man
In agreement with Rousseau, many libertarians, especially the anarcho-libertarians, believe that man by nature is good, unselfish (except the Randian Objectivists, who consider selfishness a great virtue), and wise. However, the government has corrupted and degraded him. How could wise, good, and unselfish people create something as corrupting and degrading as government? Is it not more reasonable and logical to consider people to be naturally sinners and that government is corrupted and degraded because sinners created and run it?
For that reason, power should be decentralized and dispersed instead of centralized and concentrated. Nevertheless, most libertarians who may believe that man is by nature sinful believe that a free market is sufficient not only to suppress that sin in the economic sphere but also in the political and social spheres.
A free market does a fairly good job of regulating sin in the economic realm because it usually disperses and decentralizes economic power. However, Marxism in all its forms, including progressivism, communism, socialism, and fascism, does a poor job because it consolidates and concentrates economic power. Nevertheless, a free market does little to regulate and suppress sin in the political sphere and especially the social sphere, where it is often in the forefront of sin.

Morality
As the old saying goes, in general, libertarians agree with conservatives on economic issues and with liberals on social issues. Thus, libertarians believe that the free market economy can exist and even thrive in a morally degraded society. Therefore, most libertarians oppose outlawing or even treating as mental disorders, homosexual acts, transgenderism, miscegenation, and other formerly sexual immoralities and such fraudulent perversions as “homosexual marriages.” (What is being referred to here are primarily public acts of sexual immorality and not private acts.) Most favor, or at least do not oppose, banning the God of the Christians and His Son and Messiah, Jesus, from public life. Yet, few seem to object to moving the god of Islam and Judaism and the gods of Hinduism and paganism to the forefront of public life, because these religions are far more compatible with secular humanism than is Christianity (although Muslim currently offers more resistance to homosexuals and transgenders than do most Christian.) Most progressives and liberals and many libertarians are secular humanists.
Strange is that libertarians, who claim to be great lovers of liberty, turn against the teaching of true Christianity, which is the only religion compatible with true liberty. Libertarianism grew out of Western Civilization, which grew out of Christianity and is or used to be a Christian society. No other religion, not even secular humanism, is compatible with libertarian ideals. Yet, most libertarians want to jettison Christianity’s teachings on morality. However, libertarians have not gone as far as Marxists, progressives, and their kindred in rejecting Christianity’s moral teaching of “thou shalt not steal.”  Nevertheless, in agreement with Marxists, progressives, and their kindred, most libertarians condone abortion, which is a violation of the moral law “thou shalt not murder.”
Libertarians fail to realize that abandoning one of God’s moral laws easily leads to abandoning the others. Marxists, progressives, and their kindred know this. That is why they eagerly push sexual immorality. (Next to lying, sexual morality is the easiest for humans to violate.) They know that abandoning sexual morality weakens and even destroys the family and makes stealing, murder, and even abandoning God, which is the ultimate goal, much easier. They know that sexual immorality makes establishing a socialist or a communist utopia much easier. So, why do so many libertarians join the Marxists in breaking down morality when the result is the death of the free market economy? The only real resistance that libertarians offer to the degradation of society is their opposition to using taxpayers’ money to do it.
Most libertarians seem not to recognize that liberties come from the God of the Christians. (Unfortunately, throughout the ages, Christians have been highly destructive of these liberties and have at times rivaled the Marxists in destroying liberties.) Secular man is the enemy of liberty, and Marxists and their kindred are secular men, who have elevated man above his Creator (just as the US government has been elevated above its creators, the States).

Adultery
Libertarians believe in the sacredness of contracts. Therefore, libertarians should be in the forefront in condemning adultery, which is a violation of the marriage contract. However, they are not. Contrariwise, they give the condemnation of adultery an extremely low priority. Some even find adultery acceptable, and almost no libertarian believes that the marriage contract should be enforced where adultery is involved. Their solution is to void the contract, i.e., divorce.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues 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.

Southern Universities

Southern Universities

Thomas Allen

    Bigotry is alive and well in Southern universities. Students and teachers may say and write what they please and do what they please provided that it is politically correct. What is politically correct? It is affirmative action, integration of White institutions and groups, self-segregation by blacks, gay rights and homosexuality, feminism, animal rights, abortion, Marxism, anti-Christianity, anti-Western Civilization, and other leftist icons. To question any of these is to be politically incorrect. Politically correct is attacking and discriminating against and seeking to destroy White males (albeit Whites of non-European White ancestry, e.g. Semites, are not usually classified as “White”), Western Civilization, and Christianity. To a politically correct person, the most loathsome creature in the universe is the White Southern male who is a Christian, heterosexual, and without physical handicap. Even animals should have more rights than this subhuman hideous creature. But woe unto him, especially a White male, who makes any kind of remark that could possibly be construed as derogatory towards Blacks, feminists, homosexuals, or other such politically correct group. Orwellian thought is healthy and growing in Southern universities.

    The following are a few of the odious activities occurring in Southern universities:
    –    Many universities have adopted formal speech codes that forbid unacceptable bigotry. Discrimination against White heterosexual males is desirable and, therefore, not really bigotry. Discrimination against Blacks, homosexuals, feminists, and other politically correct groups is bigotry and, therefore, is unacceptable and forbidden.
    –    Marxism, feminism, integration, animal rights, gay rights, and other leftist causes cannot be questioned or criticized.
    –    Free speech is a virtue when used to promote integration, affirmative action, feminism, animal rights, gay rights, abortion and other leftist causes. For a student or teacher even to question these icons of the antichrists is intolerable.
    –    Students and teachers are free to say and write whatever they want to, so long as it is politically correct.
    –    Students and teachers have been expelled or forced to attend indoctrination sessions to be reeducated for utterances contrary to the politically correct orthodoxy.
    –    Black students may segregate themselves from Whites, but Whites face severe penalties if they try to segregate themselves from Blacks. (There is an exception to this rule. White homosexuals may segregate themselves from Black homosexuals. That such segregation is allowed is strong evidence that the primary purpose of integration is genocide. Homosexuals do not often bred, there segregation is of little consequence to the cause of racial genocide.)
    –    Intolerance by Blacks, women, homosexuals, animal rightists, and other politically correct groups is acceptable and desirable. Intolerance by a White heterosexual male is an unspeakable crime.
    –    Male fraternities are under siege for not being politically correct — some of them object to force integration, homosexuality, and other politically correct positions.
    –    Traditional curriculum that emphasizes Western Civilization, which is considered the root of all evil and the cause of all problems, especially the Christianity aspects of Western Civilization, and is being replaced with Black “civilization,” women studies, etc.
    –    American business is equated with organized crime.
    –    Marxism has the answer to all economic, social, and political problems. Christianity at best is irrelevant and at worst is the cause of all the world's problems.
    –    The family is attacked; its destruction is sought. Homosexuality is presented as being as desirable as, if not superior to, heterosexuality. Abortion, fornication, and adultery, if not actually virtues, are not sinful or wrong.
    –    Any emphasis on standards and excellence is frowned upon and discouraged, if not forbidden.

    Thus, anything or any group that encourages, fosters, and advocates the politically correct is favored and promoted while anyone that questions the politically correct is ostracized.
    The time has come for Southerners to reclaim their universities. So long as the Southern States remain colonies of the United States, they cannot recover their universities because the United States government is the prime promoter of the politically correct. Only in a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States can Southerners take back their universities. Then Southerners will be able to regain control of their universities and drive out the antichrists, homosexuals, Marxists, and destroyers of Western Civilization and Southern culture. Then the evils of homosexuality, genocide via integration, abortion, destruction of the family via the feminism, lasciviousness, and other iniquities can be freely condemned without reprisal. Then the virtues of Christianity, Western Civilization, Southern culture, and everything else that today's universities seek to overturn and destroy can be freely taught and discussed. How much longer will Southerners procrastinate? Now is the time for them to reclaim what is theirs!

Copyright © 1995, 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern issues articles.

The Yankee

The Yankee

Thomas Allen

    Who is the Yankee? In his book The Yankee Problem: An American Dilemma (Columbia, South Carolina: Shotwell Publishing LLC, 2016), Dr. Clyde Wilson gives an excellent description of the Yankee. (Pages numbers in parentheses reference Wilson’s book.)
    The Yankee is a descendant of New England Puritans and their latter allies, the radicals and revolutionaries, many of whom were Jews, who fled Europe after their failed Revolution of 1848. He is easily recognized by his “arrogance, hypocrisy, greed, lack of congeniality, and penchant for ordering other people around” (p. 1). Also, he is “self-righteous, ruthless, and self-aggrandizing” (p. 2). The guiding principle of the Yankee is that he is compelled to meddle in everyone else's business, both at home and abroad. He cannot just leave people alone. Moreover, he has an uncontrollable desideratum to remake the world in his own image.
    Furthermore, the Yankee is “contemptuous of good manners, boastful, ever ready to cast away traditions for the newest idea, and see making money as the chief object of life. Equality and majority rule for them should determine everything — in society and culture as well as before the law” (p. 20). (An example of the “out with the old” and ‘in with the new” is the condemnation and overt destruction of traditional man-woman marriages while promoting same-sex “marriage.” Heterosexuals are now abnormal while homosexuals and transgenders are now normal.) He is never satisfied unless he is making changes.
    The Yankee reveals himself as “the greedy rent-seekers through government and the moralistic reformers. . .” (p. 24). Greedy-rent-seeking-through-government results in protective tariff and import quotas, subsidies for agriculture and businesses, centralized banking, and internal improvements (subsidies for building roads, canals, harbors, and airports and for urban renewal) — in short, the Hamiltonian government-business partnership made permanently by Lincoln. Moralistic reform results in abolitionism, prohibition of alcohol and tobacco, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the civil rights movement, homosexual and transgender rights, the drive to make every religion acceptable except Christianity, which must be eradicated, etc. Furthermore, the Yankee is the “builder of the all-powerful ‘multicultural’ therapeutic state (with himself giving the orders and collecting the rewards) which is the perfection of history. . .” (pp 8-9).
    As Wilson notes, “Yankees have no civilization — only money and ideology. Without us [other Americans especially Southerners] to abuse and claim to feel superior to, they would not exist” (p. 15). Thus, Yankees are the real supremacists. Nevertheless, hypocrites that they are, they are always condemning supremacists — white and racial supremacists, male and sexual supremacists, civilization and cultural supremacists, the wealthy, etc. Moreover, continues Wilson, “The identification of God with America and the United States with infallible righteousness is Yankee stuff through and through. It is exactly the type of ‘religion’ that was used to deify Lincoln and justify the conquest of the South in 1861-1865” (p. 15). Such underlaid Bush in his war with Iraq and Afghanistan and Obama’s continuation and expansion of wars in the Middle East and Africa.
    The Yankee places great value on education and was a pioneer in public schools, government churches. However, the education that he promotes is superficial. He wants people to be educated enough to read and be swayed by a demagogue, but not learned enough to analyze what he has read. To the Yankee, the purpose of education is to train obedient servants and workers; it is not to enlighten and teach people to think and be creative.
    In the nineteenth century, Yankees were the abolitionists, prohibitionists, and promoters of protective tariffs, centralized banking, and internal improvements. John Quincy Adams, Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Horace Greeley, William Cullen Bryant, Thaddeus Stevens, John Brown, and Horace Mann are notable nineteenth-century examples. Today, notable examples are Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and both George Bush the elder and the younger. Other examples are Teddy Roosevelt, Timothy McVeigh, and John Dewey. On the religious side, Yankeeism appears in Charles G. Finney, Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormons), William Miller (founder of the Seventh Day Adventists), and Billy Sunday. Besides birthing Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventism, abolitionism, and prohibition, Yankeeism has also birthed vegetarianism, feminism, progressive education, and all sorts of social experiments. (Abolitionism had almost nothing to do with the plight of Black slaves and a great deal to do with hatred of Southerners.) Over the last two centuries, the Yankee has seized control of the American educational system, American history, American literature, the media, and just about every other aspect of American life. In the United States today, the domain of the Yankee is easily recognized. It is the blue states — the northeast, the upper Midwest, and the Pacific Coast.
    If one wishes to learn more about these peculiar people, Yankees, he should read Dr. Wilson’s The Yankee Problem.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Articles on Southern Issues.