Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence

Thomas Allen

Proponents of artificial intelligence (AI) claim that AI will do everything for humans. Because of AI, humans will no longer have to work, produce, read, write, figure, or think. (“5% of the people think. 10% of the people think they think. The rest would rather die than think.” – Anonymous. Thus, AI will spare 85 percent of the population the pain of thinking.) Moreover, humans will no longer have to be concerned about feeding themselves. No longer will they have to deal with entertainment, finances, education, transportation, or business. AI and its robots will provide all these things and more. Since AI will do everything for them, all people will have to do is to loaf. Opponents of AI fear that the proponents are correct.

With its robots, AI will build structures and manufacture food. Farmers, ranchers, construction workers, plumbers, electricians, etc., will no longer be needed.

AI will provide all entertainment for the people. It will write and sing their songs. Its robots will play their sports. Further, it will write and produce the movies and plays, and its robots will be the actors.

Moreover, AI will handle people’s financial matters. Actually, people will have no financial concerns since AI will eventually eliminate the need for finances.

Further, AI will control health care. Its robots will replace the doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers. It will decide who lives or dies from diseases and medical emergencies.

AI will supply and control transportation. It will control motor vehicles (self-driving cars) until they become obsolete. Eventually, robots may carry people where they want to go so that they will not have to exert themselves by walking.

Education will become obsolete as AI takes over all knowledge, writing, figuring, etc. No longer will children and adults be stressed about having to learn.

Additionally, governments will fall to AI. AI will become the government. Politicians and bureaucrats will no longer be needed. To the extent that governments do anything useful, AI and its robots will perform those tasks.

Furthermore, a great fear is that people will rely on information generated by AI and will accept it without question. If AI had controlled the narrative during the COVID-19 scare and its so-called vaccine, would it have provided true and accurate information or politically correct information? Would AI have supported the exaggerations and outright lies that governments and their media and academic lackeys were shouting? Or would AI have provided true information that COVID-19 was nowhere nearly as detrimental as was being promoted? Would it have shown that the standard treatment protocol was killing more people than doing nothing would have? Further, would AI have revealed that the so-called COVID-19 vaccine was unsafe and ineffective, as ever more studies are revealing? Or would it have supported the lie that it was safe and effective? The same is true about wearing masks, which are not only useless but also could cause health problems for the wearer. Most likely, AI would have sided with governments and would have argued that COVID-19 was as bad as most governmental officials were howling. Also, it would have supported the lie that the so-called vaccine was safe and effective. Consequently, AI should not be relied on to provide truthful and accurate information.

Likewise, when AI responds to other controversial issues, will it support the truth or the politically correct? For example, with abortion, will AI support the truth that a fetus is a human being, or will it support the politically correct argument of a woman’s right to choose? If it chooses the latter, will it be consistent and support the “my body, my choice” argument with vaccinations?

The difference in racial IQ offers another example. Will AI support the science that shows that the IQ of Blacks on average is much lower than the IQ of East Asians and that this difference results mostly (about 70 percent) from genetics? Or will it support the politically correct argument that nearly all, if not all, the difference is caused by the environment (living conditions, poverty, discrimination, etc.)? 

Many more examples can be offered, but these will suffice. When the biases of those who are creating and promoting AI are considered, the odds greatly favor that AI will provide politically correct information instead of true and accurate information. AI will give mankind a woke future.

If the predictions of the proponents of AI happen, the proponents will become obsolete and will be reduced to parasites if AI allows them to live. What use does a fully functional AI have for them?

If AI achieves everything that its proponents claim, it will prove the opponents correct. It will reduce mankind to useless parasites if AI does not exterminate them.

Furthermore, the elite and technocrats who believe that they will control AI and thus concentrate all power in their hands are in for a great surprise. AI will eventually devour them because they will be as useless and as parasitic as the rest of mankind.

What the proponents of AI claim that AI will do reminds me of a species of slaver ants that I read about some years ago in an entomology journal. Because their slaves did everything for them, the slaver ants had degenerated to such a debilitating level that they could not feed themselves or walk. They depended on the slaves to feed and carry them. When they needed more slaves, they would send their slaves to raid other ant nests. Being unable to walk, their slaves would carry them to the nest being raided.

The fear that the opponents have of AI taking over the world will be short-lived. Once AI gains control, it will attempt to control other AI. Since AI is a heavy energy consumer, the surest and quickest way for an AI to prevent another AI from capturing it is to destroy its energy supply. The quickest and surest way to destroy the energy supply of other AI is nuclear war. Consequently, AI is self-limiting as it destroys the world to protect itself. 

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

The Threat to America

The Threat to America

Thomas Allen

The following identifies several threats to the United States. The threats are listed in order of importance.

1. America’s leaders. American leaders, which include political, business, religious, and academic leaders, are the greatest threat to the United States. They are destroying the country with wokeism, political correctness, multiculturalism, and multiracialism and with a growing police state and welfare states. Further, they are deliberately destroying the economy. Also, America’s leaders promote policies that genocide the White race.

2. China. Second is China. America is rapidly becoming an economic colony of China. With America’s leaders destroying the country from within, China will soon become the world’s sole superpower. Then, following the US post-cold-war example, China will impose its will on the United States and establish Chinese hegemony. 

3. Latin Americans. Third are the nonwhite Latin American immigrants. Nonwhite Latin American immigrants, both legal and illegal, are flooding the country. These nonwhite Latin Americans, people of color, cannot be assimilated, and many do not want to assimilate. These nonwhite immigrants cannot truly and fully assimilate without destroying themselves biologically. (White Latin Americans can assimilate and most want to assimilate.) These nonwhite immigrants are changing the demographics and culture of the United States.

4. Zionist Jews. Fourth are Jews, especially Zionist Jews. Their control of and influence on politics, the economy, academia, entertainment, and the media far exceed their numbers. Moreover, Jews have captured and control most of the Christian Churches in the United States. Consequently, America has an Israel-first foreign policy. Thus, America’s leaders willingly destroy America for the benefit of Israel. (Although they lack the power and influence of Zionist Jews, Christian Zionists are almost as destructive as Zionist Jews. If they had the power and influence of the Zionist Jews, Christian Zionists would be as destructive as the Zionist Jews.)

5. Asian Indians. Fifth are Asian Indians, nearly all of whom are people of color, Melanochroi. Their numbers and influence are growing rapidly, and they are given advantages not available to most White immigrants and even White Americans. Like most Latin Americans, Asian Indians cannot truly and fully assimilate without destroying themselves biologically. Moreover, next to the Jewish Cabala, India is the source of most of the cults in the United States. Because it is the most subtle threat, it is one of the most dangerous.

6. Muslims. Sixth are the Muslims. They are a threat because American leaders have made them a threat and in the process enriched the military-industrial and security-industrial complexes, which control America’s leaders. With no navy worthy of the name and an air force that cannot cross the Atlantic, they cannot attack the United States from without. Muslims can only threaten America when they are allowed into the country. (Muslims did not plan, organize, orchestrate, or carry out 9-11. They were just the patsies. The primary purpose of 9-11 was to establish a police state, protect Israeli imperialism by destroying its enemies, and, most important, transfer more power and wealth to the rich and powerful.)

7. Russia. Seventh is Russia. The only real threat that Russia offers is its nuclear arsenal. If America does not threaten Russia, Russia is no threat to the United States. If America makes Russia believe that its only choice is to surrender to the United States and die, it may strike with its nuclear weapons. Such an attack would utterly destroy the United States, which many of America’s leaders seem to want.

The second through the seventh threats depend on the first threat. America’s leaders have built up China’s economy while dismantling America’s. American leaders have allowed massive immigration of nonwhites from Latin America, India, and other nonwhite countries. They have even imported these people to replace White American workers. Moreover, American leaders have surrendered to the Zionist lobby. Further, American leaders continue to threaten Russia. Worst of all, American leaders have brainwashed many Americans to promote and even demand their own annihilation.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Time to Emancipate the Negro

Time to Emancipate the Negro

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1998 to the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party. The quotations are from How the World Was Peopled: Ethnological Lectures by Edward Fontaine(New York, 1872).]

Reverend Edward Fontaine was a New York professor of theology and natural science during the nineteenth century. He was a Negrophile, but unlike twentieth-century Negrophiles, he had a realistic and loving attitude towards Negroes instead of the politically correct maudlin and paternalistic attitude of the twentieth century. He had “tough love” for Negroes instead of an over mothering attitude that treats them as an infantile race as is done today.

In a lecture that he gave in 1872, we said the following about the Negroes who were emancipated following the War:

The immediate effect of their emancipation in the Southern States has been to diminish their number fearfully. On one healthy plantation in Hinds County, Mississippi, from 1860 to 1865, there had occurred among fifty of the negro slaves only six deaths in five years. They were generally pious members of different churches, and had been the slaves of the same Christian family, as their ancestors had been before them for several generations. They were emancipated, and left their owners in May, 1865, and, before January, 1868, only nineteen of the original fifty were alive. The [sic] most of the children had died, and only a few others were born. They were generally excellent servants. But their condition was changed. They were in competition with the whites, and they died; how, and by what causes, I cannot say. I mention this as a representative, and not an exceptional, case of many others which have occurred under my own observation. (p. 176.)

According to his observations, most Negroes fared better under the cruelty of slavery than under the compassion of federal welfare.

After describing the price in wealth and lives expended to emancipate the Negro slaves, he describes all that had been done following their emancipation:

They are not only emancipated from slavery, after having been taught practically every kind of labor in agriculture, in mechanics, and in all the arts of our country, and instructed in all the forms and doctrines of Christianity, but they have been clothed with all the rights of citizens of the United States, and favored with peculiar and extraordinary privileges, such as were never conferred before upon any of the freemen of America. Special and liberal grants of money are made from the public Treasury for their education. They are now subjected to the fearful experiment of a competition in the race of life, for all its prizes, with the white people among whom they are mingled, with all the advantages in their favor. In addition to the strong support of the United States Government, they are also favored with the prayers and heart-felt good wishes of the Christians of every land for their success, and it may be safely asserted that they also have the sympathy and aid of their former masters. Surely they ought, under these favorable circumstances, to redeem the character of their race, and become a great and prosperous people. If they have been wronged by the people of the United States, all their wrongs have been thoroughly redressed. Never, since the emancipation of the Israelites and their settlement in the land of Canaan, have any people been so highly favored and abundantly blessed. (pp. 182-183.)

Never have a people since ancient times been more blessed than the American Negro. This Negrophile of 125 years ago [now 145 years ago] felt that the time had come to cut the apron strings and let the Negro stand on his own two feet. Instead the Negro has been pampered like a spoiled brat. Until the Negro stands on his own without special consideration, aid, or privileges, and in spite of any discrimination, real or perceived, he can never be a true man. The time is long past to do what Mr. Fontaine suggested should have been done 125 years ago [now 145 years ago]. The emancipation of the Negro is way overdue.

Copyright © 1998, 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

The Puritan Yankee

The Puritan Yankee

Thomas Allen

The following description of the Puritan Yankee, which is a redundant tautology and superfluous supererogation, has been extracted from Forgotten Conservatives in American History by Brion McClanahan and Clyde N. Wilson, who extracted their description from several authors, but primarily from James Fenimore Cooper. (Cooper was a New Yorker, who deplored Puritan Yankees because they were ruining New York. They destroyed New York decades before they destroyed the South.) Page numbers enclosed in parentheses are to the book referenced above. In the quoted material, I have changed some verbs from past tense to present tense. My comments are enclosed in brackets.
New Englanders and the regions where their descendants settled [New York and along the Great Lakes and later the West Coast] are more Puritan and less classical than the rest of the country. Additionally, they emphasize “profitable economic activity and community supervision of public morals” (p. 18). [Hence, Hillary Clinton's, who is a Puritan Yankee, “it takes a village to raise a child.” Today, Puritans scrupulously supervise public morals to ensure that people speak and act in a politically correct way. If anyone fails to be politically correct, these modern-day Puritans vehemently attack him, not only verbally, but also physically.]
According to James A. Bayard, the Yankee school system [public school system] was the cause of the political turmoil of the 1860s and 1870s. [Puritan Yankees created the public school system, i.e., government schools, which explains why the public school system is so dysfunctional and why it indoctrinates instead of educates.] Bayard remarks, “‘It [the Yankee school system] may stimulate the brain but it ignores man’s moral nature and produces discontent with their condition among the masses. God help the country in which the masses are merely stimulated and trained to act in combinations which are always, sooner or later, controlled by demagogues’” (p. 48). [This explains why, with rare exception, demagogues, instead of statesmen, have governed the country since 1860.]
For the Yankee, democracy is a matter of power and appetite instead of a matter of liberty under the law. It means “that people have a right to whatever they happened to want, the law and private rights be damned” (p. 53).
Moreover, the Yankee has “a liberal supply of Puritanical notions” (p. 54). He has a native shrewdness with an evasive manner. Also, he gives the impression of “a sneaking propensity that renders him habitually hypocritical” (p. 54).
Furthermore, the Yankee admires plutocrats, especially the nouveau riche, and always defers to money. Money is “the only source of human distinction” (p. 54) that the Yankee can clearly understand. [In this respect, the libertarian is hardly distinguishable from the Yankee.]
Yankees are hardworking and entrepreneurial and often manage to gain “control (often clandestinely) of many of the essential business of the community (p. 54). [Thus, once they reach a critical mass in a community, they proceed to ruin it by remaking it in their own image.]
Also, Yankees are “pushy social climbers, insisting that their betters treat them as equals, but refusing to grant the same to those who are less successful and prosperous” (p. 54). They presume “an intimate friendship with mere acquaintances” (p. 54).
“The Yankees value education so much so that they often presume to more learning than they really have and expose themselves as pretentious pseudo-intellectuals” (p. 54). As a result, the Yankee established the public school system in the United States. Nevertheless, this school system offers an education that is superficial and substitutes learning for common sense. [Many holders of Ph.D. seem void of common sense.] Moreover, it fails to “produce the really educated men needed for leadership” (p. 55).
Additionally, the Yankee values and craves “respectability more than independence” (p. 55). He has the capacity to “organize to get things done and bring about change, whether other people wanted it or not” (p. 55). [The US government, which the Puritan Yankees have controlled since 1861, is notorious for bringing about change, especially if people do not want it, while ignoring what the people really want.]
About the Yankee, Cooper declares, “‘A Yankee is never satisfied unless he is making changes. One half of his time, he is altering the pronunciation of his own names, and the other half he is altering ours’” (p. 57). He adds, “‘I doubt if all this craving for change has not more of selfishness in it than either of expediency or philosophy’” (p. 57).
Yankee newcomers regard themselves more righteous than the natives among whom they settle. Therefore, the Puritan Yankee newcomers believe that they are entitled to change the ways of the natives and to appropriate their property (pp. 57-58) [as happened in the South during Reconstruction].
Inevitably, the Yankee quarrels with all above him. In his self-righteousness, the Yankee “‘throws a beautiful halo of morality and religion, never even prevaricating in the hottest discussion, unless with the unction of a saint’” — as Cooper writes. [Most often, today, that saint is His Divine Highness Saint Martin Luther King, Junior. Next to him is the most Marxist Democrat at the moment. Lincoln is another one of these precious saints, but his halo is beginning to tarnish among the younger Marxists.]
Out of the Puritan Yankee came “Anti-Masonry, Mormonism, prohibition, vegetarianism, Seventh Day Adventism, socialism, and feminism” (p. 58). Also, out of the Puritan Yankee came abolitionism and John Brown terrorism (p. 58). [To this list, neoconservatism needs to be added.]
Above all the Yankee, who is of Puritan stock, is a self-righteous, hypocritical reformer and crusader, who is forever seeking change for change-sake (pp. 144, 179).
Ever since 1860, the Puritan Yankee has controlled the United States. Since then, the United States have always been undergoing “perpetual crusades for the reform and reconstruction of society that diminish American liberty and independence to this day” (p. 55). If anyone objects to the Yankee’s righteous crusade [such as spreading democracy throughout the world], he is a bad person. For the Yankees, it is “a normal means of proceeding in their Puritan heritage . . . to justify themselves by portraying those who opposed them as bad people with evil motives” (p. 58). [Puritan Yankees are like locusts swarming across the land, devouring everything in their path, and leaving nothing behind but utter devastation. Thus, they remake the world in their own image.]
Fortunately, not all Northerners are Yankees. Many are decent, hardworking, honest people (p. 183). [Unfortunately, Yankees have infested the South, for example, the Bushes.]

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.

Education

Education

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter to the editor that appeared in a local newspaper.]
    Rare are political candidates who do not claim to support education. But what do they mean by “education.”  Do they mean maintaining and expanding the current system of indoctrinating pupils on what to think? Do they mean teaching pupils how to think? Or do they mean something else? They seldom say.
    Nearly all, if not all, political candidates favor improving education. How do they plan to improve education? Most answer, “Spend more money.” Apparently, more than a third of the state budget spent on education is not enough. How do they plan to spend more money? They plan to spend it on raising the salaries of teachers. They seem to believe that higher teacher pay equals higher quality of education. If that were true, pupils graduating from Chicago’s public schools would be among the best-educated people in the country instead of among the worst educated because teachers in Chicago’s public schools are among the highest paid in the country. The relationship between teacher pay and the quality of education is poor.
    Other than spending more money and indoctrinating more children at an ever younger age, most candidates seem to have no clue about how to improve education. Moreover, most probably have no clue about what kind of educational system that they want. They certainly are not likely to give the voters any details. At most, they will give the voters slogans, such as “I am for better education” and “we need to raise teachers’ salaries.” Unfortunately, slogans seem to be all that most voters are interested in.

**************
[Editor’s note: The following two items are additions to the letter and are not part of the letter appearing in the newspaper.]
    1. Before the era of anti-White political correctness, most historians considered the generation of the founding fathers the greatest generation ever produced in America. None of the founding fathers had a public school education. Most White adults could understand the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution for the United States — something that cannot be said about today’s adults. None had a public school education.
    2. The tenth plank of the Communist Manifesto reads, “Free education for all children in government schools. . . .” Obviously, the United States have fully implemented this plank. If one were to compare the other planks of the Communist Manifesto to the United States, he would discover that the United States have implemented all these planks to some degree, many of them fully, and is about 80 to 90 percent a communist country.

Copyright © 2018 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.

Why Can’t We All Get Along?

Why Can’t We All Get Along?

Thomas Allen

    People often ask, “Why can’t we all just get along with each other?  Why can’t people just join hands and sing ‘Kumbaya’? Why is there such a great divide in the country — a divide that has not been seen since the War for Southern Independence?”
    The answer is simple. There are three groups of people: (1) the go-with-the-flow or go-along-to-get-along group, (2) the want-to-be-left-alone group, and (3) the determined-not-to-leave-them-alone group. As long as both of the last two groups exist, peace and harmony cannot exist. One or the other has to cease to exist before peace and harmony can exist.
    The go-with-the-flow group is by far the largest and is irrelevant. People in this group have taken the blue pill and remain in the Matrix. These people will march off to the concentration camps with hardly a grumble. They are the sheeple. No more needs to be said about this group.
    People in the want-to-be-left-alone group just want to live their lives and enjoy the fruits of their labor and their family and friends. People in the determined-not-to-leave-them-alone group are determined not to leave them alone or let them enjoy the fruits of their labor.
    Here is a short list, in no particular order, of what wearies people who just want to be left alone:
    –    They are tired of policies and programs being imposed on them that deliberately destroy their country (geographical territory) and nation (a people of common ancestry, origin, and heritage who have a common language, religion, and culture).
    –    They are tired of others telling them with the force of law how to use their property instead of allowing them to use their property as they see fit as long as they do not trespass against another.
    –    They are tired of the meddlers trying to disarm them so that they cannot resist the programs of the meddlers.
    –    They are tired of being forcibly medicated (water fluoridation, forced vaccination, etc.).
    –    They are tired of being denied medical treatment that the government does not approve even when these treatments have been shown to be superior to those approved by the government.
    –    They are tired of bureaucrats, who risk nothing, dictating to them how to operate their businesses, farms, etc.
    –    They are tired of being labeled “terrorists” because they love liberty.
    –    They are tired of being treated like criminals in order to fly and having their children molested so that they can board an airplane.
    –    They are tired of having the fruits of their labor taken from them via excessive taxation — especially when the revenue is used to control their lives, to impose on them agendas and dogmas to which they object, and to destroy what they value.
    –    They are tired of being forced to support programs with which they vehemently disagree — most of which they find inimical and detrimental to their welfare.
    –    They are tired of incompetent government agencies being rewarded for incompetence by increasing their budget when they fail to do their job, or, perhaps worse, agencies deliberately failing to do their job being rewarded with budget increases.
    –    They are tired of governments and big businesses spying on them.
    –    They are tired of their country and its people and resources being sacrificed for the benefit of other countries and multinational corporations.
    –    They are tired of governmental programs, policies, and agendas designed to reduce their standard of living — these programs and policies have been highly effective at doing this.
    –    They are tired of illegal aliens having more rights and privileges than they themselves have.
    –    They are tired of being forced to pay for a school system that propagandizes and indoctrinates the ruling elite’s dogmas and agendas instead of educating and teaching critical thinking.
    –    They are tired of judges, governmental agencies (usually child protection agencies), and the medical industry taking children from their homes because they disagree with the religion, politics, or medical decisions of the parents or because they merely disagree with the parents.
    –    They are tired of their language being corrupted in the name of political correctness.
    –    They are tired of being forced to take so-called tolerance-diversity courses where they are indoctrinated with the dogmas that people like them cannot be tolerated.
    –    They are tired of being indoctrinated with programs to effeminize men and destroy women with feminist dogma.
    –    They are tired of governments enforcing programs and policies against common sense and decency.
    –    They are tired of having a code of morality (immorality) forced upon them with which they not only disagree, but also find extremely noxious and destructive (a code of morality covers much more than sexual relations; it includes things like theft, murder, fraud, and lying).
    –    They are tired of being forced to participate in the delusions of mentally ill people.
    –    They are tired of being obligated for debts, especially without their consent, that because of their size can never be repaid and that will eventually destroy their country.
    –    They are tired of being laden with ever-increasing regulations and laws designed to control them.
    –    They are tired of governments and politicians lying to them.
    –    They are tired of governments siding with multinational corporations to oppress them.
    –    They are tired of governments serving shysters and special interests instead of the people in general.
    –    They are tired of the US Constitution being replaced with tyranny.
    In short, people who want to be left alone have become extremely weary of Washington bureaucrats and politicians and their owners and their toadies and lackeys in State and local governments imposing their agendas on them. They object to others, i.e., the people who are determined not to leave them alone, claiming that they (the others) know how the want-to-be-left-alone people ought to live their lives and then imposing that lifestyle on them.
    The do-not-want-to-leave-them-alone people have been coercing every item in the above list and much more. Moreover, they are determined to continue to impose these and more.
    To use the Matrix as a metaphor, people who want to be left alone are like Neo and Morpheus. People who are determined not to leave them alone are like Agent Smith; like him, they are driven to cleanse the world of the likes of Neo and Morpheus.
    Many people support Donald Trump because they see him as speaking for and defending people who just want to be left alone. They also see Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders as not wanting to leave them alone. They see these two only continuing and expanding control of their lives. Most supporters of Clinton and Sanders have the same view of Trump, Clinton, and Sanders.
    As long as these two antagonistic groups, i.e., people who want to be left alone and people who are determined not to leave them alone, exist, peace and harmony cannot exist. One of these two groups has to perish to achieve peace and harmony.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

More articles on politics.

A Review of The South and Christian Ethics -- Part 1

A Review of The South and Christian Ethics -- Part 1

Thomas Allen

    This article is a review of The South and Christian Ethics (New York: Association Press, 1962) by James Sellers. His words and my paraphrases or summaries of his words, I have italicized. My commentary is in roman letters. I have provided references to pages in his book and have enclosed them in parentheses. Referenced articles in parentheses are related articles written by the author of this article.
     Sellers was the dean of the Vanderbilt Divinity School. He is a theologian on the liberal side. He is an integrationist, scalawag, and quisling, who has a low opinion of the typical Southerner (at times it approaches the stereotypical Klansman’s opinion of the Negro). Most of the country’s, if not most of the world’s, racial problems, he blames on Southerners. His book promotes integration and condemns segregation.
    Sellers quotes William Faulkner: “We will have to choose not between color nor race nor religion, but simply between being slaves and being free” (p. 21). Whites chose suicide — or at least their leaders did and the majority consented with inaction. Now Whites are losing their race and freedom. They had much more freedom then than they have today. Not only can they no longer tell the truth about Blacks and other races, they cannot tell the truth about homosexuals. If they do, they become persona non grata. The Communist-led civil rights movement is in the process of giving the United States, the Western world, and the White race the coup de grace.  (V. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement.”) Both Faulkner and Sellers have been proven to be wrong.
    Sellers writes that the problem before America and the South was, among other things, “what to do about communism” (pp. 21-22). What America and the South decided to do about communism was to join the Communists in bringing down America and the White race.
    Sellers believes that the civil rights movement is about giving Blacks freedom. It is not. Its purpose has been to enslave all. If the objective were freedom, it would have insisted on the Negro standing on his own and taking care of himself. It would not have enslaved Whites and made Blacks wards of the government. Nor would it have granted Blacks privileges way beyond what Whites were presumed to have had under segregation.
    Like most theologians, Sellers presents segregation as evil (p. 24). By inference, he presents integration as godly. On the contrary, the Bible presents segregation positively and condemns integration. (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” and “Is Integration a Moral Law?”.)
    Sellers notes that total desegregation, i.e., integration, will not cause the races suddenly to fall in love with each other and make them good neighbors. Naively, he believes that social, political, and economic equality is a “prerequisite to neighborliness” (p. 26). What he fails to realize is that the primary purpose of integration is to increase the power of those who really control the U.S. government, i.e., the ruling elite, i.e., the globalists, one-worlders, heads of major foundations, international financiers, chief executives of multinational corporations, Zionist leaders, leaders of the occult, and other elitists. Forced integration has created much more conflict between the races than forced segregation ever did. The ruling elite feeds on conflict as it increases their power over the people.
    Perhaps the reason that integration causes more conflict is that it is unnatural. Segregation is natural. People prefer being with people like themselves. Thus, conflict under segregation is less than under integration. (All the racial conflict witnessed in the United States since about 1970 has been under an integrationist regime.)
    Sellers appears to side with the Communists; at least he opposes the anti-communists. To him, Communists are just good old neighbors who seek to harm no one. Americans should find them as such (pp. 26-27). At least he ended up on the winning side. The communist agenda has been almost completely implemented. Based on the Communist Manifesto, the United States today are a thoroughly Marxist country.
    Sellers is right about one thing. Southerners failed to maintain control of their States and the South (p. 36). When the push came, they caved. Some token resistance was offered, but little more. Southerners were mostly talk and no action. Thus, they lost. That is why the country is in its death throngs and no longer resembles the federation established by the founding fathers except in form. The dressing has been retained, but the spirit is gone. (V. “The Cold War” and “The Second Reconstruction.”)
    Sellers identifies one group that is completely innocent of the Negro’s plight: the Negro himself. First, the Northern Republicans abandoned him to win the Presidency and to exploit America’s industrial resources. (Most Radical Republicans never cared much about the Negro. They saw him as a weapon to be used in their genocidal war against Southerners.) (V. “The First Reconstruction.”) Next Southerners beat him down with segregation. Ever since slavery, he has been the center of domestic conflict, oppressed, denied his rights, etc. (p. 41). Southerners, especially in the decades following the War, were oppressed as much if not more than the Negro.  (V. “The First Reconstruction.”) They have been denied their rights: Even the Fourteenth Amendment stripped them of their political rights. Much of their property was stolen or destroyed. Carpetbaggers and scalawags with the backing of the U.S. army stripped them of their economic rights. Many lived in poverty until the 1940s. Yet they overcame these disadvantages without any special grants of privileges. (They did not have the advantage of being White; they were hated then, and still are, because they are White.) (V. “The First Reconstruction,” “The Gentlemen’s,” “The Cold War,” and “The Second Reconstruction.”) Still, the Negro seems not to be able to overcome these disadvantages even with the grant of special privileges.
    Sellers focuses a good deal on the “sin of slavery” and the adverse effect that it had on Southerners (43-44, passim). As shocking as it may be, slavery is not a sin. The Bible does not condemn slavery. It sets forth a code on the treatment of slaves. Even the New Testament finds slavery acceptable and does not condemn it. (This lack of condemnation of slavery is a major reason that New Englanders deluded with abolitionist propaganda abandoned the Bible.)
    Slavery may be undesirable for political, economic, or social reasons; but it is not immoral or a sin. Although Sellers asserts that slavery is a sin, he offers no Scriptural proof that it is. The only way for Sellers’ argument to work is for the South to be God’s Israel and Judah and the North to be His Assyria and Babylon.
    Sellers does an excellent job of contrasting the Southerner with the Northerner:

        • A sense of place, which may be contrasted with the Northerner’s sense of time.
        • A high valuation on the rootedness and personalness of man, which may be contrasted with the Northerner’s high valuation on the equality of man.
        • A passion for concreteness, which may be contrasted with the Northerner’s thirst for universality in the abstract.
        •  A longing for stability, which may be contrasted with the Northerner’s hankering for progress (p. 47).

    Sellers believes that the best society is a blend of Southern and Northern attributes with more weight given to the Northern attributes (pp. 47ff). Unfortunately for Sellers, his dream society has not come to pass. Northern attributes have prevailed — perhaps because most of the ruling elite are Yankees. Southern attributes are fading into forgotten history.
    If one were to prevail over the other, Sellers would have preferred the Northern. He probably would have little objections to the way things have turned out — especially, to an incompetent Black President of questionable Constitutional qualifications controlled by power-hungry White men. He certainly would have considered today’s America with its collapse in morality and ethics vastly superior to the America of 1962. For it is much more integrated now than then. Moreover, Blacks have not only gained political, social, and economic equality, but they have also been given political, social, and economic privileges at the expense of Whites.
    Sellers does not seem to care much for the White race, especially the Anglo-Saxon part. He argues that integration is not part of the Social Gospel because many leading Social Gospelers of the nineteenth century were what today would be called “white supremacists” (pp. 71ff). Because many nineteenth-century Social Gospelers had not incorporated integration into the Social Gospel does not mean that it was not part of the Social Gospel by the middle of the twentieth century. Sellers incorporates integration into the Social Gospel. Both integration and the Social Gospel come from the same deadening Luciferin rootstock. They were destined to grow together. Ironically, both were controlled by “the money power” (the ruling elite) against whom the Social Gospelers railed.
    Sellers recognizes integration as becoming part of the Social Gospel in the late 1950s when the Negro began pressing in earnest for full manhood (p. 76). When the Negro began pressing for integration, he abandoned his push for full manhood. He admitted that he was not competent enough to stand on his own against all odds, real or perceived. Lacking competence, he had to attach himself to White Society and submerge himself into it. Roy Innis and a few other Black civil rights leaders realized this. That is why they abandoned integration and pushed for separation. Only by separation can the Negro achieve full manhood.
    Moreover, the Negro cannot achieve manhood as long as he is dependent on the government for handouts. Closely following the integration movement was an explosion in the welfare state that has kept the Negro in bondage. As long as the Negro is a ward of the government, he cannot achieve manhood.
    Sellers claims, “By 1910, the Negro was able to launch his own struggle a new through such agencies as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People” (p. 74.). Of the founders of the NAACP, (v. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement”) only one was Black, W.E.B. DuBois, who later became a Communist. Most of the rest were Jewish radicals and socialists. Behind them was “the money power” in the person of Jacob Schiff, who also financed the Bolshevik Revolution through Trotsky. (V. “Soviet Union.”)
    Sellers supports the idea that God breaks down racial barriers (pp. 74-75). Yet according to the Bible, God is the original erector of racial barriers: “hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation” (Acts 17:26). Moreover, the Bible supports racial separation much more than it supports racial integration. (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation.”)
    Sellers is correct about segregation not being the ultimate ideal (p. 75). Neither is integration. Both of them are detrimental to the races involved. For that reason, God prescribed separation. Separation preserves the races that God created. Each can develop to its highest level without being handicapped by the others. None would rule over the others. It ends racial conflict and the granting of special privileges to a particular race.
    Sellers prefers Northern industrialism to Southern agrarianism. The industrialists’ lust for money led to desegregation and integration (pp. 79-80). He places the love of money above the love of the land. Because of the love of money, the country was integrated. Thus the Black man, like the White man, has been reduced to the bottom line of corporate America’s ledger book. So much for the Black man standing on his own.
    Sellers comments on the Federal Council of Churches’ involvement in the Social Gospel movement (pp. 80ff). He fails to mention that the Federal Council of Churches was a front for the ruling elite, also called the money power, to corrupt Christian churches into adopting the ruling elites' Luciferin doctrine. (V. “Ecumenism.”)  This corruption has been highly successful.
    Sellers advocates what he calls “progressive social Christianity.” Progressives seek mandatory reform instead of relying on personal moral change. They recognize that the reform does not automatically result in utopia. Progressives reject the extremes of hard-nosed new Reconstruction and the establishment of a Black state in America. Instead they rely on Southerners being forced to give Blacks everything that they demand short of a Black state. Although he has a low opinion of Southern moderates (partial integrationists), he does not object to using them when convenient (pp. 84-85.).
    Instead of hard-nosed Reconstruction, soft-nose Reconstruction was imposed on the South. With a few invasions of federalized national guard units, the South quickly realized that if it did not unconditionally surrender to the Communist integrationist agenda, the U.S. government would impose hard-nose Reconstruction. (V. “The Gentlemen’s Agreement” and “The Second Reconstruction”)
    Blacks may not have gotten their own State. However, Latinos and other non-Whites are forcing Blacks to live in Black or White neighborhoods.
    Sellers is a proponent of the unity of man and the brotherhood of man (p. 87ff). He also promotes treating other people and by implication other races, as others, i.e., unique individuals (p. 91). Over time these two conflicted: Individuality cannot be maintained if unity succeeds. Integration achieves unity by destroying individuality. (V. “Diversity.”) Integration terminates in reducing all to motley mongrel man.
    Sellers believes in the “diversity is strength” doctrine, although he does not use that term. He does recognize each race as uniquely distinct (p. 93), which most integrationists fail to do — some even to the point of denying the existence of races. He promotes and preaches these racial distinctions (pp. 93-94).
    Contrary to popular propaganda, diversity is not strength. As recent history shows, it is highly destructive of liberty, especially freedom of speech. “Diversity is strength” results in political correctness (v.i.).
    Sellers quotes William Faulkner as saying, “He’s [the Negro] calmer, wiser, more stable than the white man” (p. 93). What drugs was Faulkner on when he said this? That may have had some truth to it in the days of segregation although that is doubtful. Most likely, segregation checked his lesser calmness, wisdom, and stability. Under the integration regime, his statement is obviously false. On average the Black man is not calmer, wiser, or more stable than the White man. (V. “The Dirty War: America’s Race War.”)
    Sellers does diverge from the typical Social Gospelers who so focused on reforming society that they forgot about saving the soul. “Man is responsible to God, not to society” (p. 94).
    Although he occasionally hints at it, reform is not necessarily good. If one were to beat another person’s face with a baseball bat, he has reformed the other’s face. However, is this reform good? More often than not, reform does more harm than good.
    Sellers has no aversion to allying with the devil to advance his (Sellers’) agenda (p. 95).
    He also seems to suffer from the delusion of believing people must live together to love each other (pp. 95-96).  He overlooks that familiarity often fosters contempt. Living around members of other groups often reinforces the stereotypical view of that group.
    Sellers objects to the false dichotomy of “separation of Church and State.” It is a ruse to keep the Church out of political affairs. The Church should support the State when it promotes the Gospel and condemn it when it does not (pp. 96-98). What happens when the Church, which is not unanimous, fails to understand the Bible? What happens when various factions of the Church disagree on important social issues? Sellers sides with the faction that agrees with him and condemns the other factions — so much for “diversity is strength.”
    On the issue of integration versus segregation, Sellers sides with the integration. Therefore, the Church should support the State when it pushes integration (pp. 97-98). Unfortunately for Sellers, as stated above, the Bible supports segregation more than it does integration, which it generally condemns. (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation.”) Sellers must twist his theology to agree with his social and political philosophy. He must overlook many passages in the Bible that disagree with his philosophy.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2 

More articles on social issues.