American Freedoms

 American Freedoms

Thomas Allen

The 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence has arrived. Now is the time to reflect upon the liberties, freedoms, and rights that the Founding Fathers fought for and sought to preserve. Unfortunately, Americans have lost many, even most, of these liberties, freedoms, and rights. Sadly, people born in recent decades never had a chance to enjoy most of them. A short list follows.

1. Bill of Rights. People enjoy all the rights guaranteed and protected by the Bill of Rights unless the federal government disagrees. The Founding Fathers believed that the rights identified in the Bill of Rights were absolute and transcended and existed before government. However, today’s ruling oligarchs consider them relative, that is, governmentally granted privileges that can be withdrawn at any time and for any reason.

2. Freedom of Travel. The Ninth Amendment and its equivalent in State constitutions prohibit the federal and State governments from preventing or otherwise hindering the popular means of travel. In the early days, travel was by means of horses, boats, and then trains. Now, it is by automobiles and airplanes. Today, Americans are free to have governments hinder and even prevent travel by the present popular means (automobiles and airplanes). People need the government’s permission to travel by automobile; they need a driver’s license, insurance, etc. 

Additionally, they are free to travel on commercial airliners if the federal government allows them. Moreover, if they travel by air, they are treated like criminals but with fewer rights than a criminal. The federal government presumes all passengers are terrorists until proven otherwise, i.e., passengers are guilty until they prove their innocence. Also, the federal government violates their right to privacy with unconstitutional searches. (What would people have done in the nineteenth century if the federal government required stagecoach passengers and their luggage to be searched before they were allowed on a stagecoach? They probably would have beaten, if not killed, the agent.)

3. Freedom to Promote One’s Heritage. People are free to defend and promote their heritage and culture if that heritage and culture are not White, especially Southern. White, especially Southern, heritage and culture do not have the right to exist.

4. Schools. People are free to send their children to public schools where they can graduate with a high school diploma, despite some graduates being so illiterate that they cannot read their diplomas. Moreover, people are free to have public schools indoctrinate their children to be obedient slaves of the ruling oligarchs. Sadly, most do not even realize that they are slaves.

5. Welfare. The unproductive are free to enslave the productive to support them.

6. Corporate Welfare. People are free to be forced to bail out banks and other companies run by incompetent or greedy managers who have political influence or are deemed by the federal government to be too big to fail.

7. Money. Instead of deciding for themselves how much money the economy needs, the people have the freedom of the federal government, in collaboration with banks through the Federal Reserve System, to decide the quality and quantity of money. Moreover, people are free to be forced to use debt, Federal Reserve notes, as money instead of commodities like gold and silver that are no one’s liability. Thus, people are free to live with and use money that continuously loses purchasing power.

For additional lost freedoms, see “Freedom” by Thomas Allen.

The Founding Fathers would rebel against the above freedoms and rights. They would be ashamed of their descendants for throwing away the liberties, freedoms, and rights for which they fought.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Allen.

More political articles.

Why I am not a White Nationalist — Where They Are Wrong Economically

Why I am not a White Nationalist — 

Where They Are Wrong Economically

Thomas Allen

White Nationalists advocate adopting highly invasive, liberty-destroying, and immensely destructive economic and monetary programs. A discussion of some of them follows.

– Managed economy. White Nationalists have a low opinion of the free market, free enterprise economic system; like most people, they confuse it with capitalism. (See “Capitalists and Socialists” by Thomas Allen.) Even those who do not confuse it with capitalism have an especially low opinion of it. Since White Nationalists have more trust and confidence in bureaucrats than they have in the people, even White people, they prefer a governmentally managed economy to a free market, free enterprise economy.

– Communist threat to capitalists. Contrary to what many White Nationalists believe, capitalists do not have to be threatened with communism. Few White Nationalists know that if it were not for capitalists’ succor, communism would have died a stillbirth. (See “Soviet Union” and “China” by Thomas Allen.)

– Welfare. Although White Nationalists oppose Martin Luther King’s social justice (discrimination against Whites and special privileges for Blacks and other nonwhites), they not only want to implement his economic justice but also expand it. Like King, they are proponents of the welfare state. They seem to admire President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society (except the civil rights and immigration parts of it). Their primary objection to the Great Society is the recipients of the benefits. The principal problem that White Nationalists seem to have with King’s economic justice is that he did not go far enough. Like King, they have no qualms about forcibly taking property from producers and giving it to nonproducers.

Most White Nationalists advocate a welfare state for the benefit of the working and middle classes. Contrary to what many of them believe, mostly the working and middle classes will pay for this welfare state. Moreover, the welfare state benefits the oligarchs more than anyone else since it makes the working and middle classes more dependent on the government, which the oligarchs control. When a person is receiving financial benefits from the government, he is less likely to object to governmental actions even if they are detrimental to him because he fears losing his benefits. Some White Nationalists find such control desirable.

– Protectionism. Like many statists, White Nationalists are proponents of protectionism. They want to protect politically favored industries from competition. Thus, they are enamored with government-business partnerships, i.e., corporate welfare; protectionism is just a form of corporate welfare.

Protectionism may give workers in the protected industry higher pay, but it does so at the expense of other workers with higher prices, which lowers their standard of living. Protectionism is of little benefit to construction workers, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, medical faculty workers, teachers, hospitality workers, and most service providers. Often, protectionism adversely affects workers in the protected industries. Owners of the protected industries are the primary beneficiaries. (For more discussion on protectionism, see “Questions for Protectionists,” “Do We Really Need to Return to Hamilton,” and “A Letter: Tariffs” by Thomas Allen.)

Instead of giving politically favored industries special advantages with tariffs and quotas at the expense of consumers, a more prudent approach that would save taxpayers money and encourage manufacturers not to build their plants overseas should be used. This approach ends all subsidies that encourage them to locate their factories overseas. Moreover, the US armed forces would not be used to protect their property in foreign countries. Also, reducing regulations on domestic manufacturers would reduce the incentive to move outside the country. One thing that most people forget is that imports are bought with exports. The more a country imports, the more it must export. (Currently, a major export of the United States is the fiat US dollar.)

– Interest. Some White Nationalists want to outlaw interest. When the government suppresses the rate of interest, the country consumes its capital. As a country uses its capital for consumption, its economy deteriorates and poverty grows. Eventually, all its capital is consumed and it returns to the hunter-gatherer stage. (For a more detailed discussion on interest, see “Usury” and “Questions for Anti-Usurers” by Thomas Allen.)

– Fiat money. Like all statists, White Nationalists adore fiat money and abhor commodity money (gold and silver). (For the difference between fiat money and commodity money, see “What Is the Difference Between Commodity and Fiat Money” by Thomas Allen.) Unlike the founding fathers, who trusted the people and left control of the money supply directly in the hands of the people, White Nationalists trust politicians and bureaucrats to regulate and control the money supply. Under the gold coin standard contained in the US Constitution, the people decided how many gold coins were needed by the quantity of gold they brought to the mint for coinage and the quantity of gold coins they melted for nonmonetary uses. (See "Constitutional Money" by Thomas Allen.) The same is true for the silver standard. (For more on the gold standard, see “What is the Gold Standard?” by Thomas Allen.) Moreover, gold extinguishes debt, while fiat money merely discharges debt by passing it to another. (See “Extinguishing Debt” by Thomas Allen.) A major reason that fiat money adherents hate the true gold-coin standard is that the government cannot control the money under the gold-coin standard.

When accompanied by the real bills doctrine, enough money is created to clear the market of newly produced goods. Most of the money created under the real bills doctrine goes initially to the workers and suppliers of material used to manufacture the products. Further, when money created under the real bills doctrine has done its work, it is automatically removed from the market and does not cause inflation. A chief flaw of all fiat monetary systems is a lack of a mechanism to remove excess money from the economy; consequently, fiat monetary systems nearly always have problems with inflation. (For more discussion on the real bills doctrine, see “Real Bills Doctrine” by Thomas Allen.)

– Social credits. Some White Nationalists prefer the social credit fiat monetary system. This system is highly flawed and will fail to do what its supporters claim it will do. It is highly invasive and greatly swells the ranks of governmental bureaucrats. Moreover, it demands enormous amounts of record-keeping, reporting, and data analysis. Nevertheless, most White Nationalists probably know nothing about the social credit system, and many have never heard of it. (For a detailed discussion of the social credit system, see “Analysis of Richard Cook’s Monetary Reforms as Presented in We Hold These Truths” by Thomas Allen.)

Central bank digital currency is ideal for the social credit economy because it makes tracking private spending transparent and, therefore, easier. Further, it reduces the time between collecting and analyzing data and the injection of new currency. Also, it can be used to force people to spend by directly stealing their savings. (Most social credit advocates despise savings.)

Moreover, since the social credit economy requires an administrative state, it is compatible with an administrative state. (An administrative state is a state ruled by experts and technocrats for the benefit of the oligarchs.) Most other fiat monetary reform schemes also require an administrative state. Furthermore, the administrative state eliminates checks and balances by merging the executive, legislative, and judicial functions into one agency, which is what many White Nationalists seem to want.

– Guaranteed income. Like King, White Nationalists promote a guaranteed annual income. A guaranteed annual income is the foundation of the social credit system.

– Economic summary. The difference between the monetary and economic system that White Nationalism promotes and that fascism and socialism promote is difficult to distinguish. (Since the United States have adopted at least 80 percent of the planks in the Communist Manifesto, distinguishing between the US government and a communist government is often difficult. See “Are the United States a Communist Country?” by Thomas Allen.) All want to use the government to force people, ultimately under the penalty of death, to do what most people do not naturally want to do. 

Conclusion

Many White Nationalists seem to overlook the necessity of a firm moral foundation. Christianity used to provide this foundation. However, between World War I and World War II, it began earnestly to be phased out. During the civil rights era, this foundation has been nearly eradicated as Christian denominations replaced the gospel of Jesus with the gospel of King and wokeism. To replace dying Christianity, a few White Nationalists promote paganism, especially Nordic paganism. Yet, paganism offers no firm moral foundation. Various forms of paganism are prominent in America today; the three most popular are the worship of Hermes (sports), Gaia (climate change), and Moloch (abortion). Most White Nationalists seem to want to replace Christianity with the welfare state and the worship of the state.

Only a few White Nationalists seem to realize that the political and economic policies and programs that they advocate lead to despotic tyranny even if the country is entirely White. Although they deplore totalitarianism, their worship of the state and their proposed economic system leads to totalitarianism.

Their love of statism, support of the welfare state, and the proposed monetary and economic system disqualify me from being a White Nationalist. Nevertheless, they are generally correct in their solution to racial problems and many other social issues. However, their ignorance of economics knows no bounds. As abysmal as the current monetary and economic system is in the US, the proposals of White Nationalists are far worse.

Further, the primary difference between the typical White Nationalist and the typical left-winger is racial and social issues. Other than these issues, they mostly agree on other issues at least in principle although they may differ in details.

In summary, the foreign and social policies of White Nationalism are excellent. However, its political and economic policies are horrendous.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 Part 2

More political articles.

Why I am not a White Nationalist — Where They Are Wrong Politically

Why I am not a White Nationalist — 

Where They Are Wrong Politically

Thomas Allen

The following are some key political areas where White Nationalists err.

– Populism. White Nationalists are populists. Populism claims to champion the common man and to protect him from the oligarchs and plutocrats. The government governs for the common good. (What is the common good, and who decides it?) Populists oppose big business and financial interests. (So do I.) To thwart subversion by special interest, governmental deliberations should be public and transparent. (Can transparency really exist under the authoritarian version of populism? If so, how?) Generally, populists favor fiat money, inflation (to cheat creditors by paying debt with less valuable money), graduated income tax and other “soak it to the rich” schemes (which usually backfire by soaking it to the middle and working classes), governmental ownership of utilities, labor regulations that greatly favor workers, and heavily regulated transportation systems if not outright governmental ownership. Also, they favor immigration restrictions and welfare programs for the working and middle classes. While some populists favor an authoritarian government, others favor direct democracy through popular initiatives and referenda. Popularism gave the United States the Sixteenth Amendment (the graduated income tax) and the Seventeenth Amendment (direct election of Senators).

– Statism. White Nationalists are statists and seem to have little use for libertists. (For a description of the two, see “Statists Versus Libertists” by Thomas Allen.) Under statism, its priesthood, the government, grows until the state consumes all and becomes a god and the decider and provider of everything. Although statism is the cause of most of the social problems that they identify, White Nationalists do not want to abandon statism; they want to use the state to impose their economic and other policies and programs. Communist China, North Korea, and the Soviet Union are examples of the fruition of statism. The love of statism is one of the most egregious problems with White Nationalism. (For more details on statism, see “The State” and “The Difference Between Government and State” by Thomas Allen.) 

– Common good. Except where it conflicts with the common good, White Nationalists support private liberty. However, who decides what is the common good? According to White Nationalists, the state decides the common good and has unlimited powers to achieve it. And who or what is the state? The state is the oligarchs (the ruling elite) through bureaucrats and politicians. (The difference between pursuing the common good under White Nationalism and pursuing it under communism, socialism, fascism, and the current US regime is hard to distinguish although what they consider the common good may differ significantly.) Like all statists, White Nationalists believe that rights and liberties come from the state.

Although White Nationalists support free speech, presumably in the name of the common good, some governmental authority can declare that free speech, freedom of worship, the right to bear arms, and all the other rights and liberties identified in the Bill of Rights conflict with the common good and, therefore, prohibit them.

Many left-wingers believe that the common good requires censorship. Governmental bureaucrats should decide what people read and hear, i.e., what political views to which they are exposed. Since “democracy” is the great common good, censorship is necessary to protect it. Do White Nationalists believe that censorship is a common good? They seem ambivalent; free speech is a common good when it benefits them, while censorship is a common good when some bureaucrat or governmental leader declares it to be a common good.

On the other hand, many right-wingers also believe that democracy is the common good. Yet, they believe that free speech is essential to protecting democracy and is, therefore, a common good. — not censorship. (Nazis and fascists are not right-wingers; they are left-wingers.)

Additionally, left-wingers assert that banning the private ownership of firearms serves the common good because fewer people will be shot (and because disarmed people resisting tyranny is much more difficult). Do White Nationalists agree? Presumably, they do because banning privately owned firearms serves the common good. Or does a common good depend on who decides what it is?

Moreover, many White Nationalists believe that people should be forcibly injected with an experimental gene therapy drug if some bureaucrat finds that it is for the common good. The common good of society always trumps individual liberties.

Furthermore, White Nationalists criticize right-wingers for denying that a common good exists. They are wrong. Right-wingers merely disagree with White Nationalists on what is the common good. For most Right-wingers, individual liberty is the paramount common good.

As shown above, the common good depends on who wields political power.

– Constitution. Being statists, White Nationalists prefer the constitution that Lincoln gave the country to the one that the founding fathers gave it. (For the difference between the two, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen. Also, see “More on the US Constitution”  and “More Thoughts Related to the US Constitution” by Thomas Allen.) Additionally, as statists, they prefer a centralist society to a decentralist society. Centralists emphasize the larger community: the state, a puissant central government, the collective, big businesses, central banks, and even the utopian world state. (White Nationalists object to a world state because it conflicts with their policy of each race having its own independent countries. Although many may object to a central bank, their economic program requires a central bank.) Decentralists emphasize the smaller community: the individual, the family, voluntary associations, small businesses, and local and State or provincial governments. (For a more detailed discussion of the two, see “Centralism Versus Decentralism” by Thomas Allen.)

– Lack of trust in the people. Like progressives, liberals, socialists, and fascists, White Nationalists do not trust the people. However, like them, they do trust politicians and especially bureaucrats implicitly — despite politicians and bureaucrats being the cause of most of the problems to which White Nationalists object. Like progressives, liberals, socialists, and fascists, White Nationalists seem to believe that sinful humans become angels when they become government employees. If they do not believe this, why do they want them to have so much power?

– Prefer bureaucratic rule. White Nationalists prefer the rule of bureaucrats to politicians governing because politicians think no further than the next election. However, the democratically unaccountable bureaucrats (the “Deep State”) can engage in long-range planning. Thus, White Nationalists believe that a governmentally bureaucratically controlled society — which is a fascist, socialist, and communist idea — is superior to a laissez-faire society.

– Prefer the rule of men. White Nationalists prefer the rule of men to the rule of law. (What the United States enjoy today is the rule of men clothed in the rule of law.) In making decisions, they prefer a strong leader like the Fuhrer or Il Duce, who is held responsible for his decisions, to a legislative body. (Who is going to hold the leader accountable for his decisions?) Moreover, they oppose the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution and State constitutions. Thus, they seem to oppose constitutional government or at least a constitution that is intended to protect the rights and liberties of the people — even White people. Perhaps, this is the main reason that they prefer Lincoln’s constitution since it places little restraint on the federal government.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 Part 1 Part 3

More political articles.

King on the World House – Part 1

King on the World House – Part 1

Thomas Allen

In “The World House,” Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), pages 177–202, Martin Luther King, Jr., discusses the American Negro uniting with nonwhites around the world in their struggle for freedom, racism, colonialism and economic exploitation, poverty, war and peace, and foreign aid. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

(First, I must remind the reader that most conservatives and nearly all conservative commentators consider King a conservative. Furthermore, many conservative commentators assert that King is an archconservative and the greatest conservative ever. Some have even deified him. Hereafter, all these conservatives are referred to as King-idolizing conservatives. Since King is an archconservative, these King-idolizing conservatives should advocate everything that King advocated.)

King supports a world welfare system. He writes that “we cannot ignore the larger world house in which we are also dwellers. Equality with whites will not solve the problems of either whites or Negroes if it means equality in a world society stricken by poverty and in a universe doomed to extinction by war.” (P. 177.) (King-idolizing conservatives need to stop objecting to nonmilitary foreign aid and start opposing military foreign aid.)

Then, he mentions the inventions and discoveries made during the previous 100 years. (He fails to mention that Whites are responsible for these inventions and discoveries.)

Next, King states that “what is happening in the United States today is a significant part of a world development.” (P. 179.) That is, the civil rights movement needed to spread across the planet. (Neoconservatives have accommodated King by forcing his civil rights movement on the world. When necessary, they use war to impose King’s civil rights movement. White countries outside the Muslim world have surrendered to King’s civil rights movement with little resistance. However, war has been required in the White and nonwhite Muslim world. So far, most of East Asia and India have avoided having King’s civil rights movement imposed on them.)

Erroneously, King declares that what “we are seeing now is a freedom explosion” (P. 179.) (On the contrary, except for the defunct Soviet block, most countries are much less free today than they were before King’s civil rights movement. Ironically, freedom has been dying faster in the United States, the White Anglophone countries, and Western Europe than anywhere else on the planet, and these are the countries where the civil rights movement has advanced the furthest.)

Continuing, King remarks that “the era of colonialism, is at an end. East is moving West. The earth is being redistributed.” (P. 180.) (What are the American Negroes going to do when China conquers the United States? The only use that the Chinese will have for most Negroes is manual labor. They certainly will have no use for them as whining welfare recipients and habitual complainers who are never satisfied.)

Next, King claims, “Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever.” (P. 180.) (Anyone who cares about the White race, especially Southerners, who are now the oppressed, needs to hope that King is right. Negroes, who are the oppressors, need to hope that King is wrong.)

Then, King compares the biblical story of Moses demanding that Pharaoh let the Israelites go with the American Negro. (However, King does not complete the analogy. When Pharaoh let the Israelites go, the Israelites left Egypt. To complete the analogy, the American Negroes would have to leave the United States. Moreover, if King envisioned himself as Moses delivering his people from bondage, then King should have led his people to the promised land in Africa.)

King remarks that the American Negro “has been caught up by the spirit of the times, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers in Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice.” (P. 180.) (Now, many Negroes are probably having second thoughts about uniting with their black, brown, and yellow brothers flooding America and claiming rights and privileges that Whites had given the Negro. Also, their promised land of racial justice seems void of any racial justice for Whites.)

Then, King writes, “Together we must learn to live as brothers or together we will be forced to perish as fools.” (P. 181.) (King seems to have omitted Whites from his brotherhood — except White Communists, White liberal Negrophiles, and White oligarchs. He certainly omits Southerners and White segregationists.)

Correctly, King states, “The richer we have become materially, the poorer we have become morally and spiritually. . . .  Enlarged material powers spell enlarged peril if there is not proportionate growth of the soul.” (Pp. 181-182.)

King writes, “Among the moral imperatives of our time, we are challenged to work all over the world with unshakable determination to wipe out the last vestiges of racism.” (P. 183.) (White racism has mostly vanished from the world. However, the racism of the other races is as strong as ever, and even the racism of the American Negro has been growing stronger ever since King inflamed it.)

According to King, economic exploitation is the perennial ally of racism. (If true, then the Negro’s economic exploitation of Whites proves that Negroes are racists — in spite of the accepted definition of “racist” that declares that Negroes cannot be racists.)

Then, King comments on the racism of South Africa and claims that “the economic policies of the United States and Great Britain” (p. 183) make possible “the racist government of South Africa.” (P. 183.) (Yet, the economic policies of the United States and Great Britain brought down the White racist government of South Africa and replaced it with a Negro racist government. Ever since South Africa has been deteriorating while the Afrikaners are being genocided.)

Next, King comments on Rhodesia and the aid given to Rhodesia by “British-based industry and private capital, despite the stated opposition of British government policy.” (P. 184.) (In 1979, the White government of Rhodesia fell. The country changed its name to Zimbabwe, and Negroes gained control of the government. After the Negroes drove most of the Whites from the country, the Negroes of Zimbabwe became poorer and more oppressed than they were under White rule. However, if he had lived to see this happy moment, King would rejoice knowing that Whites no longer oppress Negroes in Zimbabwe while complaining that Whites are not given Zimbabwe ever more money.)

King writes, “Nothing provides the Communists with a better climate for expansion and infiltration than the continued alliance of our nation with racism and exploitation throughout the world.” (P. 184.) (Being a Communist sympathizer, King should not have objected to anything that aided Communist expansion.)

Then, King declares, “And if we are not diligent in our determination to root out the last vestiges of racism in our dealings with the rest of the world, we may soon see the sins of our fathers visited upon ours and succeeding generations.” (Pp. 184-185.) (The only racism that has been rooted out is that of Whites while racism in the rest of the world is healthy, strong, and growing. As a result, the Whites of the United  States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Europe, and the rest of the world are fading away as they lose the countries that they founded and built to nonwhites.)

After discussing the exploitation of Latin America, King states, “The Bible and the annals of history are replete with tragic stories of one brother robbing another of his birthright and thereby insuring generations of strife and enmity.” (P. 185.) (King’s statement is correct. However, he confounds who is exploiting whom. King asserts that Whites are exploiting nonwhites, especially Negroes. On the contrary, Negroes and other nonwhites have been exploiting Whites for decades. By that, they create strife and enmity as they war among themselves for the spoils of Whites.)

King notes that most of the revolutionaries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America were educated in the West. Before then, many had been trained in Christian missionary schools. (Thus, Communists and Communist sympathizers had infiltrated and gained controlled universities and religious organizations even before King’s civil rights movement.)

King shows that envy is a significant motive for nonwhites to claim what Whites have. “In recent years their countries have been invaded by automobiles, Coca-Cola and Hollywood, so that even remote villages have become aware of the wonders and blessings available to God’s white children. . . . Either they share in the blessings of the world or they organize to break down and overthrow those structures or governments which stand in the way of their goals.” (P. 186.) (In other words, either Whites give Negroes and other nonwhites what they demand or they will steal it.)

Then, King declares, “And when they [colored people] look around and see that the only people who do not share in the abundance of Western technology are colored people, it is an almost inescapable conclusion that their condition and their exploitation are somehow related to their color and the racism of the white Western world.” (P. 186.) (King fails to realize that Whites obtained what they have through their intelligence and other innate attributes and traits, hard work, delaying gratification, sacrificing, etc. Erroneously, King and most other nonwhites, especially Negroes, believe that most of what Whites have, they got through exploiting nonwhites. However, Whites did not have to exploit anyone to create the wealth that they have. As for colonialism, most natives of the colonies, especially in Africa, became wealthier, healthier, and safer after the Europeans arrived than they were before the European arrival.)

Next, King asserts, “If Western civilization does not now respond constructively to the challenge to banish racism, some future historian will have to say that a great civilization died because it lacked the soul and commitment to make justice a reality for all men.” (Pp. 186-187.) (No civilization has ever come as close as Western Civilization in banishing the racism of its race, i.e., the White race. As a result, the White race has lost its soul and is dying. When the White race perishes along with its  great innate innovative intelligence, the nonwhites of the world will plunge into a dark age of poverty, tyranny, and oppression.)

Then, King declares, “Another grave problem that must be solved . . . is that of poverty on an international scale.” (P. 187.) He believed that Whites had the resources to rid the world of poverty. He states “that famine is wholly unnecessary in the modern world.” (P. 187.) (This is mostly true. When a natural disaster causes a famine, international aid usually arrives quickly to alleviate the problem. However, most famines are political. That is, the government of the country where the famine is occurring is the cause, and foreign aid offers little relief since the offending government receives the aid. War is another political problem that causes famine. The elimination of war and oppressive governments, like nearly every country has today, would eliminate most famines.) He offers several solutions for eliminating famine. (However, he fails to recognize that governments often prevent some of the solutions that he offers. King believes that governments are altruistic and benevolent, except in the South, whose governments are malevolent. Moreover, before Whites were driven from Africa, they were improving and increasing agricultural production.)

Furthermore, King favors controlling the population growth of the planet. He notes, “Most of the large undeveloped nations in the world today are confronted with the problem of excess population in relation to resources. But even this problem will be greatly diminished by wiping out poverty.” (P. 188.) Economic security and education lead to smaller families. Stabilization of the population depends on stabilizing economic resources. (One technique that the White oligarchs have used for population control besides easily available abortion is to inject people, especially Negro women, with sterilants disguised as medicine.)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on social issues.

The Jim Crow Era Versus the Civil Rights Era

The Jim Crow Era Versus the Civil Rights Era

Thomas Allen

I have read several books and articles whose authors hated the Jim Crow Era and loved the Civil Rights Era. Only slavery was worse for Blacks than the Jim Crow Era. The Civil Rights Era is the greatest thing that ever happened to Blacks. Reading their works, one is perplexed about how they arrived at this conclusion. They present information that shows that in many respects, life for Blacks was superior during the Jim Crow Era than during the Civil Rights Era.

During the Jim Crow Era, Blacks had a growing middle class based on merit and, thus, self-respect. Because of this growing Black middle class, Stalin sent agents to destroy it by creating a Black revolution. Contrariwise, during the Civil Rights Era, the growing Black middle class is based on affirmative action and, therefore, doubt. In the Civil Rights Era, the Black middle class has been based on special privileges, those who grant the privileges can quickly bring the Black middle class down by removing the privileges. Consequently, Blacks had more independence during the Jim Crow Era than they have had in the Civil Rights Era.

Further, during the Jim Crow Era, most Black families had fathers. Now, in the Civil Rights Era, most Black families have no fathers. Thus, the family unit was much stronger during the Jim Crow Era. Moreover, Blacks married at a higher rate than Whites. During the Civil Rights Era, Black marriages have plummeted. A much lower percentage of Black children were born out of wedlock in the Jim Crow Era. Now, the Civil Rights Era has resulted in a large percentage of Black children being born out of wedlock. Moreover, Black sacrificed far fewer of their children to Lucifer at the abortion clinics then than now.

Also, during the Jim Crow Era, criminal activity by Blacks was lower than during the Civil Rights Era. During the Jim Crow Era, Blacks had a higher moral standard than they have had in the Civil Rights Era.

Moreover, fewer Blacks were welfare recipients and, therefore, much more self-reliant. During the Civil Rights Era, many Blacks have become enslaved to the welfare state and are dependent on their masters in Washington. Thus, they have traded segregation for slavery.

In the time of Jim Crow, only a few Blacks expressed a desire to genocide their race, the American Negro, via miscegenation. As a result of the Civil Rights Era, an ever-growing number of Blacks seem compelled to genocide the American Negro via miscegenation.

Apparently, the benefits of the Civil Rights Era have more than offset the deterioration of the Black family, the rising Black crime rate, the enslavement of Blacks in the welfare state, and the genocide of the Black race. (Not only is the American Negro being genocided via miscegenation, but also the culture and society of the American Negro are being destroyed through integration, which too is genocide. This genocide of the American Negro may account for the deterioration of Black behavior.) At least the Civil Rights Era has reduced the number of restrooms and water fountains by amalgamating the races. With integrated schools, it has reduced the quality of education for all through indoctrination-propaganda curricula, but at least both Blacks and Whites now receive the same low-quality education. Anyway, Blacks can now eat in the same restaurants as Whites, can sit beside Whites on public transportation and at public entertainment events, and stay at the same motels — although integration ended many Black businesses. Moreover, during the Civil Rights Era, Blacks have received preferential treatment in employment via affirmative action and quotas. Nevertheless, most people believe that the benefits of the Civil Rights Era for Blacks far outweigh its costs for Blacks and especially for Whites.

As shown above, Blacks were much more independent and self-reliant during the Jim Crow Era. Now, in the Civil Rights Era, they are dependent on their masters in Washington and the statehouses. Thus, many have reverted back to slavery without the self-respect that a slave had knowing that he more than earned his keep. Today’s slaves are nothing more than parasites living off others and giving nothing in return but their votes and services as protestors and rioters. Contrary to the popular myth, Blacks had many advantages and benefits under Jim Crow that they have lost during the Civil Rights Era.

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 along with Black society, culture, and race.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles. 

Coulter on Race — Part 1

 Coulter on Race — Part 1

Thomas Allen

Below are some impressions that Ann Coulter gives on race in her book Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (2012). My comments are enclosed in brackets except for the summary paragraphs at the end.

[Coulter is a racial nihilist who practices the new morality of sacrificing Blacks and other races on the altar of humanity. Thus, she worships integration and the resulting amalgamation. Therefore, despite being a Negrophile, she has no qualms about genociding Blacks: She is a strong proponent of policies that result in their genocide.]

She writes, “Racial filters paralyze logical thinking” (p.39). Where crime is involved, she wears no racial filters. However, in most other realms, racial filters paralyze her logical thinking — especially about the South.

Consequently, she is a Dixiephobe and derogates Southerners and is especially venomous toward poor Southern Whites and “rednecks.” Most Southerners are barely civilized. Disdain is all that she has for Southerners who have not been reconstructed in the image of Yankeedom.

She notes that Northerners discriminated against poor Southern White who migrated North during the World War II era in search of better wages and a higher standard of living. Northerners discriminated against the slothful and industrious, the irresponsible and responsible, and the crude and sophisticated Southerners alike without distinguishing between them. She excuses this discrimination because Northerners could not be expected to examine each Southerner individually. [That is, Northerners were judging by ethnicity and not by character. Yet, Whites, especially Southerners, are expected to examine each Black so that they can judge by character instead of by race. Is this because all Blacks have saintly character? To say otherwise is proof of racism.]

The only positive feature that she finds in Southerners is that usually, they support more of her political views instead of those of the Democrats' — civil rights for Blacks are an exception. [However, she is unable to forgive Southerners for supporting segregation and the Democratic Party.]

Nevertheless, she does praise the Confederate soldier. [Her admiration for Confederate soldiers and their decedents seems to be mostly limited to them being great warriors, who can be used to enforce foreign policies that she favors.]

At least she is correct about why Confederate soldiers fought: “Confederate soldiers fought because they lived in the South — not because they held a brief for slavery” (p. 195). [She could have added that if Lincoln had not invaded the South, there would have been no war.] However, she errs in believing that the war was primarily about slavery. [Slavery was better protected within the Union than outside it.]

Black culture, especially the inclination of Blacks toward criminal and antisocial behavior, grew from Blacks imitating Southern culture — primarily the culture of poor Whites and rednecks — and not from slavery. [Since most Blacks were around the more sophisticated and cultured Whites, plantation owners, than around crude rednecks and poor Whites, why did they adopt the culture of the latter instead of the former?] Voting for Democrats is one of the many bad habits that Blacks got from Southerners. [Are the want-to-be-Democrat Republicans any better than real Democrats?]

According to her, the more civilized Blacks are descendants of Blacks who lived under the influence of the Puritan Yankee.

During the Jim Crow era, Black married at a higher rate than Whites. Until President Johnson, the welfare system did not subsidize unmarried women with illegitimate children. Under Johnson, the welfare system began subsidizing illegitimacy. During Coulter’s beloved Civil Rights Era, Black marriages had plummeted to 30 percent by 2010.

While condemning the Jim Crow Era and praising the Civil Rights Movement that led to the Civil Rights Era, she describes how well-dressed Blacks were during the Jim Crow Era. Moreover, during the Jim Crow Era, Blacks had a growing middle class built on merit with married parents and intact families. However, during the Civil Rights Era, the intact Black family has greatly decreased, and a Black middle class based on affirmative action has replaced the real middle class of merit.

Coulter implies that the Civil Rights Movement is the greatest event in human history, and the civil rights acts are the greatest laws ever enacted. Yet, every social issue that Democrats promote that Coulter loathes grew naturally from the Warren Court’s desegregation ruling and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, both of which she extols.

Like many people, she confuses integration with desegregation. [Because most Blacks and Whites prefer associating with their own race, desegregation always leads to integration and then forced integration. Forced integration is necessary to prove that desegregation has occurred.]

Nevertheless, she praises President Nixon for his activism in forcing integration and imposing quotas [euphuistically called affirmative action]. While supporting affirmative action, she complains about discriminating against White college applicants. [What does she expect when affirmative action demands discrimination against Whites to prove that affirmative action has been applied?]

She has no qualms about using the government to deny people the use of their property when necessary to force integration. [Freedom of association has no meaning for her.]

While Republicans were treating Blacks as equals before the law, Democrats were placing Blacks above the law. [Then, as usual, most Republicans copied the Democrats in placing Blacks above the law. They even began to outdo the Democrats with affirmative action, set-asides, and the like.]

Coulter blames Johnson’s Great Society programs for the rise of Black criminals. [Opposing these programs were many segregationist Democrats, whom she disdains as the vilest of all creatures — even lower than liberal Democrats. Also, Republican support was needed to get these programs through Congress. Furthermore, Republicans have never done anything to eliminate these programs when they held power.]

Then, she discusses crime. A rare incidence of violence by a White against a Black gives Blacks an excuse for demonstrations and riots. Any Black shot by a policeman becomes a beloved member of the community. Accusing police officers, especially White officers, of racism and criminal activity if they injure or kill a Black has become a favorite pastime of Blacks, politicians, and the media. Frequently, these accusations lead to criminal prosecution.

When the media, politicians, or Blacks accuse a White person of injuring or killing a Black, the White person is automatically guilty even if the Black is the perpetrator. Moreover, most of the accusers continue to believe that the White person is guilty after a jury finds him innocent. [Perhaps, this is because of the way Black juries treat Black defendants.] Often, Black jurors refuse to convict an obviously guilty Black defendant.

White racism is used as an excuse to justify crimes by Blacks. According to the liberal media, no Black is ever guilty of a crime against a White person even if the evidence shows that the accused Black is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt — even if the Black confesses to the crime. [If it were not for White racism, all Blacks would be as holy and saintly as Saint Martin Luther King the Divine, who has supplanted Jesus in holiness and saintliness.]

While Whites feel no compulsion to defend Whites who are guilty of violent crimes, Blacks feel compelled to defend Blacks who are guilty of violent crimes. White liberals display the same compulsion as Blacks.

Coulter notes that in 1986 Blacks committed 49.1 percent of all homicides despite comprising only 12 percent of the population. In 1986, only 2.6 percent of the homicides were White-on-Black. Blacks killed three times as many Whites as Whites killed Blacks. Blacks killed 16 times more Blacks than Whites did. [Consequently, Blacks are their own worst enemy.]

Whenever a White kills or seriously injures a Black, the media, liberals, and many conservatives overflow with compassion and sympathy for the Black. However, when a White is a victim of a Black, they ignore the White victim.

She remarks, “A corollary to the hysterical overreporting of any white-on-black crime is that black-on-white hate crimes will be utterly unreported by the media, except in the town where it happened” (p. 54). While Black-on-White crimes are seldom tried as hate or racial crimes, White-on-Black crimes are often tried as hate or racial crimes.

A lack of White-on-Black crime evidences that White racism against Blacks is not the country’s greatest problem. [On the other hand, Black-on-White crimes show that Black racism against White is a major problem.] Additionally, the few White supremacists in the country are impotent and not much of a threat to anyone.

Ordinary Blacks do not defend violent Black criminals throwing rocks at police officers. However, Democrats did defend Blacks throwing rocks at the police. [Since most Blacks are Democrats, is she saying most Blacks defend these Black criminals? Probably not. Nevertheless, to accuse Democrats in general for defending these Blacks is to accuse Blacks in general for defending them.]

Because Blacks are victims of criminals at a higher rate than are Whites, many of them want a strong police presence in their neighborhoods. [Yet, when serving on a jury, many of these same Blacks are inclined to let an obviously guilty Black criminal go free.]

American does have a crime wave; it is Blacks assaulting Whites. On the rare occasion when Whites attacks Blacks, the liberal media cover it ad infinitum for weeks and months.

Coulter discusses the O.J. Simpson trial and Mark Fuhrman in detail and how Blacks rejoiced at a not guilty vote. Also, she discusses the conviction of Fuhrman for using the N-word and his sterling character. [Fuhrman was a detective involved in the Simpson case and a key witness against Simpson.] She remarks, “Only one felony conviction came out of the O. J. Simpson trial for a double murder so brutal that one victim’s neck was severed to her spinal cord: the perjury conviction of Los Angeles detective Mark Fuhrman, for lying about having used the N-word nine and a half years earlier”(p. 127). About the result of the Simpson trial, she writes, “In 1995, Americans discovered it was considered a graver offense to use ‘the N-word’ than to cut a woman’s head off” (p. 127).

Coulter condemns Black race riots primarily because of the poor image that they give Blacks. [Apparently, image is more important than the deaths, injuries, and destruction that these race riots caused.]

She seems surprised that few of the 1960s race riots were in the South, the home of Democratic segregation and the Klan. Most of the 1960s race riots were outside the South. This apparent contradiction, she accredits to States and cities in the North and on the West Coast being lenient on crime. If Northerners had only treated Blacks as harshly as they treated Southerners and Irish immigrants, they would have trained Blacks to be good, law-abiding citizens. [Could it be that most race riots of the 1960s and afterward occurred outside the South because race relations in the South were better than elsewhere in the country? Coulter’s Dixiephobia prevents her from considering this possibility.]

Nevertheless, the South gets the blame for the riots in Northern cities during the 1960s. Liberals thought Southern Klansmen had captured Northern police departments. While liberals treat Blacks like spoiled brats who are never held accountable for their actions, the media blames to police for the bad behavior of Blacks.

Coulter discusses the Rodney-King riot in some detail and shows how the media aided it. She cites some heroic deeds of Blacks during the riot. Also, she discusses the trial of the police officers who arrested King. After the Los Angeles jury found the officers not quality, President Bush the Elder order the Attorney General to investigate. The investigation led to a trial where two of the officers were convicted. She complains about the federal trial convicting two of the four police officers. [Southerners well understand this double jeopardy. Whenever a local jury found a White person not guilty of a crime against a Black, the federal government would try the person again for the same crime but with a different label.]

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Part 2.

Review of Ebeling’s “Freedom Is Why Immigrants Come to America”

Review of Ebeling’s “Freedom Is Why Immigrants Come to America”

Thomas Allen

The following is a review of “Freedom Is Why Immigrants Come to America” by Richard M. Ebeling dated May 22, 2019, and posted by the American Institute of Economic Research. His article primarily covers immigration between 1840 and 1914. He claims that the immigrants of this era came, and even today come, to the United States because they wanted to live free or to escape troubles of Europe and to find a better life. (Today, only a few come from Europe.)
Unlike today, all the immigrants who came to the United States during this time were from Europe, i.e., they were White, with the exception of Chinese imported to work in the West and some Japanese. They were of the same race, White (Aryan), the same religion, Christian, and the same cultural background, Western Civilization, as Americans. (Not being White, Negroes were not true Americans; they had to be incorporated through the unconstitutionally ratified fourteenth amendment.) Now most immigrants are of alien races and cultures and often non-Christian. However, like the immigrants of old, the new immigrants come seeking a better life — usually in the form of welfare.
Also, unlike today, no welfare state existed to support them. They had to support themselves. (Ebeling  implies that today’s “immigrants,” most of whom are nonwhite, come for the same reason. Some do; they are mostly Whites. Most come to receive their rapine from stupid Whites through various welfare programs. Thus, like the immigrants of old, they also come to improve their lives. However, instead of coming to make their way with their labor like the immigrants of old, they come to improve their lives through handouts from the welfare state.)
Ebeling notes that before the early 1900s, European immigrants usually did not need a vista or a passport to enter the United States. (The inference is that today’s immigrants should not need a vista or passport to enter the United States.) In the 1880s, the first major restrictions were placed on immigration; they were placed on Chinese and Japanese, primarily for racial reasons. (His implication is that no restrictions should be placed on immigration. If they are, they are primarily racist.)
He argues that immigrants came to the United State because of individual freedom. That may have been true before the welfare state. Now, most come for their free handouts. Also, even then more probably came to improve their economic status than for freedom. That is certainly true today where most seem to come to improve their economic status by living off welfare. Then, they were expected to work to improve their status. Now, they are not.
According to Ebeling, classical liberal principles guided America. This may be somewhat true in the economic realm where the liberal principles of the free market prevailed — except for industries protected with protective tariffs. However, since the 1933 when Roosevelt brought fascism to the United States, socialism has been the guiding economic principle.
Unfortunately, in the social realm, liberal principles have come to dominate. The new morality of racial genocide, which is closely related to liberalism, which abhors racial distinction, has supplanted the old morality, which protects and preserves the races.
According to Ebeling, the lack of governmental interference in economic and social life drew people to the United States. This may have been true in the past. However, today, with the government’s attempt to manage the economy and especially social affairs with all sorts of Black privileges, that can hardly still be true.
Freedom can scarcely be what draws people to the United States today. The police state that Bush put in place has brought the United States down to the level of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Communist China, even though the worst of these tyrannies have yet to manifest themselves in the United States. (If the United States are the freest country today, that is a said commentary on the rest of the world.)
Interestingly, Ebeling accuses the South of political intervention in the economy via slavery. However, he ignores real political intervention in the economy like protective tariffs, subsides to businesses, contracts to political favorites for internal improvements, and fiat money. Generally, Southerners opposed most of these whereas Northerners promoted them. Moreover, New Englanders did not oppose slavery while they were amassing fortunes in the slave trade. Only after the importation of slaves became illegal did the Puritan Yankee began to become abolitionists.
Ebeling claims that, except in the South before 1860, only a “few instances of state-sponsored, state-endorsed or state-enforced discrimination and persecution of ethnic, racial or religious groups” existed. Apparently, Illinois prohibiting free Blacks from entering that State was not state-sponsored or state-enforced discrimination — likewise, with the Northern States that outlawed interracial marriages.  Moreover, the whole debate about prohibiting slavery in territories was to keep Blacks out of the territories and preserve them for Whites only. Furthermore, because of the few numbers of Blacks in the North, custom was usually sufficient to keep most Blacks “in their place” away from Whites. Later, these customs were often enforced by governmentally protected labor union monopolies and racial exclusionary clauses in deeds and contracts, which governmental courts enforced.
Ebeling notes that most immigrants who came to the United States avoided the South. He blames this avoidance on slavery before the War and the segregation laws of the South after the War. Moreover, according to him, politics were more separated from economics in the North and West than in the South.
He ignores several important factors in avoiding the South. For most immigrants, New York City was the port of entry. From here, traveling across Pennsylvania and the Midwest was easier than traveling to the South. Historically, people of New England and New York had moved across Pennsylvania and the Midwest and from there farther westward. Only a few migrated to the South. So, routes westward were better established than routes southward.
Another, and more important, was the presence of Blacks. Most Blacks resided in the South — as slaves and then as freedmen. Like most people, liberals and libertarians excepted, these European immigrants preferred living among their own kind. (How many liberals and libertarians practice what they preach and live in predominately Black neighborhoods?)
A third reason was that the North and Radical Republicans (descendants of the Puritan Yankees and radicals who fled to the United States after the failed Revolution of 1848) had destroyed the South economically with the War and Reconstruction. So thorough was the economic destruction of the South that almost a century was needed for it to recover. Even today, parts still have not recovered — Mississippi for example. Unless the immigrant was a scoundrel, a mountebank, or had political connections with the US government, he had little chance of acquiring a comfortable estate in the South. Too many impoverished Blacks and Whites lived in the South against whom he would have to compete. Moreover, they were too poor to be good customers if he were a merchant. Only in the North and the West, did he have much economic opportunity.
Based on his description of his ancestry, Ebeling is not a descendant of Puritan Yankees. However, he certainly displays their anti-Southerner biases and prejudices.
Ebeling closes his article by praising immigrants. According to him, they are far superior to native Americans. He ignores the hordes that come to the United States as colonists and who enjoy the free handouts that stupid Americans give them while they bring down the United States and forever end the hope of the libertarian paradise that Ebeling seeks. He gives many of the trite remarks that liberals and libertarians use to support open borders and unlimited immigration, so I will not repeat them other than he considers them more patriotic than most native Americans.
Also, he is a great proponent of the melting-pot principle. That principle is mixing the races together to form motley mongrel man, which is genocide and the end of not only racial diversity but all diversity.
For him, the biggest danger resulting from restricting immigration is turning from a free marketplace to a political planning of society based on an identity politics of race and gender and possibly class, and abandoning the “ideals of individual liberty, free enterprise, and voluntary association for human dignity, material betterment, and social harmony and peace.” Like neoconservatives, liberals, and most libertarians, Ebeling places no value on natural collectives like race. He preaches freedom, but it is not the freedom of the White man as a White man or the Black man as a Black man: It is the freedom of the Mulatto man.
Also, like neoconservatives, liberals, and nearly all libertarians, Ebeling is a disciple of the new morality. Unlike his despised antebellum Southerners and Southerners of the Jim Crow era and most nonwhites, who were and are followers of the old morality, today, most Whites and unfortunately most Southerners are followers of the new morality. Likewise, except for the Puritan Yankees and the radicals from Europe, nearly all Northerners and immigrants from Europe between 1840 and 1914 followed the old morality. Furthermore, like nearly everyone else in the United States today, he believes that the United States are a propositional country and not a genetic country. Thus, the United States are doomed to perish and with that all hope for Ebeling’s libertarian nirvana will die.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

The Genocidal War Against the White Race

The Genocidal War Against the White Race

Thomas Allen

    A genocidal war is being waged in America today, and it is not against the Black race. It is against the White race. This genocidal war is being waged in Europe and other countries founded and built by the White race. (It has been nearly won in South Africa.)
    The intellectuals of academia, who ironically are mostly White, are the architects of the genocide of the White race. Their preaching of the goddess Equality demands the death of the White race: All that is White must be destroyed. They are guided by envy, an insatiable lust for equality (well not exactly — they are to be the masters and all others are to be slaves, a millennium ruled by intellectuals instead of Jesus to correct the errors of mankind), and apparently self-hatred (victims of their own propaganda?).
    These intellectuals have built a system in America based on the premise of equality: All humans are equal; there are no racial differences beyond skin color (even differences in skin color would be denied if they were not so obvious). Being mostly White, these intellectuals have concluded that Whites are intellectually superior to other races. Their conclusion is not ill-founded, for studies, many of which they have suppressed, support their conclusion. To serve their goddess Equality, they must remove the source of inequality by eradicating the White race. They must destroy the White race even if they must destroy themselves. (This suicidal urge is hard to understand because most of these intellectuals are White males. However, then habitual sin leads to self-destruction.)
    The intellectual supremacy of the White race has led it to acquire a larger share of the wealth, which is an affront to the goddess Equality. The coercive power of government can only go so far in redistributing wealth. There is no guarantee that its redistribution will not later be undone. To ensure the permanence of the redistribution, the superior race must be eliminated. The White race must go. (These intellects delude themselves with their own intelligence. Every race has great variation of intellect, talents, and abilities. Wealth has to continuously be redistributed to prevent some from having noticeably more wealth than others.)
    To achieve equality among humans, the White race must be destroyed. Many tactics have been employed to achieve this objective. Two fratricidal wars have been fought in Europe during the twentieth century. These wars killed tens of millions of White men in the prime of life. In the second war, tens of millions of White women and children were also killed. Billions of dollars in wealth were wasted and destroyed, thus, hastening the day when White civilization would be reduced to third-world poverty.
    During recent decades, the war has taken on a more subtle tone. The “divide and conquer” tactic has been used with a great degree of success. White women have been pitted against White men. Woman is no longer man’s complement. She is now his competitor.
    Numerous laws have been enacted to destroy the family and to inject women into the workplace. Various welfare programs make fathers superfluous and destroy their need and responsibility. Public education relieves parents of the responsibility of training and teaching their children. Equal employment opportunity and affirmative action laws force discrimination against White males. Ever increasing taxes force White women into the workplace if the family is to maintain a reasonably decent standard of living. These and other laws are attempting to eradicate the White race by belittling and reducing to insignificance the White male.
    Other weapons include integration and immigration. Integration is used to break down inhibitions against the sin of miscegenation. The White race can be destroyed by breeding it out of existence through interracial marriages. To provide breeding stock for this objective, immigration laws have been revised to favor the immigration of non-Whites. Because nearly all illegal immigrants are non-White (Blacks from the West Indies, mestizos from Mexico, and East Asians) little effort has been expended to thwart the flow. To the contrary, the United States government acts to encourage illegal immigration by requiring American taxpayers to support them.
    University professors, who are mostly White males, habitually condemn White males. They accuse them of being the scourge of the Earth, the source of racism (the greatest sin known to these intellectuals), and the root of all evil. White males, i.e., the White race, for without White males the White race is impossible, is a virus that must be eradicated if the world is to be saved.
    White males have been delegitimized and dehumanized to the point where many feel the necessity to apologize for being one. They are the only class against whom people can legally discriminate. They are the only class against whom people are required to discriminate. If White males can be completely delegitimized and dehumanized, the enemies of the White race may succeed in their attempt to destroy the White race.
    White males need to stop apologizing for being White and men. They need to reassert their authority. They need to purge their ranks of traitors, which unfortunately includes most of their political, business, labor, academic, and religious leaders. Then they can save the White race and return it to its rightful place.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Review of The Negro Revolution in America -- Part 1

Review of The Negro Revolution in America -- Part 1

Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: Some of the endnotes have been replaced with links.]

    The following is an analysis of The Negro Revolution in America by William Brink and Louis Harris (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1964). Much of this book is based on surveys. Their words and my paraphrases or summaries of their 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
    As one would expect from the subject matter of this book, it is anti-White and especially anti-Southerner. Like nearly all pro-Black-civil-rights writers, the authors express a great deal of bigotry and prejudice toward Southerners.
    Chapter 1 discusses the Black race awakening — what the Negro wants. Brink and Harris claim that Blacks “wanted nothing less than full equality” (p. 20). Before 1980 not only had Blacks become the White man’s equal, they had become his superior. Blacks can segregate themselves from Whites, but Whites cannot segregate themselves from Blacks. Blacks can have Black beauty pageants, Black caucuses, Black scholarships, etc. Whites cannot. Blacks are allowed to have Black-only clubs at public universities, but Whites are not allowed to have White-only clubs.
    Blacks can discriminate against Whites, but Whites cannot discriminate against Blacks. Whites feel compelled to declare that they have Black friends. Blacks feel no obligation to claim White friends. To the contrary, many feel compelled to deny that they have White friends. The country now has Jim Crow in reverse, but only worse.
    Brink and Harris contend that the writers of the U.S. Constitution intended for it to apply to Blacks (p. 20). They did not. The Constitution is clear about whom it is written. The Preamble reads “. . . . secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution. . . .” Thus, the writers of the Constitution, who were all White, intended it for their posterity, who would be White. The illegally adopted Fourteenth Amendment was and is used to give Blacks certain rights and privileges. (This  Amendment also stripped most Southern leaders of their political rights and privilege of holding public office.)
    Brink and Harris quote a White man saying, “They only expect the same rights that we have. They only want the same chances we have for a better life” (p. 21). (One wonders how many Blacks lived in this man’s town, Vestal, New York —  probably less than 1 percent.) Brink and Harris quote a Black dentist as saying, “I’d like to see the Negro change from a second-class citizen to a first class-citizen” (p. 21). Eventually Blacks not only achieved equal rights, but they achieved special rights. Not only did they cease being second-class citizens, doting Whites elevated the Negro to a deity, at least in the abstract. (Yankees are notorious for placing the abstract above the concrete.) At the same time, these Whites reduced far too many Blacks to wards of government via welfare programs. By trading the old plantation master for the new government master, Blacks have really come a long way. At least under the old plantation master, they had the pride and dignity of working for their keep.  (They consumed about 90 percent of their production.) Under their new government masters, they have been degraded to little more than breeding and offering jobs for their caretakers. Under the old plantation system, Blacks worked to support Whites. Under the new welfare system, Whites work to support Blacks. Can a person really be a first-class citizen while he is on the public dole?
    Brink and Harris remark that the Negro’s struggle for equal rights had been essentially nonviolent (p. 23). That depends on one’s definition of “nonviolent.” Is violating the property of others nonviolent? Is threatening violence nonviolent? Is deliberately creating a situation that will evoke a violent response nonviolent? They wrote in 1963. The great waves of violence would come with the race riots of the mid-1960s and later. The more Whites surrendered to Blacks, the more violent Blacks became. Why should not they? The more Whites surrendered, the less respect Blacks had for Whites.
    Brink and Harris note that the crime rate for Negroes is too high (p. 25). Civil rights and equality have not reduced the Negro crime rate. If anything, the crime rate of Blacks is even worse today than then.
    Brink and Harris also note the high rate of illegitimate births among Negroes (p. 25). Not only has the civil rights movement raised the illegitimacy of Negroes from 20 percent in 1960 to 72 percent by 2013, but it has also raised the illegitimacy rate of Whites from 2 percent in 1960 to 29 percent by 2013.
    “Negroes (and white sociologists) point out, of course, that these things are produced by the vicious circle that has ruled their lives if they were not downtrodden they would not resort to crime; if their family structure had not been undermined as far back as slavery they would have more stable marital relations; if they had better job opportunities they would not need relief. But the further point that the Negroes make is that they will never be able to improve all of these conditions unless they are granted equal rights now” (p. 25). The Negro won the civil rights war. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on the war on poverty and to enhance Negro health and education. Negroes have been preferentially treated in the job market; they are hired and promoted over better-qualified Whites. Yet none of this has made any difference. They have received what Whitney Young of the National Urban League argued for: a better-than-an-even break, a massive domestic Marshall Plan, and special and preferential treatment. To the extent that all these programs have affected Black crime and illegitimacy, they have raised them. At least Negroes can still blame it on something that none have ever experienced: slavery.
    Brink and Harris quote Martin Luther King’s “I Got a Dream” speech where he talks about judging people by their character and not the color of their skin (pp. 26-27). Contrary to his speech, the legislation and policies that King and other civil rights leaders pushed judged people by the color of their skin and not by their character. The civil rights act, fair housing act, the equal employment opportunity program, and other similar laws and programs were biased in favor of Blacks and discriminated against Whites. They stripped Whites of rights and privileges while granting Blacks special rights and privileges.
    Chapter 2 begins with Gunnar Myrdal’s An American Dilemma and an overview of Negro slavery and the Negro in America up to 1960.
    Myrdal was a Swede and a Marxist economist and sociologist who despised the U.S. Constitution as it was a White man’s document. When ordering the integration of public schools, the U.S. Supreme Court relied on Myrdal’s work instead of the U.S. Constitution. In effect, it declared his work the supreme law of the land.
    Brink and Harris note that the first load of Negroes brought to Virginia in 1619 were “promptly sold into slavery” (p. 29). This is not true. As Francis Springer shows in War for What?, these Blacks became indentured servants like many Europeans who came to America to pay for their passage. They were treated the same as European indentured servants. When they had worked their time to pay for their passage and initial upkeep, they were set free. A Negro brought slavery to Virginia when he refused to let his Black indentured servant go free. He got the court to rule in his favor to bind the Black indentured servant to him for lifetime servitude.[1]
    Brink and Harris imply that Whites threw Blacks out of White churches (p. 33). This may be true of some Northern churches. In the South, most Negroes voluntarily left White churches. They wanted their own churches so that they could be independent of Whites. They realized that they could never be free and independent of White rule and oversight if they remained under White rule and oversight. Such independence and freedom require separation instead of integration. Most Black civil rights leaders either forgot or ignored this truism.
    Brink and Harris comment on DuBois and the founding of the NAACP (p. 35). They failed to mention that DuBois was the only Black involved in the founding of the NAACP. Nevertheless, they did note that he later left the NAACP and joined the Communist Party (p. 35). Although they identified the other founders as liberals, they failed to identify them as what they really were: radicals, socialists, and Communists. They do name some of the White founders: John Dewey (who destroyed education in the United States with his progressive education — Whites must be brought down to the Negro’s intellectual level), Jane Addams (who advocated diluting the electorate by forever expanding the privilege of voting and by that diluting the power of the electorate and making it irrelevant), and Lincoln Steffens (who was a journalist and a supporter of the Soviet Union) (p. 35).
    Brink and Harris comment on the great Negro migration from the South to urban areas in the North (p. 38). Much of the Northern support for the civil rights act and related laws resulted from the desire to keep the Negro in his place, i.e., in the South.
    Brink and Harris discuss the rise of black power and the rights and privileges that Blacks need to have to trump the rights and privileges of Whites (pp. 40-41). Under the Communist-led civil rights movement and the integrationist regime, just about every gain that the Negro has made has been at the expense of Whites. Most of what the Negro has received has been given to him by Whites, most of whom have Marxist leanings and all of whom are statist. For the most part, the Negro has not earned what he has received. The whole objective of the civil rights movement has been to increase the power of the federal government, that is, to increase the power of the ruling elite (globalists, one-worlders, heads of major foundations, international financiers, chief executives of multinational corporations, Zionist leaders, leaders of the occult, and other elitists) and to destroy America and the White race.
    Brink and Harris discuss the school integration issue and the slowness of integration (pp. 30-41). School integration ultimately rests on the theory that Negroes are so stupid and intellectually inferior that they are incapable of learning unless they are sitting next to an intellectually superior White student.  Somehow Blacks will absorb the superior intellectual genes of Whites by sitting next to them in the classroom. Also, proponents of school integration declare that Blacks are too stupid and incompetent to teach Black students unless White students are in the classroom to provide intelligence genes.
    Brink and Harris write, “The proliferation of Negro leadership organizations points up a significant fact of the Negro’s revolution, that it has lacked any clear-cut, centralized direction.” (p. 43). That is not exactly true. Behind the prominent civil rights organizations has been the Communist Party. Its control of the civil rights organizations and the civil rights movement has been mostly through fronts and sympathizers and fellow travelers instead of card-caring Communists although they have been heavily involved. Communists have controlled and guided King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and King’s front, the Students Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Likewise, Communists and Communist sympathizers and fellow travelers were heavily involved in the NAACP and Congress of Racial Equality (CORE).
    At least Brink and Harris comment on some of the victims of the “nonviolent” civil rights movement (pp. 43-47). However, like true integrationists, they blame the violence on Whites. All these violent outbursts and those that followed led cowardly Whites to surrender unconditionally to Black demands. Unfortunately, for Blacks in America, the unconditional surrender was not only to them. It was also to non-Whites across the globe.  This surrender has led to massive immigration of non-Whites, primarily Turanians (mostly East Asians and Latinos). To the Negro’s detriment, these Turanians hate Blacks more than the integrationist’s stereotypical Southerner ever did (few Southerners ever really hated Blacks; more Northerners hated Blacks than did Southerners). Moreover, these Turanians do not suffer White guilt and will never be made to feel guilty about their treatment (mistreatment) of Blacks. Once they reach critical mass, probably in less than 20 years, the Negro will look on the days of segregation and Jim Crow as a time of freedom, respect, and opportunity. The Turanians will suppress them to the lowest rung of society — perhaps even lower than they enjoyed under slavery.
    In Chapter 3, Brink and Harris discuss what it is like to be a Negro. Brink and Harris state, “Negroes believe whites don’t understand them, don’t understand what it is like to be discriminated against and segregated” (p. 48.). Southerners do have some idea of what it is like to be discriminated against. They have been discriminated against and belittled since 1865. Except Indians, they are the only group that the U.S. Constitution specifically denied the privilege of holding public office. (At least the Indians did not have to pay taxes.) Today, the Southerner is one of the few ethics that can be disparaged with impunity. Movie makers seem obliged to belittle and ridicule him as he is seldom presented positively. Like Whites in the North and West, he is also discriminated against in favor of non-Whites.
    Moreover, if a Southerner wants to know what it is like to be a second-class citizen, all he has to do is to read a pro-integration book written in the 1950s or 1960s: They all treat Southerners as second-class citizens and often worse.
    (I have had Blacks discriminate against me. Once, when my office took our secretaries to lunch to celebrate secretary’s day, I had a Black secretary. While returning to the office, my secretary and I stopped at an ice cream shop for ice cream. A Black woman was behind the counter. She gave my secretary two heaping scoops of ice cream and me, two puny scoops. Such discrimination did not humiliate me, make me feel like a second-class citizen, or drive me to protest.
    My wife experienced discrimination in the army. When a Black woman was placed in charge of a work detail, she gave the White women laborious and dirty jobs. She gave the Black woman easy jobs and minimal tasks — they mostly lofted.)
    Much of the poverty suffered by Negroes come from the radical Republicans’ (most radical Republicans were abolitionists) policies and programs to destroy the South during the War and Reconstruction. (Perhaps Southerners need civil rights for Southerners to preserve what remains of their culture, heritage, ethnicity, race, etc.) A major motivation behind the civil rights movement is to bring down the South and Southerners. It has been primarily a war against the South, although it quickly spread to Northern urban areas.
    How and why segregation made the Negro a second-class citizen and how and why integration ends this status is not fully explained. Regarding the Negro, Roy Innis did not see integration as elevating the Negro. He states, “Under segregation, black people live together but their institutions are controlled by whites. Under integration, black people are dispersed and the institutions, goods, and services are still controlled by whites. In effect, the two are the same. But under separatism, black people will control their own turf.”[2]
    Brink and Harris comment that Negroes believe that Whites consider Negroes worthless (p. 49). If true, the Negro is not going to overcome this problem by forced association. Force association creates resentment. More often than not, it reinforces the stereotype. The more a person associates with a group, the more likely he will find examples fitting the stereotype. Moreover, respect has to be earned; it cannot be forced or given. Until the Negro stands on his own in spite of real or perceived discrimination without any governmental aid, he cannot really be respected by himself or others. Innis seems to have realized this when he argued for separation. With separation and without any aid from Whitey, the Negro can prove that he can stand on his own and deserves the respect that he believes that he is entitled.
    Brink and Harris claim that Blacks in the military were degraded during World War II because far too many were relegated to engineering (road construction) and transportation (driving trucks and guarding airports) instead of being mortar meat in front-line combat units. Many Whites on the front line probably would have gladly traded places with these Blacks if given a choice.
    Judging by what Brink and Harris write in Chapter 3, the Negro’s self-esteem depends almost entirely on what Whites think of him and how they treat him. At least the Negro’s problem with self-esteem has been overcome. Blacks now have much more self-esteem than Whites, many of who loath and hate themselves.
    Brink and Harris claim that part of the cause of the Negro’s problem is that nearly half the Black married women worked while less than a third of White married women worked in 1960 (p. 51). The civil rights movement and accompanying programs have made this problem worse. More married women have been forced into the workforce to support the civil-rights welfare state. Also, most Black fathers have been driven from the home so that the government can support their children. Many of these absent fathers end up being supported in the prison system.  Thus, has the civil rights movement advanced the Black race.
      A typical excuse recorded by Brink and Harris for Blacks dropping out of high school is that “they feel they don’t have a chance, so why struggle? I got honors in high school, but I can’t get a decent job.” (p. 57). If Southerners had held this attitude after the devastation of the War and Reconstruction, the South today would be little more than a third-world country. Although Southerners took nearly a century to rebuild the South, they did so. If the South were an independent country, it would be one of the top-tier countries in the world. It rebuilt itself in spite of Yankee discrimination. It made its greatest strides during Yankee neglect. No Marshal Plan was available to rebuild the South. The Negro needs to look to himself and not to others.
    A major complaint of Blacks during the era of Brink and Harris’ writing was the poor education received by Blacks (pp. 56-58). The civil rights-integrationist movement has solved this problem by reducing the quality of public education for everyone. Now Blacks, White, and all others are poorly educated (but well indoctrinated). Most consider the generation of the founding fathers as the greatest generation ever produced in this country. Yet not one of them had a public education. Perhaps we should follow their example for education.
    In Chapter 4, Brink and Harris describe the weapons of the Negro Revolution. These weapons include riots, demonstration marches, picketing stores, boycotts, sit-ins, etc. They discuss the effects that the Freedom Rides and other demonstrations had on Negroes (pp. 66ff). Like most integrationists, Brink and Harris blame all the violence on Whites instead of the Black agitators seeking a violent reaction (p. 64). (One wonders how many federal agents and operatives had been implanted in White resistant groups to urge Whites to do what the integrationist provocateurs wanted: to react violently.)
    Brink and Harris describe Whites attacking Black Freedom Riders in Montgomery in 1961. They discuss CORE, which had organized the Freedom Riders (pp. 63-66). James Farmer was the national director of CORE then. A basic tactic was that Farmer and CORE threatened to bring violence to a community unless the community surrendered unconditionally to the demands of King and SCLC. (SNCC was also used to threaten violence unless the community surrendered unconditionally to King.)
    Like most integrationists, Brink and Harris declare the Negro demonstration to be nonviolent on the part of the Negro (pp.65-66). Whenever people deliberately undertake an action that they know will provoke a violent response, they are not completely innocent of the resulting violence.
    According to Brink and Harris, the Freedom Riders were trained to love those who attacked them (p. 65). If these Freedom Riders really loved their White attackers, they would have never knowingly created a situation to provoke Whites into attacking them.
    Brink and Harris remark that the civil rights movement taught Blacks that “going to jail is no longer shameful blot on their record; it has become a badge of honor” (p. 68). Perhaps this in part explains why so many Black men end up in prison. Going to prison is a badge of honor — a hangover from the glory days of the civil rights movement.
    Brink and Harris comment on Rosa Park being arrested for refusing to give up her bus seat to a White and the boycott that followed. They state that she was a seamstress (p. 70). However, they fail to mention that she was a Communist agent who had been trying to create an incident.
    In a sense, this boycott was a failure. It did not end the law that segregated seating on buses in Montgomery. White men on the U.S. Supreme Court ended it (p. 70).
    Brink and Harris do admit that the Negro is ready to use weapons to get what he wants (p. 71) — so much for nonviolence. As the years that followed show, the Negro was much more militant than Brink and Harris were ready to admit.
    Brink and Harris note that some Negroes felt “that the potential for violence lies chiefly in the South and will not be much of a factor in the North” (pp. 71-72). Were these Negroes wrong! The worst race riots inflicted on the country were outside the South. Most of these riots resulted in destructing Black neighborhoods and Black businesses — so much on teaching Whitey a lesson. Nevertheless, White taxpayers ended up paying for the reconstruction.
    Brink and Harris quote several Northern Negroes saying how much Southerners hated Blacks and wanted to kill Blacks. Some of those interviewed expressed hatred of Whites and Southerners in particular (p. 72). An irony of the civil rights movement is that race relations have generally been better in the South than in the North and West. That must be a great surprise to anti-Southerners.

Endnote

1.  Francis W. Springer, War for What? (Nashville, Tennessee: Bill Coats Ltd., 1990), pp. 8-9.

2. Francis X. Gannon, Biographical Dictionary of the Left, III (1972), p. 462.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2 

More articles on social issues.