Do Human Races Exist: Appendices

Do Human Races Exist: Appendices

Thomas Allen

Appendix 1. Discussion with RN1 in comments to an article in “We Love Trump Report.” 

RN1: Mayor Wu should NOT be apologizing for having the emails sent to ALL Council Members! She should be apologizing for NOT intending to invite the whites in the FIRST PLACE! Plain. And. Simple. PERIOD!

Me to American Patriot: Nonwhites segregating themselves from Whites is the only thing that will save the suicidal White race. Since most Whites are racial nihilists, they are determined to sacrifice themselves on the altar of humanity. Since most people of other races are racial supremacists or racial separationists, they seek to protect, preserve, and promote their race — something White stopped doing decades ago.

RN1 to Me: But we’re all the same race. The human race!

Me to RN1: You prove my point. Are you so stupid that you cannot distinguish between a Korean and a Zulu? If you are correct, then why do we have all these laws and policies that prohibit discriminating against nonexisting nonwhites while encouraging discrimination against nonexisting Whites? Why do we have all these laws and policies that give nonwhites benefits and privileges that are denied nonexisting Whites? Even the great archconservative Martin Luther King could identify the races of humans and wanted Negroes (his word) to have special benefits and privileges. Apparently, these nonexisting Whites can distinguish the race of man that God created. Even toddlers and dogs know that races of humans exist. Only stupid racial nihilists like you are unable to identify a person’s race, which is an insult to that person because his race is an essential part of his identity. Racial nihilists do prove one thing: They prove that nonwhites are more intelligent than Whites where race is concerned. Furthermore, following your logic, there are no differences between men and women because both are of human race. Thus, you must be a proponent of transgenderism since you have proven the proponents of transgenderism correct.

RN1 to Me: What in the world are you even saying? You don’t make much sense. We are ALL of the HUMAN race! With that said, there are different ETHNICITIES within our same race! And there are only TWO genders (male and female)! It's VERY simple to understand! Where did I not make sense to you?

Appendix 2. Discussion with RN2 in comments to an article in The New American.

Original Commenter: Feminize [sic] the males and masculinize [sic] the women; there is such a mass desire to get rid of all God’s creations and some Christians have had enough. 

IMHO messing with God’s formulations is not only dangerous it is downright cruel. The children are the victims; mRNA, drug enhancement vaccines, drugs to trans, drugs for depression, sex edu. at age 4, etc. Sex isn’t in the organs it’s in the mind that controls the organs and the natural hormones. Mess with the minds and hormones of children and you have a mess. Their minds and bodies are not ready for sex or hormones as infants and toddlers......but it's being forced on them; cruelty.

God Help US

Me to Original Commenter: Don’t forget the genociding of the races that God created and that has been pushed since the 1960s.

RN2 to Me: The races that God created? From what I read, God created man kind, both male and female. “Race” is a divisive goo to you evolutionist invented classification. We are all being genocided — black, white, male, female, homosexual, straight, American, European, etc... I know you don’t believe we came from monkeys who came from pond scum, which came from an explosion of nothing.

Me to RN2: If you are correct, evolution is proven. Like begets unlike. Each kind after a different kind. End of story. By the way, Adam invented classification when he named the animals. Consequently, according to your reasoning, Adam must have been an evolutionist. Moreover, since I wrote that God created the races, that precludes me from being an evolutionist. However, the scenario that you describe and seem to support requires you to be an evolutionist.

RN2 to Me: No, not if I'm correct. If scripture is correct, after God created animals, He created man in His image — a clear distinction and separation between animals and man kind. If scripture is correct, then each animal brings forth creatures after their kind. That being the case, and considering the clear distinction between animals and man, it stands to reason that man also brings forth his kind as supported and evidenced by our own eyes and experience. Dogs can only bring forth dogs, cats can only bring forth cats, man can only bring forth man. No animal has or can evolve into another kind of animal, nor has or can any animal evolve into man. There is no evidence that one kind became another. I've not read any scripture that indicates that God created races or different “kinds” of man, just man. Differences in skin color, is not a result of evolution. There are no races. Not if I’m correct. If scripture is correct, God created Adam, and God created Eve. Adam and Eve brought forth their kind in His image. Evolution is NOT proven.

Me to RN2: If God did not do it, what causes the difference in skin color? Since races do not exist, then you must be unable to tell the difference between an East Asian and a Sub-Saharan African. If races do not exist, why do Republicans work so hard to get the Black vote? If races do not exist, why do Blacks have so many benefits and privileges denied Whites, and Whites are discriminated against? If races do not exist, how can one identify a person’s race with a high degree of accuracy from his blood? https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2015/12/of-one-blood.html. If races do not exist, how can one identify a person's race with a high degree of accuracy from his skeleton? https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2016/05/skeleton-differences-of-human-races.html. If races do not exist, why do groups differ greatly in nonphysical traits? https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2022/02/nonphysical-racial-differences.html. Only one kind of man is created in God’s image: https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2016/06/what-race-was-adam.html.

RN2 to Me: What makes you think I can not distinguish between an East Asian and a Sub-Saharan African? I have eyes that work the same as all man kind (with the exception of defect, of course), just as the people of those regions do and can see the differences in Anglo-Americans. How are your political prejudices a scientific determinant of so called ‘race?’ How are benefits and privileges a scientific determinant of so called ‘race?’ All of these are a result of the fall of man kind. God did not cause the fall. He therefore did not cause the variations you call ‘race,’ and certainly not man’s prejudices. “If races do not exist, how can one identify a person's race...” <== This is a logic trap within your question. It is circular and can't be answered.

This article based on scripture and science will answer your questions about skin color, facial features, blood characteristics, bone structure, etc. It is certainly too long to paste here.

“How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?” https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p040/c04018/chapter18.pdf.

Me to RN2: If you can distinguish between East Asians and Sub-Saharan Africans, you have identified two distinct races. I have glanced at the article you referenced and will review it in more detail when time permits. It seems like a covert evolutionist article claiming to be a creation document by doing the impossible with genetics. If all mankind descended from Noah and his family, then evolution is proven. A tribe or nation (nationality) has a common ancestral origin, which makes them monoracial (of the same people group) and are not hybrids. Moreover, skin color is a minor racial characteristic. An albino East Asian can be easily distinguished from an albino Sub-Saharan African, although they have the same skin color. The authors of the paper prefer “people group” to “race”; I prefer species, which is a much more accurate term. Here are two articles that show that most fundamental Christians are covert evolutionists: https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2020/05/fundamental-christians-and-evolution.html and https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2019/11/christians-and-creationism.html. Moreover, if races do not exist, why does God prohibit mongrels, mixed breeds, or multiracial people in his assembly https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2017/05/commentary-on-deuteronomy-232.html. However, I doubt that you will read or even look at this article and the previous ones that I linked. In closing, I quote Jeremiah, who declared the immutability of the races (species) of man when he said, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?” (Jeremiah 13:23a). The implication is no. Thus, Jeremiah testifies that fundamental Christians err when they maintain that all the species of man descended from Adam and Eve or from Noah through his sons and their wives.

RN2 to Me: No, I have not identified two distinct races. I have identified two groups of people, each with common characteristics resulting from many generations of environmental adaptations and mutations, not different creations of God. All are descended from one. Not evolution (one kind becoming another). Not separate creations. Descendants. “And [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; ‘Species,’ the term you prefer over ‘people groups,’ nations and tribes, is a 14th Century invention by evolutionists. It cannot more accurately describe that which existed thousands of years before it.

God does not prohibit ‘mongrels’ from His assembly. “Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” A better question would have been, “Why did God make the prohibitions of Deut. 23?” Not because they were a different creation. Not because they evolved from animals. Not because they were a different ‘species.’ Not because of the color of their skin. He prohibited them because they were pagans, worshipers of false Gods, workers of evil. He prohibited them so Israel would not be destroyed. He prohibited them for the same reason he prohibited Israelites from marrying foreign nationals from cultures of evil. Even then, God allowed some that were converted.

Why doubt that I read the articles you linked when you could simply ask? Because you did not read the article I linked? Because you cannot convert me and initiate me into the evolutionist cult? Yes, I read them, and they don’t hide their Aryan “master race” scripture twisting ideologies. They make false claims such as, “They imply, if not outright claim, that the blood of the races of humans is identical. Thus, races cannot be distinguished by blood.” No, they don’t. They do not imply or claim there are ‘races,’ rather nations and tribal groups. They do not imply or claim the blood of people groups are identical. This is explained in the article I linked that you did not read. They do not imply or claim that ethnicity groups cannot be distinguished by blood (also explained).

You “closed” by partially quoting Jeremiah who did NOT declare “the immutability of the races (or species — a term loved by Darwin and invented thousands of years after God spoke to Jeremiah). The full quote is “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.” This in no way indicates that skin can not change over time and through generations. In fact, we know that skin can change with environmental factors, and can actually change quite abruptly with conditions doctors call “vitiligo.” What the Lord is saying is that the evil people of Judah have ignored God’s words for so long and are so accustomed to doing evil, that changing their hearts is as likely as the heavily pigmented Ethiopian changing his own skin or a leopard changing its spots — so unlikely He will destroy them.

So, now I will close by saying, you and I have a different belief system. Neither you nor I will change our hearts. Evolution is pseudo-science. There are no races, and the only master is the Messiah.

Me to RN2: As interesting as it is, I must close this discussion. After decades of studying this issue, I am convinced that I am correct, and you are not going to change my mind. Moreover, I am not going to correct your errors. Anyway, I congratulate you for not resorting to name-calling, as many commenters do when they cannot counter an argument. By the way, you believe that I am an evolutionist; I am more of a creationists than you are since I credit God with creating the races of humans (which your article calls people groups), and you resort to evolutionary methods. Further, I do not believe in a master race.

RN2 to Me: I thought you had already closed. “In closing, I quote Jeremiah,...” Perhaps, you meant only to close your prior comment. If so, fair enough.

I am not sure why you insist on making projections toward me. First, you doubted I would read your links, when in fact I already had. Second, you state as fact that I believe you are an evolutionist — ignoring my very first comment. I do NOT believe you are an evolutionist. You said you are not. I know you are not. I believe TC Allen is manipulating words to convolute what is obvious to “creationists,” just as you believe the author and contributors of Chapter 18 of Creation Answers Book 8th Edition is (not to be confused with “The Creation Answer Book,” by creation and biblical apologist Hank Hanegraaff).

“Only one kind of man is created in God’s image” is indicative of a master kind, or ‘race’ and ‘species’ as you prefer. TC Allen states that whites [only] are created in God’s image and have dominion over the earth, which would include the other supposed ‘races’ and ‘species’ of man. If these beliefs are not a belief in a master ‘race,’ I do not know what is.

“After decades of studying this issue, I am convinced that I am correct, and you are not going to change my mind.” Sound like Jeremiah 13:23? Keep an open mind, Me. Everyone can be deceived. Even the apostles and others who literally walked the earth with Messiah have been deceived. Don’t place all of your trust in TC Allen’s writings. I don’t place all of mine in the people at Creation Ministries International.

God bless and keep you. I’m out. The final word is yours.

Part 1: Main Article.

More social 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.

The Heritage Foundation on Critical Race Theory

The Heritage Foundation 

on Critical Race Theory

Thomas Allen

The Heritage Foundation (HF) has published a pamphlet titled Critical Race Theory: Knowing It When You See It and Fighting It When You Can. It discusses some errors and flaws of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and why it is wrong. In so doing, HF  reveals the defecation of neoconservatism: Its opposition is presented from a neoconservative perspective. HF’s arguments are based on racial nihilism and equality (as opposed to equity).

HF asserts that “in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the government rejected racial discrimination.” Regardless of its wording, this Act did not reject racial discrimination. Instead, it led to discrimination against Whites in favor of Blacks with quotas, affirmative action, and other privileges for Blacks.

Next, HF declares that “the civil rights movement affirmed that prejudice has no place in American life.” That is a lie. The civil rights movement has been built on prejudice against Whites.

Moreover, initially, the civil rights movement was aimed at the South although Southerners possessed no prejudice against Blacks. Collins English Dictionary defines prejudice as “an opinion formed beforehand, esp an unfavourable one based on inadequate facts.” Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary defines prejudice as “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.” The attitudes of Southerners toward Blacks were based on 400 years of observation, knowledge, thought, reason, and facts. They were not prejudging against Blacks. However, prejudice against Blacks may have existed in the North and West in areas where Blacks were rare.

Further, HF claims that “the vast majority of Americans we work and worship with, live and learn alongside, embrace the equal rights and dignity of all.” Thus, HF reveals its racial nihilism and support of policies that lead to the genocide of Blacks. Such a utopia exists only in the nightmares of self-loathing Whites and racial nihilists, nearly all of whom are White. If it were not for governmental coercion, much of this apparent harmonious integration and amalgamation would vaporize. Except for racial nihilists and those who hate their race, most people prefer associating with people of their own race. Moreover, the actions of most nonwhites show that they want to be superior to Whites and not just their equal.

HF notes that CRT “champions curricula and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs that separate individuals by race.” Separating individuals by race perseveres the races and is biblically supported. Apparently, HF prefers genocide. It wants to integrate and amalgamate the races, which is genocide.

Moreover, diversity and inclusion are incompatible. If diversity is to be preserved, segregation and separation are necessary. Inclusion requires integration and amalgamation.

HF idolizes the conglomeration of the races in America. Again, HF promotes breaking up the country, a civil war with one race dominating the other races, or genocide of the races via amalgamation into motley mongrel man. Amalgamation seems to be HF’s choice.

HF worships the civil rights movement though most of the problems that the country faces today have grown from the mentality that brought about the civil rights movement. (At the foundation of the civil rights movement were communists, and most of the problems of the country have grown from the communist mentality — see, “Are the United States a Communist Country?” by Thomas Allen.)

Although CRT errs in blaming the failure of Blacks on White, its solution is not as destructive as HE’s are. (Blacks are the blame for their failures; they need to accept responsibility for their own actions and the outcome of those actions.) HF’s solution is genocide via the amalgamation of the races into motley mongrel man.

Also, CRT errs in asserting the existence of White privileges. Whatever privileges that Whites may have had are long dead. Today, only nonwhites, especially Blacks, have special privileges.

One condemnation of CRT that HF has is its communist origin. Yet, HF has no qualms about the communist origins of the civil rights movement.

HF states that “children from intact families are less likely to spend time in prison or face poverty than children from non-intact families.” During the Jim Crow Era, most Black families were intact families, but during the Civil Rights Era, many Black families have become non-intact families. Yet, HF condemns the Jim Crow Era while praising the Civil Rights Era.

While CRT opposes meritocracy, HF supports it. In spite of meritocracy leaving Blacks in general at the bottom of the economic ladder, HF supports it. In the market system of the United States, which rewards merit when government coercion is absent, Whites, Turanians (primarily, East Asians), and Melanochroi (primarily Asian Indians and Pakistanis) in general will do much better than Blacks.

If admission to colleges and universities depended solely on merit, more Whites would go to colleges, and fewer Blacks would go — especially at the more prestigious universities.

HF favors school choice. Parents should be allowed to choose which school to send their children to. If White parents wanted to send their children to a school that allowed only White students, would HF find this acceptable? Likewise, with Black parents wanting to send their children to schools that only allowed Black students, would HF find this acceptable? It would probably condemn these choices and support outlawing such schools. Why? Because it wants to genocide Blacks — at least the policies that it promotes lead to the genocide of Blacks.

If the policies promoted by HF are implemented to their fullest, Blacks will fail behind White and other races educationally and economically because of the connate disabilities of Blacks, i.e., because of genetics. CRT recognizes this outcome; that is why it promotes special privileges for Blacks and the suppression of Whites.

HF offers two definitions of “equality”; both are chimeras. One is equal treatment under the law, and the other is equal opportunity.

Because people differ, true equality under the law is an illusion. The closest approach to it is everyone is arrested by the same officer and tried by the same judge and jury with the same defense attorney and prosecutor. Even then, equality would not be achieved because people differ on different days. 

Even in a more general sense, equality before the law cannot exist because of discretion. Thus, to start approaching equality before the law, law enforcers, prosecutors, and judges have to be stripped of any discretion. Even jury nullification, the bulwark against tyranny, has to be forbidden.

In “Gottfried and Equality,” I describe the delusion of equality of opportunity. A five-foot, fat, klutz does not have the same opportunity of becoming a professional basketball center as does a seven-foot, agile, athlete.  A dimwit does not have the same opportunity of becoming a doctor or engineer with a Ph.D. as does a genius. Genetics denies people equal opportunity.

The underlying principle of equality before the law and equality of opportunity is that everyone is identical. If that were true, everyone would have an equal outcome.

Because genetics discriminates against Blacks in most endeavors, CRT preaches equity, equality of outcome. A society can come closer to achieving equality of outcome than achieving equality of opportunity. Governmental coercion can cause equality of outcome, equity, to be approached. Genetics prevents equality of opportunity from ever being approached.

CRT leads to discrimination, demonization, and hatred of Whites and to granting special privileges to Blacks. HF’s policies lead to the genocide of Blacks and Whites. Under CRT, Blacks win and Whites lose. Under HF’s policies, both Blacks and Whites lose.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles. 

Some Comments on People and Organizations

Some Comments on People and Organizations

Thomas Allen

 

Discussed below are the difference between terrorists and defenders of freedom, what Lincoln and King have in common, Limbaugh and conspiracy, the firing of Khrushchev, the Logan Act, the American Institute of Economic Research, and the Abbeville Institute.

Terrorists Versus Defenders of Freedom

What is the difference between a cowardly terrorist and a courageous defender of freedom? A cowardly terrorist wears a bomb on a bus and blows up himself and a busload of people. A courageous defender of freedom sits in the cockpit of a multimillion-dollar fighter jet and fires missiles from a hundred miles away into a crowded street.

What do Lincoln and King Have in Common?

What do Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King have in common? Both were assassinated. If they had not been assassinated, they would have gone down in history as scumbags. Assassination deified them. Consequently, assassination was the best thing to ever happen to them.

Limbaugh and Conspiracy

Rush Limbaugh used to call conspiracy theorists, most of whom are conspiracy scientists, kooks and implied, if not claim, that conspiracies do not exist. Now, he describes the Deep State, which he often calls a cabal, the way that most conspiracy scientists describe the conspiracy that controls the United States government and works to create a global state with a one-world government. Since he describes the Deep State as a conspiracy, although he does not use the word, does he now believe in conspiracies? If so, does this mean that he is a kook?

The Firing of Khrushchev

Nikita Khrushchev goes on vacation to a Black Sea resort. David Rockefeller goes to Moscow while Khrushchev is on vacation. Khrushchev returns from his vacation to learn that he has been fired as the primer and as First Secretary of the Communist Party. Coincidence or causation?

Accidental historians, i.e., establishment or orthodox historians, fail to see any connection between Rockefeller and the dismissal of Khrushchev. Most accidental historians claim that Leonid Brezhnev led a coup against Khrushchev. (Curiously, many accidental historians consider Brezhnev’s action against Khrushchev a conspiracy, although they assert that conspiracies do not exist and condemn historians who write about conspiracies.) Did Brezhnev need Rockefeller’s approval before overthrowing Khrushchev? Or, did Rockefeller order Brezhnev to fire Khrushchev?

Logan Act

The Logan Act, which was enacted in 1799, prohibits a private citizen from corresponding with foreign governments or governmental officials without the approval of the United States government. It reads in part:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

How do the American members of the Bilderberg Group avoid violating the Logan Act? The Bilderberg Group is a group of international globalists (illuminists) who gather to discuss international and national policies and the implementation of these policies in their home countries. During meetings of the Bilderberg Group, private American citizens are communicating with officers of foreign governments. The answer is that these private American citizens are the rulers, the real government of the United States. They own the politicians and high-ranking bureaucrats.

American Institute of Economic Research

I have been following the American Institute of Economic Research (AIER) off and on for nearly 50 years. AIER has deteriorated when compared with the early 1970s — the days when its founder Edward Harwood ran it. In recent years, AIER has adopted a strongly anti-South position. Such an attitude is strange since the South has historically been a staunch opponent of protective tariffs, which AIER ardently opposes. Its hostility toward the South is indistinguishable from that of the Puritan Yankee, who until recent years, has always been a strong proponent of protective tariffs.

Abbeville Institute 

Abbeville Institute produces many great pro-South articles. It is a leading defender of the South and the Confederacy. Unfortunately, many (some?, most?) of its writers are like most other Whites: They are racial nihilists, who have abandoned the old morality of preserving the races for the new morality of sacrificing the races, especially the White race, on the altar of humanity. 

Moreover, like most conservative Whites, they have exalted Martin Luther King as the greatest paragon of American conservatism and the epitome of conservative values. Instead of being a communist sympathizer and a frontman for the Communist Party, he has become an advocate of all the virtues and values that conservatives hold dear. Moreover, he loved Southerners and did not seek their destruction although everything that he advocated has led to their destruction. He is presented as a great uniter of the races, although he promoted policies that have led to a great hatred of and hostility toward the White race. So great is this hatred and hostility that most Whites, including many writers at the Abbeville Institute, support policies designed to kill the White race. 

These writers at the Abbeville Institute need to adopt a racial attitude similar to that of most of the writers of the American Renaissance. Only by openly supporting and promoting the preservation of the White race can the Abbeville Institute hope to save Southerners and the South. (For a start, they can cease lumping Whites and Blacks who live in the South together as “Southerners.” “Southerner” properly identifies an ethnic group of Whites whose ancestors were born and reared in the South and White who have lived in the South long enough to become indistinguishable from native Southerners. Blacks who live in the South are properly identified as Southern Blacks, which is a different ethnic group than Southerners. Moreover, they can identify King as a Communist sympathizer who advanced the communist agenda and not one of the great fathers of American conservatism.)

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Some Comments on Blacks

Some Comments on Blacks

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are judging people by their character and not their race, comparison of antebellum Blacks to today’s Blacks, the Jim Crow Era.

Judging by Character and Not by Race
Most White libertarians, conservatives, liberals, and progressives like to boast about not noticing a person’s race. That is, they like to boast about being racial nihilists. They cite M.L. King’s statement: “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

However, in noticing a person’s race, White liberals and progressives far exceed libertarians and conservatives in their hypocrisy. White liberals and progressives are quick to notice a person’s race when elevating a nonwhite above a White, when praising a nonwhite race, or when castigating the White race. Most White conservatives seem to suffer from some kind of disassociation disorder. They want to be politically correct and not notice a person’s race. Yet, they also hesitate to dishonor their ancestors and commit racial genocide. Having a suicidal ideology, libertarians are most consistent at being racial nihilists.

Most nonwhites do not have the racial problems that inflict Whites. They acknowledge that they are a genetic people, and most still believe that their genetics are worth preserving. Many Whites are torn between considering themselves a genetic people or a propositional people where race and, therefore, genetics are irrelevant, and the White race is not worth saving. Regrettably, for the White race, many Whites, especially neoconservatives, libertarians, liberals, and progressives have decided that they are a propositional people.

Now, let us return to judging people by character and not by race. While one of these White people is walking down the street in Detroit, for example, he encounters a group of Black teenage boys heading toward him. On the other side of the street is a group of White teenage boys. (1) Is he going to hurry toward the Blacks and interview them and then cross the street and interview the Whites so that he can discern their character? To carry out this approach, he has to command the Whites remain where they are while he interviews the Blacks and the Blacks remain where they are while he interviews the Whites. (2) Is he going to continue to walk toward the Blacks to prove that he is not a racist, not prejudice, not bias, and does not judge people by their race? (3) Or, is he going to play the odds by crossing the street where the White boys are, thus showing that he judges people by their race? Be honest, which would you do?

Blacks Then and Now
In antebellum times, the plantation owner provided his Blacks with free housing, free food, and free medical care. Today, the United States government and State and local governments provide their Blacks with free housing, free food, and free medical care. Moreover, they outdo the plantation owner by providing their Blacks with even more free stuff.

However, some important differences exist between the two. By requiring his Blacks to work for their keep, the plantation owner gave his Blacks some sense of dignity. Moreover, he paid for their keep with his money. Governments do not require work from their Blacks; thus, they make their Blacks parasites. Furthermore, governments reward their Blacks for not working. Even worst, they reward their Blacks with other people’s money.

Fortunately, some Blacks have freed themselves from the plantation mentality. Unfortunately, many Blacks have not freed themselves from the plantation mentality. For them, freedom means freedom from work.

Jim Crow
Most commentators harshly condemn the Jim Crow Era of segregation for its cruelty, injustice, discrimination, etc. Little is said or written about that era that is positive.

The primary difference between Jim Crow in the North and the South is that in the North restrictions on Blacks was by custom. In the South, they were by statue. These restrictions on Blacks were also restrictions on Whites; thus, these restrictions worked in both directions. (One Black noted that Jim Crow in the South was better than Jim Crow in the North. At least in the South, a Black knew in which restaurants he could and could not eat. However, in the North, a Black had to endure the embarrassment of not being waited on to know that he was not allowed to eat there.)

Nevertheless, the Jim Crow Era did have a positive effect on Blacks. It gave them independence and taught them to rely on themselves — collectively and individually — and not to rely on whitey. Unlike today, when Blacks receive preference for welfare to Whites, under Jim Crow, Whites received preference. Therefore, Blacks had to rely more on themselves during the Jim Crow Era than now.

Moreover, the Jim Crow Era created a growing Black middle class. For that reason, the Communist strove to replace Jim Crow with civil rights and integration. They were highly successful. After the Civil Rights Era of integration supplanted the Jim Crow Era, Blacks became ever more dependent on the government. Via the welfare state, they became slaves of the great White plantation master in Washington and his overseers in the State capitals.

During the Jim Crow Era, Blacks had a higher moral standard than they have had under the Civil Rights Era. Then, they had more families with both a father and a mother than now. They had a lower percentage of children born out of wedlock than now. Also, Black sacrificed far fewer of their children to Lucifer at the abortion clinics than now. Moreover, the rate of crime for Blacks then was lower than now.

During the Jim Crow Era, few Americans suffered from the mental illnesses of Confederaphobia, Dixiephobia, albusphobia, and racial nihilism. Nearly all adhered to the old morality of racial preservation, especially the preservation of one’s own race. In the Civil Rights Era, a large and growing number of Americans suffer from Confederaphobia, Dixiephobia, albusphobia, and racial nihilism. Although most nonwhites still follow the old morality, most Whites now follow the new morality of sacrificing the races, especially the White race, on the altar of humanity.

Whereas Jim Crow laws gave Whites advantages over Blacks, Civil Rights laws give Blacks advantages over Whites. Further, Civil Rights laws give Blacks more advantages than Jim Crow laws ever gave Whites. Jim Crow laws never sought to destroy the Black society, culture, and race; they even protected them. However, an objective of the Civil Rights laws has been to destroy White society, culture, and race — especially Southerners and their society and culture.

The Jim Crow Era ended with the last major White resistance to forced integration, which occurred in Boston in the mid 1970s. Thus, ended Jim Crow.

Nevertheless, contrary to the popular myth, Blacks had many advantages and benefits under Jim Crow that they have lost during the Civil Rights Era.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Respecter of Persons

Thomas Allen

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: – Acts 10:34

For there is no respect of persons with God. – Romans 2:11

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. – Galatians 3:28 

And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him. – Ephesians 6:9

And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: – 1 Peter 1:17

Christian racial nihilists cite these verses to justify racial integration, amalgamation, and miscegenation — which God’s word condemns — and, therefore, the genocide of the races that God created. (However, nearly all Christian racial nihilists are Darwinists; they believe that the races of man evolved and, thus, were not created. This is true even of those who claim to be creationists.) Consequently, they disagree with God, who places great importance on the races (species) of man that He created. (See “Christians and Creationism” and “Fundamental Christians and Evolution” by Thomas Allen.)

Moreover, Christian racial nihilists use these verses to boost that they do not recognize a person’s race. Additionally, they promote the new morality of sacrificing the races of man on the altar of humanity.

Furthermore, Christian racial nihilists condemn stereotyping despite Paul endorsing it. Paul wrote “One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons. This testimony is true. For which cause reprove them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith ” — Titus 1:12–13.

Nevertheless, is God really a non-respecter of persons despite what these verses suggest? The Bible describes events that show that God is a respecter of persons and that He discriminates against some in favor of others.

God showed that He is a respecter of persons when He accepted Abel’s offering and rejected Cain’s. If He were not a respecter of persons, He would have accepted both offerings or rejected both offerings. (Or, was this an instance of Him acting as a respecter of offerings?)

The Noachian Flood is another example of God acting like a respecter of persons. He saved Noah and his family while letting the others drown. If He were non-respecter of persons, He would have saved all of them. (This seems to be an instance where God respected the persons who believed Him but did not respect those who disbelieved.)

Jacob and Esau are another example that shows that God is a respecter of persons. He chose Jacob and rejected Esau. This action of choosing one person, Jacob, and rejecting another person, Esau, proves that He is a respecter of persons.

When God segregated the Israelites and protected them from the plagues that He inflicted on the Egyptians, He acted like a respecter of persons. When He separated the Israelites from the Egyptians and led them across the Red Sea, He again acted like a respecter of persons. (This segregation and separation were based on ethnicity and not on character.)

Moses wrote, “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” — Deuteronomy 23:2. Since God refuses to allow mongrels in His assembly, He is acting like a respecter of persons. Moreover, His discrimination in this instance is not based on character or what a person does or does not do. It is based solely on a person’s genetics — something over which he has no control.

When God saves some people to everlasting life and condemns others to everlasting death, He is acting like a respecter of persons. He may judge differently than man would judge, but judging requires Him to be a respecter of persons unless all persons end up with the same results.

Whatever the verses cited about God not being a respecter of persons mean, they do not justify racial nihilism or the new morality. Christian racial nihilists err when they use these verses to justify their racial nihilism and the new morality. They are acting contrary to the Scriptures when they reject the notion of race and seek to scarify the races on the altar of humanity. They need to repent.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Some Comments on Race and Ethnicity

Some Comments on Race and Ethnicity 

Thomas Allen

 

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

Race and Ethnicity

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

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

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

Ethnic and Racial Ancestry

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

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

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

Yankee and Northerner

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

Albusphobes

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

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

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

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Basic Principles of the Modern Left

 Basic Principles of the Modern Left

Thomas Allen

In “The Modern Left Is Not Marxist, It’s Worse,” Chronicles, November 2020 (page 19), Paul Gottfried identifies four basic principles or practices of the modern left. The modern left rose after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

(1) Leftists are globalists or universalists. They find Western Christian White society revolting and seek its demise. Unlike the right that values particularity and the sanctity of local and natural traditions, the left rejects particularity and traditions.

(2) Leftists worship equality and endeavor to obliterate all human distinctions and differences. Nothing is more valuable than equality. Consequently, the ideal human is a unisexual (asexual, hermaphroditic, sexually fluid — any sex except male or female), motley, mongrel being — and all these humans have the same intelligence, beauty, talents, skills, and standard of living.  Thus, the ideal society consists of indistinguishable beings. (Since most rightists are racial nihilists, they agree with the leftist desire to create motley, mongrel humans, but they disagree on the sexual part.)

(3) Since “historically grounded natural rights do not advance equality or ‘human dignity,’” leftists promote the expansion of “human rights.” Human rights call for the extinction of social and historical distinctions. They want to replace “long established customs and conventions” with whatever “journalists and academics deem conducive to greater equality.”

(One equality that modern leftists shun is equality before the law, which is an equality that rightists accept. For leftists, anyone who promotes equality and other leftist agendas can violate all sorts of laws with immunity. Examples of lawbreaking leftists escaping punishment are the Clintons and members of Black Lives Matter or Antifa.)

(4) Leftists believe that humans are perfectly malleable. For example, any male  can become a female including replacing his male Y chromosome with a female X chromosome.  Likewise, any female can become a male including replacing one of her female X chromosomes with a male Y chromosome. Judges and other governmental officials should defend the right of a person to become any of the more than 100 current sexes, and everyone should accept such sex, even if it changes daily, and find it admirable and heroic. Consequently, leftists spurn the notion of the right that “human identities are rooted in tradition and nature.” Thus, the left believes that genetics do not influence a person’s nature (many rightists also hold this belief).

Therefore, the goal of modern leftists is to destroy sexual identity, the White race and other races (racial nihilism) if they are consistent, Western civilization, and Christianity — the last two because they are products of the White, Aryan, race. All distinction and differences are to be sacrificed on the altar of equality.

Gottfried notes that the old left of the Soviet-Union days focused on economic equality (socialism, communism, welfarism) and gave little attention to social equality except for the civil rights movement (which they orchestrated). The modern left focuses more on social equality. Nevertheless, modern leftists do not ignore economic equality. However, they prefer welfarism with a highly progressive income tax, expanded welfare programs, and other wealth redistribution programs. Instead of governmental ownership of businesses, industries, and farms as advocated by the old left, the modern left advocates a highly regulated economy. Thus, they prefer the fascist model of socialism where governmental central planning is through governmental control of privately owned businesses, industries, and farms.

Also, Gottfried observes that some of the biggest supporters and pushers of modern leftism are major multinational corporations. Could it be that these corporations promote the leftist agenda because it leads to a homogenous market? After all, the leftist lust for equality destroys diversity. The destruction of diversity would result in a homogenous market, and a homogenous market would reduce the cost of production and marketing because everyone would want the same things.

Whereas old leftists emphasized economic equality, modern leftists emphasize social equality. Thus, modern leftists advocate racial nihilism and the new morality with no sexual differences — that is, racial and sexual amalgamation. Moreover, they seek to annihilate the White race, Christianity, and Western civilization. They strive to nullify human nature and to remake mankind to be contrary to his natural genetic makeup. Individuals, races, and the sexes are naturally unequal and can never be made equal. Naturally low-quality people can never be raised to the level of naturally high-quality people. However, high-quality people can be suppressed. Consequently, leftists need to institute a totalitarian government to achieve equality by suppressing everything superior — except the ruling elite. Ironically and hypocritically, although they preach equality, leftists believe that they are superior to rightists and other deplorables — yet, most leftists may deny their superiority.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck

Thomas Allen

[Note: This article is based on observations obtained from listening to Beck’s radio program.]

Like most conservatives, Glenn Beck, a talk-show host, is a racial nihilist. He has adopted the new morality of sanctifying the races on the alter of humanity. Also, he is a Zionist and a worshiper of St. Martin Luther King the Divine, although he fails to revere him above Jesus.

Moreover, he asserts that the United States are an exceptional country, a propositional country, a conventual country, and not a genetic country. Thus, he believes that “all men are created equal” as he processes to describe their natural inequality. Therefore, the US Constitution and American history should be understood in the light of this proposition. Naturally, he rejects the fact that the Constitution was written for Whites and not for Blacks and other nonwhite races — therefore, the need for the illegal fourteenth amendment.

Further, Beck professes to be a Christian. However, like most Christians, he has no objection to miscegenation and refuses to recognize God’s prohibition of miscegenation. He finds interracial mating acceptable if done in marriage.

Moreover, Beck acknowledges that God created the races and, therefore, the races should be preserved. (Thus, this belief makes him appear to be a racial preservationist. However, his actions and most of his comments related to race show that he is definitely a racial nihilist. Perhaps, he suffers from some kind of dissociative disorder. To illustrate this disorder, Beck has no objection to or concern about interracial mating although it results in the genocide of the races intermating, which racial nihilist support. If he were a true racial preservationist, he would support racial separation, but he does not. On the contrary, he opposes racial separation.) Further, he suggests that races differ because God created them with different attributes and for different purposes. If true, the races and, therefore, individuals of different races cannot be equal. Thus, Beck’s beloved proposition “that all men are created equal” dies.

Additionally, Beck claims that slavery is contrary to Christianity and the Bible. One wonders what Bible he uses. No where does the Bible or Christianity as taught in the Bible condemn slavery. On the contrary, the Bible sets forth a code for the treatment of slaves. Peter even urged slaves to be obedient to their masters regardless of how the master treated his slaves. (Because the Bible does not condemn slavery, the abolitionists abandoned it.)

Also, Beck suffers from Dixiephobia and Confederaphobia. He claims to be highly knowledgeable in American history. Yet, his knowledge (or should we say ignorance) of Southern history and, especially, the US Constitution and secession is appalling. He erroneously believes that slavery was the real cause of Southern secession despite slavery being better protected within than without the Union. For him, Father Abraham is the savior of the Union although the Union that Lincoln and the Radical Republicans created only superficially resembled the Union that the founding fathers created.

Beck claims that liberty and everything else good with the country comes from the Pilgrims and out of New England. (In The War Between the States, p. 138, Albert T. Bledsoe wrote, “The pilgrim fathers of Massachusetts delighted in two things: first, in the freedom from persecution for themselves; and, secondly, in the sweet privilege and power to persecute others.” This is an accurate description of the Yankee that Beck seems to admire.) Everything bad comes from Jamestown and out of the South. That is, Yankees and Northerners are righteous, and Southerners are evil. (Apparently, all those liberal and progressive Democrats in the North whom Beck despises are immigrants from the South masquerading as Yankees. He seems to believe that most Democrats today are still Southerners, and most Republicans are Northerners and Yankees. Yet, he seems schizophrenic about Southern Republicans, i.e., he praises them as Republicans but condemns them as Southerners.)

He implies obliquely that the first thing that the colonists in Virginia did was to build a fleet of slave ships, sail to Africa, kidnap thousands of Africans, returned to Virginia where they daily beat the Africans who survive the journey and inflicted all sorts of cruelties and tortures on them just to satisfy their sadistic lust. Further, he seems to suggest regret about the Radical Republicans’ failure to genocide the Southerner during Lincoln’s War and Reconstruction.

Beck says that Americans need to choose between the liberty (of the Pilgrims) and despotism (of the Southerner). In 1861, Southerners tried to separate themselves from Beck’s utopia of the freedom-loving and liberty advocating Puritan Yankees. However, Beck’s beloved Yankees would not let the South go — a decision with which Beck approves. Because the United States are (“is” as he would say) a propositional country and a conventual country, the North could not let the South go. It had to purge it of its evil. (In Beck’s mind, this evil was slavery. To the Northerner, this evil was depriving the U.S. government of 85 percent of its revenue, of which 80 percent paid for subsidies to Northern industries, if the secession of the Southern States were successful. Moreover, like most Northerners of that time, Beck hates the South and Southerners.)

Most of the State governments that Beck praises are in the South while most of the State governments that he condemns are in the North and on the West coast. Thus, most Southerners must have migrated to the North and West coast, while most Yankees must have migrated to the South. Unfortunately for him, population statistics do not support such migration.

Moreover, despite his Dixiephobia, most of what Beck likes in the country reside in the South, except its traditional social system, which he despises. Most of what he dislikes in the country resides in the North, except its racist hypocrisy, which he accepts. Thus, Beck seems to have some kind of dissociative disorder.

Like the Palestinians, Southerners are subhuman. Therefore, equality does not apply to the Southerner, especially the unreconstructed Southerner.  Nor does equality apply to Palestinians.

Except for the curse of slavery, Southerners contributed nothing to the founding of the United States. Apparently, Washington and Jefferson were not true Southerners; they were Yankees disguised as Southerners, so Becks seems to suggest.

Moreover, Beck judges historical figures by today’s racial standards, which Beck has adopted. Thus, President Wilson is a racist because he fired the Black personnel on the White House servant staff and segregated federal offices. Andrew Jackson is even more deplorable than Wilson because he forcibly moved Indians in the Southeast to Oklahoma (where they later allied with the Confederacy against the United States).

Like most conservative commentators these days, Beck insinuates that today’s Democrats are antiblack, anti-integration, pro-segregation, and White supremacists because most Democrats before World War II favored segregation and White rule. (This is called guilt by association.) However, he fails to identify pre-World-War-II Republicans who were segregationists and White supremacists — as nearly all pre-World-War-II Republicans were. Examples are repatriationist, White supremacist Lincoln; slaveholder, White supremacist Grant; and progressive, imperialist, eugenist, White supremacist Teddy Roosevelt. Instead, Beak defends the first two of these racist Republican presidents and treats them as great patron saints of racial equality, i.e., Black privilege, power, and supremacy — for that is the meaning of racial equality. Roosevelt, he identifies as a progressive because he ran as the Progressive Party’s candidate in 1912, and not as a Republican although he was the Republican president from 1901 to 1909.

On the plus side, Beck does oppose socialism and much of the economic agenda of liberals and progressives. Moreover, he favors controlled borders and is pro-life. Unfortunately, he has adopted most of the social agenda of the progressives, liberals, and socialists.

Conservatives like Beck are a greater threat to the South and Southerners (true Southerners, not White wokespersons, White social justice warriors, and the like who happen to be born in the South) than are Black Lives Matter and Antifa. Black Lives Matters and Antifa are the enemies without while conservatives like Beck are the enemies within. Enemies within are far more dangerous.

Afterthought
Beck ranks Wilson among the worst presidents because he ordered the racial segregation of federal offices. Yet, he seems to ignore Wilson’s real crimes: bringing the interventionist foreign policy to the United States and thus globalism to America, establishing the Federal Reserve System, adopting draconian laws that destroyed free speech and other liberties in the name of national security, lying the United States into World War I, dictatorially controlling the US economy and nationalizing the railroads and radio broadcasting to control information, and establishing the regulatory state where regulatory agencies enacted rules (legislative), enforced their rules (executive), and decided if their rules had been violated (judicial).

Like other neoconservatives, Beck ranks Lincoln among the greatest presidents mainly because he freed the slaves although he never freed a slave. He seems to overlook Lincoln’s real accomplishments: making himself absolute dictator who was above the States and the US Constitution, destroying the Constitution, imprisoning people who disagreed with him without due process of law, sacrificing more than 600,000 men to impose his protective tariff, authorizing the deliberate killing of women and children, giving the country legal-tender paper fiat money, establishing the imperial presidency, and committing treason according to the Constitution when he levied war against States that he calmed never left the union.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

False Paradigms

False Paradigms

Thomas Allen

Some, mostly conservatives, argue that the ruling elite manipulates and controls people by creating a false Left-Right paradigm. Their argument is flawed. Most of these paradigms are not false.

An example of the so-called false Left-Right paradigm occurs with the economy. One group wants a governmentally planned and controlled economy — the Left. Whereas, the other group wants a free-market, free-enterprise economy that is free of governmental meddling — the Right. Are these views false? One reality believes that a governmentally planned economy is morally superior to a free-market economy. The other reality believes the opposite. Either one view is false, or both views are false. Both cannot be true. Apparently, the promoters of the false paradigm believe that both are wrong. (This Left-Right paradigm does not include people who believe in a mixed economy of some governmental economic planning but not total governmental planning. This view is the synthesis of the two opposing paradigms, and is probably the goal of the ruling elite, but with more emphasis on governmental control.)

Moreover, conservatives have been moving leftward for a century or more. If the liberals had not moved farther leftward, the conservatives would have passed them by now and be farther left than liberals. Therefore, liberals must move farther and faster leftward toward the ridiculous to keep the conservatives from overtaking and passing them. This race explains why the United States have implemented 80 percent of the planks of the Communist Manifesto. (This ever leftward movement shows the success of the ruling elite in manipulating people to give the ruling elite ever more power.)

If the false paradigm promoters are correct, the conflict between libertists, those who want liberty, and statist, those who want governmental parentalism, is false. If this conflict is false, then which one is false? Are the liberties incorrect, or are the statists incorrect? At least one or both have to be false for a false paradigm to exist. Obviously, both cannot be true.

Another, and perhaps the most important paradigm, is the conflict between people who just want to be left alone and people who are determined not to leave them alone. As long as these two groups exist, conflict will exist. For peace to exist, one must destroy the other. Naturally, the ruling elite side with the controllers because they are kindred.

Many more paradigms exist that the ruling elite can and have used to control people and, by that, increase their power. Examples are segregation versus integration, free trade versus protectionism, individualism versus collectivism, forced vaccination versus freedom of choice, and Christianity versus Judaism versus Islam versus secular humanism.

These paradigms are not false. They exist and are real. All that the ruling elite has to do is to identify them and then amplify them. Their primary methodology of amplification is to heavily support and promote one, usually the Left, while corrupting the leaders of the others. By doing this, the ruling elite pushes the people in the direction that ruling elite want the people to go.

Ironically, most promoters of the false paradigm do not seem to believe that the opposing views are false. They describe these opposing views or paradigms as though they are real, which they are, and, therefore, are not truly false.

Consequently, they urge the opposing sides to compromise their views and join in the struggle against the ruling elite. However, this leads to another paradigm of the decentralists, those against the objectives of the ruling elite, and the centralists, those for the objectives of the ruling elite. How can these two compromise?

Nevertheless, the Left and the Right may be able to compromise on immigration. The Left wants unrestricted, unlimited immigration. The Right wants immigrants to enter the country legally. If the legal requirements for entry were reduced simply to placing the name of everyone who wants to enter the country on a list, then the concerns of both would be met.

In any event, compromise is nearly always a victory for the ruling elite. When the libertists (the Right) compromise with the statists (the Left), the statists usually win. While the statists may not get as much as they want when they compromise, they get much more than the libertists because the libertists usually surrender something and get nothing in return. Thus, the ruling elite wins as the power of the state, which they control, grows. Likewise a compromise between the centralists (the Left) and the decentralists (the Right), most of the time, is a victory for the centralists and, therefore, a victory for the ruling elite. Compromise is not the answer.

(An example of the typical compromise is taxation. The pro-excise tax people want to levy an excise tax of 20 percent on product A, which currently carries no excise tax. Opposing this tax is the anti-excise tax people, who want to eliminate all excise taxes. The typical compromise would be an excise tax less than 20 percent, such as 10 percent. Thus, the pro-excise tax people win, although they do not get as much as they want. Because a new excise tax has been adopted, the anti-excise tax people lose. Since it now has more revenue, the big winner is the ruling elite, who controls the government and, consequently, the state. A true compromise would have been repealing the excise tax on product X. Then both sides would gain something and lose something. Whether the ruling elite gains or loses dependents on whether there is a gain or lose in tax revenue.)

Even a truce between the Left and the Right benefits the ruling elite. It allows them time to consolidate their gains and to prepare their next assault on liberty. (This is why the ruling elite rotates political power between Democrats and Republicans, both of whom are statists and centralists. The elite puts the Democrats in power to push the elite’s agenda forward (leftward) into new territory. Then, the elite  put the Republicans in power to consolidate those gains and make them more efficient. The Department of Education is a prime example.

Nevertheless, the Left and Right do agree on some issues. Both despise the Southerner and the South and believe that Southerners and the South should be eradicated. Both believe in and promote integration and amalgamation and ardently detest segregation and separation. Thus, they are racial nihilists and practitioners of the new morality. Both worship Saint Martin Luther King. Perhaps the Left and Right  can unify on these issues, all of which were once solely left-wing positions.  Unfortunately, the ruling elite is also a strong proponent of these issues.

Contrary to what the promoters of the false Left-Right paradigm claim, the various paradigms that they identify as false are real. The ruling elite does not create them. They merely amplify and use them to advance their agenda of obtaining absolute power over mankind — that is, to become gods.

However, with its journey leftward, the Right should eventually become indistinguishable from the Left. Consequently the Left-Right paradigm will vanish, and the ruling elite will win.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Black Supremacy and White Privilege

Black Supremacy and White Privilege

Thomas Allen

Presented below are a letter-to-the-editor on the removal of Confederate statues, White supremacy versus Black supremacy, Whites prostrating before Blacks, self-respect, and the death of the White race.

Letter
People who want to remove Confederate monuments and memorials are filled with hate of the South (Dixiephobia) and especially everything related to the Confederacy (Confederaphobia). Yet, these same people preach tolerance and diversity. However, they are among the most intolerant people and despise diversity. They cannot tolerate anything related to the South and especially the Confederacy, which illustrates their hatred of diversity.

They say that Confederate monuments and memorials are hurtful: They hurt the feelings of Blacks. Thus, they must come down. Yet, these Confederaphobes care nothing about the feelings of the people who revere these monuments and memorials as honoring their ancestors who defended their homeland from the invading horde during Lincoln’s War.

Confederaphobes are extremely self-centered and selfish people, who demand all be sacrificed to satisfy their bigotry, prejudices, and desires. They do not want any remembrance of the Confederacy or even the South.

According to my wife, who is a refugee from a Communist country, among the first things that the Communists did when they started taking over the country was to tear down historical and cultural monuments and memorials. The destruction of Confederate monuments and memorials comes straight out of the Communist handbook.

White Supremacy Versus Black Supremacy
One major and important difference exists between today’s Black supremacy and yesterday’s White supremacy. Under Black supremacy, Whites are forced to work without compensation to support Blacks. Under White supremacy, Blacks were never forced to support Whites without compensation. Even under slavery, Blacks were well paid with housing, food, medical care, and even some retirement benefits. Moreover, slaves typically consumed about 90 percent of their production.

Whites Prostrating Before Blacks
Under slavery and Jim Crow, White supremacists never required or expected Blacks to prostrate themselves before the superior White race. However, today under Black supremacy, Whites prostrate themselves before Blacks in abject submission to Black supremacists. Not only do Blacks expect Whites to prostrate pathetically before Blacks, but they also expect Whites to give Blacks everything that Blacks demand. Black supremacy has achieved a level beyond anything White supremacy ever sought. Thus, systemic White privilege is the privilege of Whites to prostrate themselves before their Black masters.  Furthermore, systemic White privilege is the privilege of Whites to eradicate their history, culture, and race.

Self-respect
During the height of White supremacy, Blacks may have acted humbly, but they never lost their self-respect. (Now, arrogance has replaced that humility.) However, under Black supremacy, White albusphobes, progressives, liberals, wokespersons, and social justice warriors have no self-respect. On the contrary, under Black supremacy, White albusphobes, progressives, liberals, wokespersons, and social justice warriors loath and debase themselves. Moreover, they wimpishly grovel before their Black masters. They have no self-respect. How can any Black, Asian, Latino, or even a self-respecting White have any respect for such people? Blacks may manipulate and use them to advance the Black agenda, but Blacks find them deplorable. Self-respecting Whites, Asians, and Latinos pity them and find them despicable, and some even abhor them. All consider them no better than traitors of the White race.

(According to Urban Dictionary, a wokesperson is “a person who considers himself/herself woke and readily spouts wokeish statements, especially on social media, on behalf of the entire ‘woke community’.” “Woke” means “A self-congratulatory, close-minded, emotionally-driven, politically-biased ideology and movement based on oversimplified, ill-conceived, uncritical, hypocritical, exaggerated, self-righteous, or irrational arguments justified by self-deceptive rationalization and self-serving, over-glorified, hollow gestures and politically-motivated lip service referred to as virtue-signaling, which often attract angry, sheltered, impressionable youths, self-important, crowd-pleasing, over-privileged, political-posturing, public figures, and narcissistic, willingly-ignorant, emotionally-regressive, left-wing ‘advocates’ and also often deal with multifaceted, questionable or misrepresented topics superficially, excessively, irresponsibly, and inappropriately.” “Social justice warrior” means “In the broadest sense, a person that uses complex serious social, economic and political issues as a way to further their own agenda by claiming they are fighting to ‘correct a wrong.’ Specifically, it is used to refer to people claim to be fighting for social justice but are actually validating their own ego, looking for special treatment, or attention.”)

Death of the White Race
The White race is dying from the decay within. It may not survive another 50 years. Unfortunately, most Whites do not care, and many Whites joyfully look forward to the day when the White race is no more. About a third of Whites are albusphobes; they loath the White race so much that they wish that the White race never existed. (Regrettably, these albusphobes do not hasten that glorious day of the death of the White race by removing themselves from it now. They prefer to remain a blight on it.) About half of the Whites are racial nihilists, who do not care about any race, especially the White race; the apathetic Whites, who are indifferent about the White race; and cowards, who fear to defend their race from genocide. Only about one-sixth of Whites are fighting to preserve their race. Most of those who are defending the White race are older Southerners who have not been thoroughly reconstructed. Soon after they die, most likely, so will the White race. So far, the genocide of the White race has been highly successful and will most likely succeed.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues.