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.

Israel Identity

Israel Identity

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Conservatives and Their Worship of Equality

Conservatives and Their Worship of Equality

Thomas Allen

Mainstream conservatives, establishment conservatives, neoconservatives, social justice conservatives, and their kindred (hereafter, referred to as “these conservatives”) dominate and control what now passes for “conservatism.” Anyone on the Right who dissents from their underlying philosophy of equality and democracy and their praise of Lincoln and the work of the Radical Republicans during Reconstruction — except to condemn the Radical Republicans for not finishing the task of genociding the Southerner — is ignored, purged, or deplatformed. Moreover, these conservatives are statists, centralists, and racial nihilist. They are the Girondists of the American political spectrum. Examples of these conservatives are Newt Gingrich, Jack Kemp, William Bennett, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, George Will, Karl Rove, William Kristol, and Harry Jaffa.

For these conservatives, equality is the higher law, to which even the Constitution is subordinate. (Using the higher-law argument, the abolitionists precipitated the Civil War, and the Radical Republicans destroyed the fundamental principles of the original Constitutions.) Equality governs all. It is the primary and essential principle of conservatism — the very essence of conservatism.

Many of these conservatives distinguish between the equality of rights and opportunity, which they claim to support, and equality of condition, which they claim to oppose. However, this distinction is sophistry. In this world, obtaining equality of rights, opportunity, and condition is impossible. Moreover, the demand for equal rights and especially equal opportunity naturally and eventually leads to the demand for equality of condition. (Equality of rights and opportunity can only be proven by equality of condition.)

Rejecting the notions that the United States are a genetic country, these conservatives support the notion that the United States are a propositional country. Their purpose is to spread equality and democracy throughout the world. (Like all statists and centralists, these conservatives refer to the United States in the singular, “the United States is” instead of the plural, “the United States are.” Consequently, they contradict the Founding Fathers and nearly all other Americans before the revolution of Lincoln and the Radical Republicans. The Founding Fathers and most other antebellum Americans referred to the United States in the plural.)

To these conservatives, the only clause in all the founding documents of any importance is the phrase “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence. This declaration of equality is the primary, if not the sole, reason and purpose for the existence of the United States. According to these conservatives, the purpose of America’s political founding was not the establishment of republican self-government. Instead, the purpose was the establishment of equality.

These conservatives fail to recognize the paradox and hypocrisy in praising the Founding Fathers, the original Constitution, and their philosophy of States’ rights (federalism, localism, and decentralization) while simultaneously praising Lincoln, who destroyed the Constitution and the Union formed by it with his war, and the Radical Republicans, who destroyed States’ rights with the fourteenth amendment.

For these conservatives, Lincoln is the divine lawgiver, who recalls the country to its providential mission of equality. Like Moses calling his people back to the worship of the true God, Lincoln called his wayward people back to their conventual promise of equality.

Equality has now evolved into diversity. Thus, every nonwhite in the world has an equal right to settle in the United States. Moreover, no White American has any moral or political right to prevent this racial and cultural transformation of their country.

Along with the worship of equality has come the elevation of Martin Luther King, a Communist frontman, to the Olympian of great conservative forefathers. Such an elevation of a Communist sympathizer may seem strange until one realizes that these conservatives have usurped nearly everything that King advocated.

An essential part of these conservatives’ program of sacrificing all on the altar of equality is the eradication of the traditional South. They thoroughly loathe the Antebellum South and everything related to the Confederacy. The South needs to be remade into an egalitarian society where Blacks and Whites can breed themselves out of existence. Moreover, the South needs to be fully purged of its sin of opposing the Puritan Yankee and his industrialization and globalization. Further, these conservatives see the Civil War (their term for the War for Southern Independence) and Reconstruction as a righteous cause well-worth the million-plus lives lost because of them. However, they bemoan the failure of Reconstruction to destroy completely the Southerner and his culture and ethnicity.

According to these conservatives, the War and Reconstruction were primarily, if not solely, about equality, democracy, and race. Economics, culture, religion, and other issues and differences were of little or no importance, except where they related to the sacred equality, democracy, and racial nihilism.

Most of these conservatives consider the traditional, pro-Confederate Southerner a greater threat to the country than the invading hordes of third-world nonwhites. To these conservatives, no differences exist between the South and Nazi Germany.

Opposed to these conservatives are the traditional Southern conservatives, who care little for abstract universals, such as equality. The traditional Southern conservatives do not reject the equal dignity of all human souls in a spiritual sense or to all being equal before the law. (Today, the United States have a two-tier justice system: one for the common man and one for the ruling elite and some of their agents.) However, they do oppose using governmental powers to obliterate social differences.

Joining the traditional Southern conservatives in their opposition to these conservatives are a few pariah conservatives. All these cast-off conservatives have one thing in common: They do not worship equality or Father Abraham. Moreover, they abhor the Radical Republicans and their reconstruction of the South. Instead, they continue to adhere to the original Constitution, and the traditions and founding principles of the United States.

Moreover, these conservatives defend the welfare state. However, these conservatives seek to manage the welfare state more efficiently than liberals, progressives, and socialists. Their worship of equality explains why these conservatives seek to make the welfare state of the liberals, progressives, and socialists operate more efficiently rather than dismantling it.

Furthermore, these conservatives favor foreign intervention and wars in the name of spreading equality and democracy. Even globalism grows out of their lust for equality — although globalism leads to a two-tier system: the global elite on top and the masses on the bottom, who are at least equally slaves of the elite.

Distinguishing between these conservatives and liberals, progressives, and socialists is often difficult. While giving lip service to the original Constitution, these conservatives praise the radical transformation that the Radical Republicans caused and that their descendants, the Progressives, enhanced and extended. By claiming equality as a conservative principle, even the guiding conservative principle, these conservatives stole the key ideology of the Left.

Like the liberals, progressives, and socialists, these conservatives adhere to the Robespierrean motto of “liberty, equality, fraternity.” Also, like the liberals, progressives, and socialists, these conservatives abhor the underlying principle of the American Revolution: “life, liberty, and property.” Like them, these conservatives prefer equality to liberty (because liberty creates inequality, equality and liberty are incompatible).

Most conservatives fall between these conservatives and their conservative opposition. They are the confused conservatives. Although most admire Lincoln, only a few admire the actions of the Radical Republicans during Reconstruction. Also, most esteem King highly. Moreover, most do not hate the South. After all, many are Southerners. While they oppose flooding the country with nonwhites, most tend to be racial nihilists. Although they object to nonwhites coming into the country illegally, few seem to have any objection to large numbers of nonwhites entering the country legally.  Most are not States’ rightists on principle. Unless the federal government opposes an issue that they support, most confused conservatives are centralists. Only when the federal government opposes their particular issue do they become States’ rightists. Furthermore, most confused conservatives confound liberty and freedom with democracy and equality — believing that they are essentially the same. Moreover, most lean toward the welfare state; rare is one who wants to dismantle it. For the most part, confused conservatives are more inclined to ally with these conservatives than with their opponents.

References
Gottfried, Paul. “From the Editor: Thoughts on Bradford v. Jaffa.” Chronicles, February 2020, pages 34-38.

McClanahan, Brion. “The Reinvention of Reconstruction.” Chronicles, February 2020, pages 31- 35.

Trask, H.A. Scott. “The Great Debate: Lincoln’s Legacy.” Chronicles, February 2020, pages 34-38.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Some Random Thoughts on Religion

Some Random Thoughts on Religion

Thomas Allen

Below the Bible is summarized in two sentences. Also discussed are two views of the Bible, the lack of clarity of the New Testament, the rapture, the sin of omission, the greatest sin, God’s love, hate, the love of money, Noah, and the wisdom of John (not the Biblical John). These are mostly observations.

The Bible in Two Sentences
The Bible is the story of God revealing Himself first through one biological race (or species of humans), the Aryan or White race, then through one family, Abraham through his grandson Jacob, which became the nation of Israel, and finally through one man, Jesus. All other nations and people mentioned in the Bible are merely a supporting cast in God’s process of revealing Himself through Jesus, His Messiah and Son.

Two Views of the Bible
Christians fall into two camps. One believes that anything that the Bible does not expressly forbid is allowed. In secular terms, they favor the Anglo-Saxon legal system: Anything that the government does not specifically prohibit is allowed, and a person is innocent until proven guilty.
The other camp believes that anything that the Bible does not command or expressly allow is forbidden. In secular terms, they favor the Napoleonic-civil-code legal system: Anything that the government does not specifically allow is prohibited, and a person is guilty until proven innocent. Of course, both camps hold that whatever the Bible commands is obligatory.

Lack of Clarity in the New Testament
The writers of the New Testament failed in writing with clarity. If their writing were clear, disagreement over various doctrines would be much less or nonexistent. Two examples illustrating the confusion that the unclear writing of the New Testament has caused are soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) and eschatology (the doctrine of the end of time, the Second Advent, and the final judgment).
First is salvation. Is salvation by predestination, faith only, faith plus works, or other means? All have their proponents who defined their doctrine with vigor. Further, some claim that once a person is saved, he cannot lose his salvation no matter what he later does. Yet, other claim that a saved person can lose his salvation. Moreover, disagreement occurs over the salvific effects of baptism, the proper form of baptism, and infant baptism.
Second is eschatology. There are several interpretations of Revelation: preterist, historical, apocalyptic, and futurist. Preterists interpret Revelation as describing the events taking place during the lifetime of John and in his environment (full preterists) or that most of these events occurred during the lifetime of John (partial preterists). Historicists interpret Revelation as revealing history from the time of Jesus until the Second Advent and beyond. Apocalypticist or idealists interpret Revelation as a religious philosophy of life.
Futurists interpret Revelation as describing the future, primarily the time immediately preceding the Second Advent and the millennium. Futurists fall into several camps: pretribulation (the rapture occurs before the seven years of tribulation), mid-tribulation (the rapture occurs in the middle of the tribulation), and post-tribulation (the rapture occurs at the end of the tribulation). Others teach that no rapture will occur. Also, there are premillennialists (Jesus’ Second Advent occurs before the  Millennium), post-millennialists (Jesus’ Second Advent occurs after the Millennium), and amillennialists (rejects the notion that Jesus physically rules on earth for a thousand years).
Does God enjoy watching men arguing about the correct interpretation of the Bible and even killing those who disagree with their interpretation? He must because He had His writers write with enough vagueness to cause bloody disputes. If that were not His purpose, He could have had His writers write with enough clarity to avoid such disputes.
Some old-time reform preachers declared that nothing brought God as much joy as tormenting sinners in Hell forever. They were wrong. God’s greatest joy seems to be watching His people arguing and fighting over what the Bible says.

Rapture
One thing is amusing about people who predict the date of the rapture, often down to the hour or minute. After the big day passes, the predictor finds that he is still on planet Earth. Immediately, he assumes that his calculation was wrong, and some redo the calculation. Never does it occur to the predictor that his calculation was correct — he was just among those left behind.
Another amusing thing about the rapture is the believers who sell all their property before the big day. Why? Do they plan to take the money with them? Do they plan to use the money for one big going away party?

Sin of Omission
Many clergymen teach the “sin of omission.” That is, if a person knows someone in need and he has the ability to help the needy person and does not, then he is guilty of the sin of omission. If true, then these clergymen have accused God of being the greatest sinner in the universe. Being omniscience God knows everyone’s needs. Being omnipotent, God has the ability to eliminate those needs. Since He does not (all the suffering in the world would immediately vanish if He did), God is guilty of the sin of omission. If these clergymen claim that God is not guilty of the sin of omission, then they hold their fellow man to a much higher standard than they hold God.
If the sin of omission exists, more evidence that God is the greatest sinner of all is natural disasters. Being omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, He can prevent them and all the heartache and destruction that such disasters bring people. If a human can prevent someone from suffering from a natural disaster and does not, would he be guilty of the sin of omission? If so, the clergyman who makes such a claim holds God to a much lower standard than he holds his fellow man.

The Greatest Sin
What is the greatest sin of all? It is a sin so great that God does not allow it to exist anywhere in the universe. This sin is unquestionable, unhesitating, and unadulterated cooperation from all deities, angelic and spiritual beings, people, animals, plants, weather, mother nature, machines, things, etc., etc., etc.

God’s Love
If earthly parents expressed their love for their children the way that the Heavenly Father expresses His love for His children, they would have their children taken from them because of their cruelty and abuse. Furthermore, the parents would spend the remainder of their lives in prison. To love their children the way that God loves His, parents would beat their children until they looked like roadkill. Then, they would expect their children to thank them for not making their lives more miserable. At least, this is the impression that many Christians give of God’s love.  (Notice how God’s love connects with the sin of omission and the sin of cooperation.)

Hate
Most clergymen teach that Christians should not hate. However, God hates. Should a Christian hate whatever and whomever God hates?

Love of Money
1 Timothy 6:10 reads, “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. . . .”  Except for misers, who really loves money per se? Nearly all who lust after money do not love money itself. They lust after money for what they can exchange it, i.e., for what they really desire: power, security, fame, lovers, big houses, fancy cars, status, etc. Money is just a means to an end.

Noah
I have concluded that Noah is the most selfish man in the Bible. He possessed not one altruistic bone in his body and only thought about saving his own scrawny hide. If he cared one bit about his decedents and fellow man, he would have refused to take black flies, fleas, ticks, mosquitoes, and all those other useless bloodsuckers on the ark.

Wisdom of John
I used to listen to a religious radio program hosted by John, whose last name I do recall and who died in 2012. He made two memorable comments. (1) He said that the quickest way to be thrown out of a church is to ask questions about its doctrine. (2) He was convinced that Christianity was the true religion because it has survived two thousand years of Christians.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Some Random Thoughts on Social Issues

Some Random Thoughts on Social Issues

Thomas Allen

Below a box of crayons is used to explain the difference between segregation and integration. Also, discussed are the praise of Blacks and women, the idea that all collectives are socialists at heart, Martin Luther King, the future of the American Negro, eugenics and dysgenics, and the rape of a transgender.

A Box of Crayons
A box of crayons contains unique colors: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple, etc. It is a representation of diversity.
A segregationist-separationist preserves the uniqueness of each crayon by keeping all the crayons apart. Although the segregationist-separationist has a reputation of animus for diversity, his policies preserve diversity by protecting the unique color of each crayon.
An integrationist-amalgamationist destroys the uniqueness of each crayon by mixing them together. Although the integrationist-amalgamationist has a reputation of adoration for diversity, his policies destroy diversity by reducing all colors to a monotonous oneness of motley gray.

Praising Blacks and Women
The way some people, especially White progressives, liberals, and Democrats (almost a redundancy, but not quite) fawn over Blacks and women for performing tasks that Blacks and women do not normally perform is insulting to Blacks and women. These people act as though Blacks and women are incapable, or at least have great difficulty in performing such tasks. Moreover, these people behave like people who see an animal performing tricks — especially tricks that are unusual. In short, these people degrade Blacks and women, while in their minds, they think that they are praising them. (Such sycophancy is especially noticeable during Black history month and women’s history month.)
Also, most of these people speak with a Janus-face — thus, showing their hypocrisy. With one face, they preach “judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” With the other face, they praise Blacks for performing tricks, tasks, that they seem to believe that Blacks are not capable of doing or do with great difficulty. They reveal this belief by the way that they emphasize that the person is Black. (Their view of women shows the same thing.)

Are All Collectivists Socialists?
Some claim that “racists,” nationalists, and others who believe that their membership in certain groups or collectives is important and valuable and that such collectives should be protected and preserved is a socialist at heart. They are all collectivists. Is this assertion true? Yes, they are collectivists, but their collectiveness is social and not economics. However, such collectivism does not make one a socialist.
For example, some people identify themselves as Americans and believe that the United States and Americans are important and should be protected and preserved. Consequently, they are collectives. According to the “all collectivists are socialist” proponents, Americans who believe that the United States and Americans are important and worthy of preservation are socialists. If true, how do the “all collectivists are socialist” proponents explain why the more socialist a person is, the less likely he is to believe that the United States and Americans are worth protecting and preserving?
Likewise, Christians who believe that Christianity is worthy of protection and preservation are collectivists. Are these Christians socialists? They are if the “all collectivists are socialist” proponents are correct. Yet, most socialists want to destroy true Christianity.
Furthermore, Blacks who believe that the Negro race and the American Negro are worthy of protection and preservation are collectives. Are these Blacks socialists? They are if the “all collectivists are socialist” proponents are correct. (If these Blacks truly believe that the American Negro and Negro race are worth saving, they would oppose miscegenation and interracial mating and support people of other races who also opposed interracial mating.) However, except as a tool to advance their Marxist agenda, most socialists do not care about the Negro race or the American Black.
Because one believes in noneconomic collectives, such as country, nation, religion, and race, does not mean that he believes in a collective economic system, such as socialism, fascism, and communism.

Martin Luther King
A liberal friend once told me that King’s assassination was the best thing that happened to him. Being assassinated, King died a martyr. If he had lived much longer, most people would have recognized him as the rabble-rouser, scumbag, and hustler that he really was. Instead, his martyrdom led to his deification, and now he is revered more than Jesus, the Son of God.
By 1968, the illuminists, ruling elite, insiders, establishment, or whatever one calls them knew that they had ridden the King horse as far as it could go. They concluded that King was more valuable dead than alive. Therefore, they sent out the word, most likely indirectly rather than directly, that King needed to die — and, thus, he was murdered. His death, they used to provoke race riots. Moreover, they martyred him and then deified him to bring down Jesus, the heart of Christianity, which they despised. Now, almost everyone, from the far right to the far left worships King.

The Future of the American Black
Why do common Blacks continue to follow their self-appointed leaders, who promote open borders and unlimited immigration? Is it because nearly all these immigrants (or, more correctly, colonists) are “people of color”? Do common Blacks believe that these “people of color” will support the cause and agenda of the Black man? If so, their ignorance deceives them.
Nearly all these people of color are from Latin America, East Asia (Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Filipinos), and the Indian Subcontinent (Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis). Rare is any of these people who care anything about Blacks. For the most part, they despise Blacks, and many consider them subhuman. Most esteem Blacks less than the stereotypical Klansman does. (Even the Melanochroi of the Horn of Africa and along the Sahara have an extremely low opinion of Negroes.) They only ally themselves with Blacks when convenient to advance their cause.
After they have driven the pariahlike White Americans into insignificance, one of these three major factions (Latinos, Asian Indians, and East Asians) will rule the territory of the former United States. Most likely, after the Whites are driven to the status of the American Indian, these three factions will divide the country among themselves — probably, after a bloody war. Regardless, the American Negro will fare far worse than the remnant of Whites.
Blacks cannot and will not cower and control any of these people of color with guilt as they do Whites with white guilt. Smearing these people of color with the accusation of “racism” will not work because, unlike most Whites, they are proud of their race and believe that it is the best. Unlike Whites, people of color are not cowardly wimps who despise their race and want it to vanish. Indeed, having race consciousness, they defend the interest of their race, which is why Blacks will fare poorly when the Latinos, East Asians, and Asian Indians take over the country.
The few surviving Blacks will look fondly at the good old days of Jim Crow when they were at least allowed on the bus. If Blacks want to see their future, they only need to look at Los Angeles, which is a paradise compared with what is coming.
If Blacks want to survive and prosper with a relatively high degree of freedom and prosperity, they need to jettison their self-appointed leaders and demand real immigration reform. They need to demand that no more “people of color” be allowed into the United States until the racial composition of 1920 is achieved. Hopefully, most Blacks will realize that being 10 percent of a White dominated country is better than being 1 percent of a non-White dominated country. Unfortunately, most will not — and, thus, they doom their race. (Ideally, Blacks would govern themselves in their own independent country.)

Eugenics or Dysgenics
During the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, eugenics rose in popularity. In the forefront of the eugenic movement were the progressives. With the rise of Hitler, eugenics began to fade, and dysgenics began to rise. Today, dysgenics has completely replaced eugenics.
Based on their words and actions, nearly everyone from one end of the political spectrum to the other, from the far right to the far left, prefers dysgenics to eugenics.
Gene pools of races, ethnicities, nationalities, and other groups are not static. They are either improving, eugenics, or disimproving, dysgenics.
Since 1930, both the United States government and State governments have adopted policies that promote dysgenics. That is, they have instituted programs that degrade the gene pools instead of improving them. Examples are the welfare state and civil rights.
The welfare state subsidizes people with low IQ having large families while penalizing families with moderate to high IQ by requiring them to support not only their own families, but also the families of low IQ people. Generally, low IQ families are larger than high IQ families. Thus, low IQ people are out breeding high IQ people. Low IQ people are also out breeding even moderate IQ people, who have even more difficulty than high IQ people, in supporting two families: their own and that of a low IQ person.
Civil rights promote miscegenation, which degrades the gene pools of both the White race and the Black race. In reality, from the progressive’s perspective, miscegenation is a covert form of eugenics for the Negro race because progressives believe that the Negro race can only be improved by a large infusion of White genes, which cause Blacks to cease being Blacks. More important, progressives see miscegenation leading to the destruction of the White gene pool, which is dysgenics, and will eventually kill the White race. As most progressives intensely hate the White race, they support the genocide of the White race, although most progressives are White. Unlike the progressives of the early twentieth century, who promoted eugenics, the progressives of the early twenty-first century promote dysgenics, and so do most conservatives and libertarians.

Raping a Transgender
Can a man rape a man who claims to be a woman without the rape being a homosexual rape? Would such an attack be more hideous than raping a real woman? After all, the attack is against a person with a double privilege status: female and transgender (triple, if the transgender is Black; quadruple, if a Hispanic; and quintuple, if also handicapped). On the other hand, would such an attack be considered a badge of honor for the victim because he has convincingly passed as a “she”?

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

COVID-19 — The Political Virus

COVID-19 — The Political Virus

Thomas Allen

COVID-19 is not a biological virus: It is a political virus. It is being used to destroy the country by destroying its economy, and, by that, to bring down President Trump and especially the deplorables who support him.

Even worse, the Chinese Virus is being used to destroy the Bill of Rights. Political leaders and their owners are attempting to use this plandemic to establish a tyrannical, despotic regime modeled after Communist China — with the Democrats and their masters in charge.

As one commentator notes, if Trump wins the presidential election, the Chinese Virus will be attacking us until January 2025. However, if a Democrat wins, the Chinese Virus will vanish by January 2021.

Democrats like to present themselves as the party of the little guy. Only they care about him. Yet, they declare many little guys nonessential, that is, they are unnecessary. To Democrats, barbers, hairdressers, waitresses, bartenders, sales clerks, and many more little guys are nonessential and, therefore, of no importance.

Moreover, the Democratic party claims to be the party of the blue-collar worker and the union man. Yet, it declares many of their jobs nonessential, i.e., not necessary for the economy. Its deliberate destruction of the economy has caused many of these people to lose their jobs permanently.

President Trump and many of his supports are predicting a rapidly growing economy before the end of 2021. Others are expecting that the recovery of the economy will take years.

If the nonessential federal agencies and their programs were abolished, i.e., if 80 percent or more of the US government were abolished, the economy could recover within 18 months. Moreover, the world would witness an economic boom the likes of which has never been witnessed.

Unfortunately, the US government will follow the precedent of Presidents Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt and try to micromanage the economic recovery. (Yet, Hoover and Roosevelt managed to turn an economic downturn that would have ended by 1931 into a depression that did not end until 1946.) Thus, recovering from for the COVID-19 economic destruction will take years, if not a decade or more.

Worse than the deliberate destruction of the economy is the deliberate destruction of the Bill of Rights. Most political leaders took an oath to protect and uphold the US Constitution of which the Bill of Rights is the most important part. Nevertheless, most of these same political leaders have gone out of their way to violate their oath by destroying the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights prohibits governmental interference with the exercise of religion. Yet, most governors have dictated how religious services are to be exercised. Some have even prohibited religious gatherings and even baptismal ceremonies. What is even more reprehensible is that most religious leaders have not protested this destruction of religious liberty. Likewise, most Christians have cowed before the tyrants with hardly an objection. Muslims have been far bolder in defending their religious practices than have Christians.

Fortunately, a few brave pastors have rebelled against the megalomaniac political leaders and have held religious services in violation of the governor’s or mayor’s ukase — although most of these were outside the church building. Moreover, some Christians have protested the destruction of religious liberty. Regrettably, most have not.

Likewise, the political leaders have destroyed the freedom of assembly by limiting the size of gatherings to some arbitrary number that has no basis in science. Again, protests against this loss of liberty have been scant. At least, some young people are beginning to gather at beaches and without contracting the Chinese Virus, as political leaders and presstitutes claimed would happen. (If any had contracted the Chinese Virus, the presstitutes would have made it headline news for weeks.)

Furthermore, political leaders have interfered with the right of assembly with the infamous six-foot spacing rule. Where is the science that shows that 183 centimeters (about 6 feet) is safe, but at 180 centimeters, one is at high risk of contracting or transmitting the Chinese Virus? (In Germany, safe social distancing is 150 centimeters. The World Health Organization’s recommendation is 100 centimeters. What is the safe distance? Moreover, is the real objective behind social distancing to prevent Trump rallies?)

Besides freedom of religion and freedom of assembly, political leaders have violated many other provisions of the Bill of Rights. For example, they have violated the due-process clause and the taking-without-compensation clause.

Since World War II, two pandemics hit the United States harder than has the Chinese Virus. They were the Asian Flu (a.k.a. H2N2 or influenza A) and the Hong Kong Flu (a.k.a. H3N2).

The Asian Flu appeared in the United States in 1957. By the time it departed, it had killed about 116,000 people in the United States. Fatalities per million people from the Asian Flu were 674. (Fatalities per million people from the Chinese Virus  are about 225, and this is an overstatement because the deaths from the Chinese Virus are overstated.)

The Hong Kong Flu appeared in the United States in December 1968. When it left the following year, it had killed about 100,000 people in the United States. Fatalities per million people from the Hong Kong Flu were 500.

As with the Chinese Viruses, most of the people who died of Asian and Hong Kong flues were elderly, especially those with heart or lung disease. Both flues killed many more people per capita than has the Chinese Virus. Yet, unlike today, political leaders did not shut down their economies — business continued as usual. Even the Woodstock concert with more than 400,000 attendees was held in August 1969. Further, political leaders did not destroy the Bill of Rights by banning crowds and restricting religious practices.  (Before one claims that the lower number of deaths from the Chinese Virus is the result of the shutdown, he should remember that the proponents of the shutdown claimed that it would not reduce the number of deaths; it would merely spread those deaths over a longer period.)

Moreover, the press did not spend 24-hours per day terrorizing the people into hysteria. Instead, they sought to calm them and instruct them in basic hygiene. Also, unlike today, people did not seek a political solution to a medical problem.

The official COVID-19 deaths include pneumonia, influenza, and the Chinese Virus. Of these deaths credited to COVID-19, COVID-19 accounts for only about a fifth of them. Even this number is too high because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) encourages hospitals and doctors to overreport COVID-19 deaths by paying them more for COVID-19 patients and deaths. Moreover, with some hospitals facing bankruptcy because they can on longer do so-called elective surgery (surgery that is scheduled, such as removing kidney stones or nonemergency heart surgery), which accounts for most of the revenue of many hospitals, they overreport COVID-19 patients and deaths to stave off bankruptcy.

At least one good thing has come from this political war against the Chinese Virus, and that has been closing schools. However, not only do children not transmit the Chinese Virus, they have a low probability of becoming ill from the disease and even much less chance of dying from it. Consequently, closing schools was unnecessary. Nevertheless, closing schools has been one of the few good things to come from this plandemic. It has shown that expensive school buildings and busing are unnecessary. Most important, it has separate students from their indoctrinators, and, thus, making their socialistic indoctrination more difficult.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, the godfather of today’s liberal Democrats, said, “Only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Based on their actions, most Democrats and many Republicans have ignored Roosevelt. Fear leads them. Moreover, they have let political leaders and presstitutes terrorize them into total hysteria. Fear has become their god. As a result, most will have to learn to live in poverty, and all will have to learn to live in a tyrannical police state.

Appendix: Governor Cuomo of New York
To Governor Cuomo of New York goes the ignominy of the most despicable and reprehensible action taken during this Chinese Virus plandemic. Forcing nursing homes and kindred facilities to accept people known to be infected with COVID-19, he has greatly increased death from COVID-19. Thus, he has deliberately and knowingly exposed people who are the most vulnerable to COVID-19 and most likely to die of it to the Chinese Virus. He is responsible for their death and their blood is on his hand. He should be executed for murder. If Dante’s Inferno, is ever rewritten, it will have to have a special place in hell for Cuomo, which is below that of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Likewise, Michigan’s Governor Gretchen Whitmer deserves to be burning beside Cuomo for the same crime of forcing nursing homes to accept people infected with the Chinese Virus.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Some Random Thoughts on Political Issues

Some Random Thoughts on Political Issues

Thomas Allen

An explanation of how we got to where we are is summarized. Also, discussed are the beginnings of progressivism, compromise, socialist compassion, discrimination, education, forced vaccination, sanctuary cities, mental health and guns, and protective tariffs and piety.

How We Got to Where We Are
Augustine of Hippo, who was a father of Roman Catholicism, begot Calvin and Calvinism, who begot the Puritans of England. From the Puritans of England  came the Puritans of New England .

     In A History of the Christian Church (1870), Dr. Charles Hase describes the Puritans of England as follows: “In their morals and manners they were eminently pious, they looked upon all earthly pleasures as sinful, their own fancies were regarded as divine inspirations, and they thought that the state itself should be subject to their democratic hierarchy.” This description fits the Liberal Democrat of today, except what was considered pleasures then differs some from what is considered pleasures today.
The Puritan of New England begot the Yankee, who begot the abolitionist, who begot the Radical Republican, who begot the Progressive, who begot the Liberal Democrat. Augustine and all his philosophical and religious descendants to this day know how people ought to live, and they are determined to do everything in their power to make them live that way. Their god may differ, but their religiosity is the same. These are the people who have been controlling the country since 1860.

Progressivism: Its Beginnings
Progressivism began in the Washington administration with the struggle between the Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians. The Hamiltonians captured the Federalist party and imposed its version of progressivism with the First Bank of the United States being one of its gems. The Jeffersonians eventually drove the Hamiltonians from power, and the Federalist party died. Later, the Hamiltonians organized the Whig party whose version of progressivism included a central bank, high protective tariffs, and federally financed internal improvements. Finally, the Whigs amalgamated with several smaller parties to form the Republican party. Afterward, the Republican party put that great progressive Abraham Lincoln in office. Lincoln’s version of progressivism included driving the Southern States out of the union with the highest protective tariffs that the United States had endured to that time. Then, he denied the Southern States their right to secede and warred against them. To do this, he destroyed the Constitution. His war against the Constitution was so successful that the country has never recovered from it. When Woodrow Wilson entered office, he implemented his version of progressivism. Since then both the Democratic and Republican parties have been advocates of the Hamiltonian philosophy and progressivism.

Compromise Washington Style
The following is an example of what passes for compromise in Washington. Politicians who want to remove the people’s ability to defend themselves from despotic government propose to limit the capacity of magazines for semiautomatic rifles, which they erroneously call assault weapons, to ten rounds. Eventually, a “compromise” is reached with those who wanted no restriction. Finally, a restriction of 15 rounds is adopted. (One of my bosses said that he always asked for more than he wanted so that he could “compromise” back to what he really wanted.) The side that wanted a restriction has won; they gained a restriction. Conversely, the side that wanted no restriction has lost; they gained nothing.
With a true compromise, both sides receive something. For example, in exchange for limiting the size of a magazine, the restriction requiring the purchase of a mail-order firearm through a licensed dealer is removed.
As the above example shows in the first paragraph, O’Sullivan’s Law rules Washington. According to O’Sullivan’s Law, any organization that is not expressly right-wing will become left-wing over time. Thus, the United States government has implemented about 80 percent of the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto.
O’Sullivan’s Law is also revealed in what now passes as a “moderate.” Since the beginning of the progressive era, moderates have been drifting leftward politically, socially, and economically. Today, what is considered a moderate would have been considered a borderline communist fifty years ago.

Socialist Compassion
Socialists present themselves as compassionate — the ones who truly care about the common man and the little guy. Yet, the socialist president of Venezuela refused to allow food into the country for the starving masses, after he and the previous socialist president had destroyed the country with socialism. He proves that socialists care nothing for the common man and the little guy. Socialists just lust for power and want to control the common people and treat them worse than cattle. (At least they feed the cattle to keep them fat for the slaughter.) Of course, if anyone with a functioning brain cell would look at the best-known socialists of the twentieth century, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler, he would see the real compassion that socialists have for the common man and the little guy.

Discrimination
Today, people are allowed and even obligated to discriminate against two ethnicities. They are the Southerner and the Palestinian. At least, so far, the Southerner has not been dehumanized to the level of the Palestinian. Just as the British hunted and killed Tasmanians with impunity, Israelis can hunt and kill Palestinians with impunity.

Education
All politicians say that they favor education and want to improve public education. If they were honest, they would use the phrase “government schools” instead of “public education.”
How do they want to improve government schools? Do they want to make them better at indoctrinating pupils and teaching them what to think, which is what government schools currently do? Or, do they want to make them educate pupils and teach them how to think?
One can easily tell where a candidate stands. If he wants to spend more money on the current system, he favors indoctrination and the continuation of dumbing down pupils. However, if he proposes prohibiting all the school systems in the State from accepting federal funds and using any material or books offered or recommended by the US Department of Education, he favors educating and teaching pupils how to think critically.
Nevertheless, the public school system cannot be reformed because it is socialistic. Being socialistic, it breeds scarcity and mediocrity. It is the government telling parents where, how, and what their children’s minds are to be fed. Moreover, it is based on the premise that children belong to the government, and parents merely provide for the physical care of the government’s property.
About the governmental (public) school system, which the Puritans originated in the United States, James A. Bayard writes that “the Yankee school system . . . may stimulate the brain but it ignores man’s moral nature and produces discontent with their condition among the masses. God help the country in which the masses are merely stimulated and trained to act in combinations which are always, sooner or later, controlled by demagogues.”

Forced Vaccination
Pro-abortionists should be at the forefront of protesting against forced vaccinations — if they are consistent and not hypocrites. They argue that women should have control of their bodies. Therefore, the government should not tell women what they have to do with their bodies. However, forced vaccination is based on the premise that the government can tell women what they must do with their bodies: receive a vaccine injection, i.e., receive an injection of such toxins as mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde (embalming fluid), propylene glycol (antifreeze), nagalase (prevents the body from killing cancer cells and strongly associated with autism [http://www.thebigriddle.com/2015/12/ murdered-holistic-doctors-discovered.html]), and cells of aborted babies. Of course, they probably do not mind ejecting people with aborted baby cells. Since pro-abortionists grew out of the culture of death and since many pro-abortionists favor forced vaccination, they must expect vaccinations to be more harmful than beneficial.
Most of those who favor forcing all American children to be vaccinated favor open borders. As a result of the mass immigration of illegal aliens, unvaccinated people carrying all sorts of contagious diseases, are flooding the country. One would think that these forced-vaccination people would be at the forefront in demanding that all immigrants be coerced into taking the 36 plus vaccines that they want to force American children to take, before entering the country.
If vaccines are safe and effective, why has Congress prohibited people from suing vaccine manufacturers for injuries caused by vaccines? Moreover, why is information exposing the dangers and the ineffectiveness of vaccines being suppressed? Also, why do people whose children have been vaccinated fear their children playing with children who have not been vaccinated? Should not the vaccine protect their children from unvaccinated children if it is effective?

Sanctuary Cities
Anyone who opposes sanctuary cities would, if he is consistent, have opposed cities and counties of the 1850s refusing to aid the US government in enforcing fugitive slave laws. Both are philosophically the same. Under both, local governments attempt to nullify a federal law.
Unlike their State governments, local governments have no legal or lawful authority to nullify a federal law unless their States have given them that authority. Being the creation of their State, local governments can only do what their State allows and must do as their State directs. Likewise, the States created the U.S. government; therefore, they have the right and duty to judge for themselves, acting independently and individually, whether the U.S. government has exceeded its authority. Thus, a State may nullify a federal law, as it applies in that State, that it decides is unconstitutional. A local government cannot nullify a federal law unless its creator State authorized it to do so.

Mental Health and Guns
On a talk radio show some years ago, the host and his guest were discussing mental health. They wondered why so many people did not seek professional help for their mental problems. While I was listening, they failed to mention one major reason. What was this major reason that they did not mention? Unlike being diagnosed with diabetes or heart problems, when one is diagnosed with mental problems, he is at a high risk of losing his constitutionally guaranteed inalienable right to own firearms — usually, forever.

Protection Tariffs and Piety
Following are some comments on “Protectionism as a Path to Piety” by John Howting that appears in the May 2019 issue of Chronicles. Mr. Howting asserts, or at least appears to assert, that protective tariffs are acts of piety.
Where is the justice in the politically powerful forcing, ultimately under the penalty of death, the politically weak to subsidize the politically powerful, which is what a protective tariff does? Protective tariffs require politicians to pick winners and losers. When have politicians excelled at this job? They will always side with the politically powerful.
How is forcing someone, the weak, to support another, the strong, which is what a protective tariff does, piety? Furthermore, is not forcing someone to pay more for products protected by tariffs somewhat impious?
How does a protective tariff today honor one’s ancestors from 200, 400, or 800 years ago? Moreover, how does a protective tariff today, even honor one’s parents who are dead? How do one’s children honor their parents by paying tribute to the politically powerful?
If protective tariffs promote piety, would not outlawing grocery stores, butcher shops, farmers’ markets, and the like and requiring every family to raise its own food promote piety even more? Would not this be the ultimate in piety as Mr. Howting describes piety?
Would not the piety that Mr. Howting describes be best achieved and can only be achieved when people are convinced to buy locally produced products, even if they cost more and are poorer quality, than to import them from other countries or even other States?
[Editor’s note: Mr. Howting wrote a formal response to this letter. His response was in the July 2019 issue of Chronicles.]

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.