The Soul

The Soul

Thomas Allen

Is the human soul immortal or mortal? Does the soul continue to exist consciously after the body dies? Or, does it die when the body dies?

There are two views of the nature of man. One is the dualistic view, which is the popular Christian view and the pagan view. The other is the holistic view, which is the Hebrew and Biblical view.

Greek, Egyptian, and other pagan philosophers claim that the soul is immortal and continuous a conscious existence after the body dies. According to the pagan Greeks, the soul is trapped in a material body. When the body dies, the soul is liberated and continuous a conscious existence elsewhere because the soul is immortal and, therefore, indestructible. Consequently, a person cannot really die; he merely transitions to another form. Death is merely the separation of the soul and the body.

The Hebrews claim that the soul is mortal and dies with the body — that is, its conscious existence ends with the death of the body. Since the soul animates the body, it dies (ceases to have consciousness) when the body dies; it not a distinct substance. When the body dies, the soul ceases its function of the animating life-principle of the body, and, therefore, it also dies. Furthermore, according to the Hebrews, the soul and body are an indissoluble unit. Moreover, man does not have a soul; he is a soul.

While the pagans teach a dualistic nature of man (the soul is immortal and the body is mortal), the Hebrews in the Old Testament teach a holistic view (both the soul and body are mortal). The pagan view asserts that the body, which is mortal, and the soul, which is immortal, are two different substances that coexist within one human being. Nevertheless, they are two characteristics of the same person. Thus, human nature consists of two entities (a body and a soul) that function independently — the dualistic view of man.

Contrasting with the pagan idea is the Hebrew. The Hebrew idea is that of an animated body, and the soul animates the body. When one dies, the other also dies. Both the body and the soul are mortal. Consequently, human nature is an indissoluble unity where the body and soul are different aspects of the same person — the holistic view of man.

For the Hebrews of the Old Testament and the early Christians of the New Testament, immortality is a gift from God given at the resurrection. Immortality is not an innate human possession as the pagans and orthodox Christians teach.

Tertullian and Origen introduce the Greek notion of an immoral soul into Christianity. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas expounded this pagan dualistic view of human nature. Consequently, the pagan dualistic concept of man became the orthodox Christian doctrine.

During the Reformation, Calvin, Luther, and most other Protestant leaders maintained that the soul was immortal. According to Calvin and Augustine, when the body dies, the souls of believers enjoy blessings in heaven while the souls of unbelievers suffer torments in hell. (However, the Anabaptists preached the Hebrew holistic concept of the soul, i.e., the soul is mortal and ceases conscious existence when the body dies.)

Adherents of the pagan dualistic nature of man believe that death is the separation of the immortal soul from the mortal body. At the resurrection, the immortal soul is reunited with the body. Today, most Christians believe in this dualistic doctrine.

Conversely, adherents of the Hebrew holistic nature of man believe the soul like the body is mortal and, therefore, dies with the body. At the resurrection, the whole person, body and soul, is resurrected.

What Is the Soul?

What is the soul? The soul is the life-giving force; it is man’s consciousness and awareness. Consequently, the soul is that part of a being that interprets the outside world through the senses. It interprets what one sees, hears, tastes, smells, and feels. Therefore, the soul and not the brain is what sees, hears, tastes, smells, and feels. It is what perceives and evaluates. (Further, the soul is what gives all living creatures their life, consciousness, and awareness.  Consequently, all animals, plants, fungi, protists, and monerans have souls.)

Moreover, the soul is the seat of one’s emotions, personality, intellect, and memory. As such, it is what makes a human being human. It is that part of a person that believes, decides, reasons, judges, rejoices, sorrows, loves, hates, doubts, and the like. Furthermore, from the soul come man’s moral and religious attributes.

The soul is the mind as opposed to the brain. (Some theologians claim that the spirit of man is the mind instead of the soul. [See the last paragraph for a discussion on the spirit of man.]) Through the soul does a person perceive and understand the material world. However, the soul does not reside in the brain and has no corporal nature. On the contrary, the soul is distinct from and independent of the brain.

Although signals received from the senses are analyzed in the brain, the soul is what understands and gives this information meaning and significance. The brain merely serves as a vehicle delivering information to the soul. The soul observes and interprets the information formed in the brain.

The existence of the soul refutes materialism, and, therefore, it repudiates Darwinism and evolution. Materialists believe that the movement of chemicals in the brain controls a person’s thoughts, emotions, and actions. Blind, unconscious atoms and electrical signals cannot be the source of awareness, perception, thought, beliefs, emotions, and the like.

Some theologians distinguish between the soul of man and the spirit of man. For these theologians, the soul of man is identified with the secular exercise of an individual. The spirit of man is that part of human nature that allies with God. Also, some identify the spirit of man as what makes man a rational being. However, many treat the soul and the spirit as two names for the same entity. This article does not distinguish between the two.

Reference

Bacchiocchi, Samuele. Popular Beliefs: Are They Biblical? Berrien Springs Michigan: Biblical Perspectives, 2008.

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

Douglas, J.D. et al., editors. The New Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids: Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

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

Martin, William C. The Layman’s Bible Encyclopedia. Nashville, Tennessee: The Southwest Company, 1964.

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

Yahya, Harun (Adnan Oktar). Darwin’s Dilemma the Soul. First English edition. Editor Tam Mossman. Translator Carl Nino Rossini. Istanbul, Turkey: Global Publishing, 2008.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

 

Gutzman on the Constitution

 Gutzman on the Constitution

Thomas Allen

In The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to the Constitution (2007), Kevin Gutzman provides some interesting information related to the US Constitution. Some of this information follows.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” appears in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Most people believe that this phrase means various types of homicides and thefts and other indictable crimes. It does mean these things, but it also means more than these.

When the States ratified the Constitution, this phrase was understood to cover physical disability and mental and psychological impairment. However, the complete meaning of this phrase was forgotten, and it became limited to indictable crimes and petty corruption. Consequently, the impeachment process has become a highly ineffective means to remove judges and other civil officers from office. (The twenty-fifth amendment establishes a procedure for removing the president, but not other civil officers or judges, from office because of physical disability and mental impairment.)

Vetoing State Laws. The Constitutional Convention rejected giving Congress the power to veto State laws, which implied that the judiciary, which is the least responsible institution of the federal government, also lacks such power. However, the US Supreme Court soon usurped this power. 

First, it used the Contract Clause (Article I, Section 10: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . . .”). The purpose of the Contract Clause was to prohibit States from adopting laws preventing lenders from collecting debts for a stated period. This clause was not intended to prohibit States from enacting economic regulations. However, federal courts have used it to veto State laws that regulated the economy.

About 130 years later, the Supreme Court replaced the Contract Clause with the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”) to veto State laws that the Supreme Court did not like.

After World War II, the Supreme Court began using the Incorporation Doctrine (applying the first nine amendments, the Bill of Rights, to the States) to veto State laws that it did not like.

(Federal courts seldom veto State laws because they are unconstitutional; most are constitutional under the original intent of the Constitution. Federal judges veto State laws because they do not like them; they conflict with the personal prejudices, preferences, and biases of the judge.)

Eleventh Amendment. The purpose of the eleventh amendment is to reassert the independence, sovereignty, and supremacy of the States. Specifically, it denies federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits initiated against a State by a citizen of another State or country.

Its original intent was to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts to those specifically named Article III. The Supreme Court has circumvented the intent of the eleventh amendment by allowing people to sue State officials who carry out the policies of the State in lieu of the State itself.

Two Views of the Nature of the Law. Gutzman describes two views of the nature of the law: Thomas Jefferson’s and John Marshall’s, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (1801–1835). “For Jefferson, law was the framework of rules by which the people agreed to be governed; a judge's role was simply to apply the clear meaning and original understanding of the Constitution (or other legal document)” (p. 98). Jefferson’s view is republican in nature.

However, Marshall believed “that law required judges who could see beyond the written law to the ‘natural law’ that was superior to it” (p.98). (Abolitionists also claimed that natural law as they interpreted it was superior to the Constitution and all other laws.) Marshall’s view is aristocratic and clerical in nature. The fatal flow of Marshall’s view is that “no two men agreed about the particulars of the ‘natural law’; instead, they tended to use ‘natural law’ as a justification for their own policy preferences” (pp. 98-99).

Two Types of Due Process. The Supreme Court has created two types of due process: “procedural due process” and “substantive due process.” Due process appears twice in the Constitution: once in the fifth amendment and once in the fourteenth amendment. Due process as used in the Constitution is procedural due process (according to pre-established procedures). Substantive due process is used as an excuse for judicial usurpation. (Substantive due process is the doctrine that legislation is needed to carry out fairly due process in the fifth and fourteenth amendments.) When the Supreme Court legislates under the banner of due process, it is using substantive due process.

Gutzman’s The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to the Constitution is an excellent book on the Constitution. He focuses on how the Supreme Court has subverted the original intent of the Constitution, has usurped the legislative authority of Congress and the States, and has prohibited authorities of the States that the Constitution allows.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen

More political articles.

Some Comments on Blacks

Some Comments on Blacks

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

COVID-19 and Its So-Called Vaccine

 COVID-19 and Its So-Called Vaccine

Thomas Allen

The following discusses whom to trust; the benefits, safety, effectiveness, and necessity of the COVID-19 vaccines; and masks.

Whom Are You to Believe

Whom are you going to believe about the COVID-19 gene-therapy drugs erroneously called vaccines? Are you going to believe known liars who relentlessly push the vaccines and who benefit financially and otherwise from people being vaccinated? Or, are you going to believe people not known as liars who have nothing to gain from opposing the vaccines except condemnation, ostracism, and unemployment? While the drug pushers lust for power, wealth, and death, the opponents of these drugs only want to save people’s lives.

Who Benefits from the So-Called Vaccines and Who Does Not

Three major factions are behind pushing the so-called COVID vaccines. They are big pharma, governments, and population reductionists.

Money drives big pharma to push these gene-therapy drugs. It makes a great deal of money selling these drugs. More importantly, it stands to make even more money selling drugs to treat people whom these gene-therapy drugs have maimed.

Power drives governments to push these gene-therapy drugs. Governments stand to gain a great deal more power over the people with vaccine passports, forced vaccinations, and the like.

Narcissism and hatred drive the reductionists. Their narcissism and hatred of others drive them to cull the herd. They hope that these gene-therapy drugs will kill billions of people in the next few years.

The goals of big pharma and the reductionists seem to conflict. Big pharma wants a large number of sick people to whom to sell their drugs. On the other hand, the reductionists want dead people as long as they are not among the dead. Maybe, they have compromised and have designed the vaccines to sterilize people and to maim people with debilitating diseases for several years before they die.

Who does not benefit from these so-called vaccines? People who have received the shot. They risk a shortened life span and the deleterious effects from the shot.

Beneath the level in Dante’s hell where the likes of Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, and Hitler reside will be the presstitutes, politicians, and health officials who have vigorously promoted these so-called COVID vaccines while suppressing the truth about them.

Safe and Effective

Contrary to the government’s, medical industry’s, and presstitute’s false indoctrinating propaganda, these so-called COVID vaccines are neither safe nor effective. Proving that these so-called vaccines are not safe is that more people have died of these vaccines than of all the other vaccines administered over the last 50 years. When corrected for the underreporting of deaths, between 90,000 and 900,000 people have died in the United States of the so-called COVID vaccines. (When corrected for overreporting, about 63,000 have died of COVID-19 in the United States. Additionally, less than 12 percent of the population has tested positive for COVID-19, and of these about 0.2 percent actually had COVID-19.) 

Further, if these so-called vaccines were effective, vaccinated people would not be contracting the virus in such large numbers that the vaccinated people are now being forced to wear masks. Moreover, if these vaccines were effective, vaccinated people would not be contracting the virus in ever-growing numbers.

Also, if vaccinated people thought that these vaccines were effective, they would not fear the unvaccinated. Yet, many vaccinated fear that the unvaccinated will inflect them with the coronavirus. On the contrary, the vaccinated are more likely to contract the virus from the vaccinated than they are from the unvaccinated. Likewise, the unvaccinated are more likely to contract the virus from the vaccinated than they are from the unvaccinated. Generally, the viral load of vaccinated individuals is much higher than that of the unvaccinated, and vaccinated people are known to spread the virus. Furthermore, some (many, most?) of the vaccinated may have gotten their infection from their own bodies.

Contrary to the propaganda, getting the coronavirus from unvaccinated people is highly unlikely. As the almost ten-million-person-Wuhan study shows, asymptomatic unvaccinated people do not transmit the virus even if they are infected. (Only a racist Sinophobe would disagree with this study.)

Is the Vaccine Needed

Is a vaccine even needed? No, a vaccine is not needed because 98 to 99 percent of the infected recover from the disease, and only about 15 percent of the infected have serious issues with the disease. Moreover, a large percentage of the population is protected from the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 because of the immunity they have acquired from previous coronavirus infections. Also, several highly effective and safe treatments are available to treat those who become ill. However, governments, big pharma, and their presstitute collaborators suppress these effective treatments.

Thus, the so-called COVID vaccines are not needed, not safe, and not effective. Moreover, being around unvaccinated who are not showing symptoms of COVID-19 is far safer than being around vaccinated individuals.

The Difference Between the Forced Vaccinators and Their Opponents

Forced vaccinators want to coerce everyone to be vaccinated — especially people who do not want to be vaccinated. Like all good Puritans, forced vaccinators have seen the light. With their inter voice guiding them, forced vaccinators seek to inject their poisonous vaccines in all. Of course, they claim that they are doing it for the good of the victims. If a victim resists, then the victim is selfish for not wanting to sacrifice his life and the lives of his family to satisfy  power-hungry, micromanaging, narcissistic, selfish Puritans in their lust for power.

On the other hand, people who oppose the agenda of the forced vaccinators are altruistic. They preach freedom of choice: Individuals should choose whether to be vaccinated. (If the vaccines work, the vaccinated have nothing to fear from the unvaccinated.) Vaccination opponents just want to live their lives and go about their business without restrictions or interference. That is, vaccination opponents just want to be left alone. However, the forced vaccinators are determined not to leave them alone.

Masks

The masks that most people commonly wear have pores that are 25 to 250 times larger than the coronavirus with larger gaps around the edges. How is a mask with such large holes going to stop the virus? Moreover, most people do not even wear masks correctly or discard or wash them frequently. Obviously, politicians and bureaucrats who are forcing people to wear masks are not concerned with their health. They are concerned with power — bossing other people and controlling their lives.

Appendix. Calculations.

The following is an explanation of how the numbers in “Safe and Effective” are calculated. These calculations are based on the information that I had available at the time that I wrote this article. The numbers have been rounded.

Vaccine Deaths. The number of deaths from the vaccine is reported to be 9,000. Since only about 1 to 10 percent of the number of deaths are reported, 9,000 has been multiplied by 10 and 100 to get 90,000 to 900,000 deaths.

COVID Deaths. According to the CDC, only about 6 percent of the COVID-19 deaths reported are from the coronavirus. The remaining deaths are from other causes where the coronavirus was or may have been present. The reported number of COVID-19 deaths is 630,000. To err on the high side, 630,000 has been multiplied by 0.1 (10 percent) to get 63,000 deaths.

Cases. The number of cases of COVID-19 is 38 million. However, the primary approved test used to measure COVID-19 yields 98 to 99 percent false positives. That is, only 1 to 2 percent of the people testing positive for COVID-19 have the disease. To err on the conservative side, 2 percent or 760,000 (38 million times 0.02) of those testing positive are identified with COVID-19. The 12 percent of the population testing positive is derived by dividing the number of cases (38 million) by the US population (331 million), which yields 11.5 percent —thus, the less than 12-percent. The 0.2 percent who actually had COVID-19 is derived by dividing 760,000 by the number of cases (38 million).

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

A Letter: Southern National Party

A Letter: Southern National Party

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1986 responding to an article by Mr. Vanover in the Southern Partisan magazine.]

    As a member of the Southern National Party, I can inform Mr. Vanover that it is still alive. If he had read the party’s newsletters of the past five years, he would have discovered that most writers who address the race issue do not advocate “White supremacy.” They advocate the solution offered by Thomas Jefferson.
    I am sure that Mr. Vanover would consider me a “racist” because I advocate Jefferson’s solution. However, I do not believe that the Jeffersonian solution is a “racist” solution in the sense of degrading or destroying a race. It is racist only in the sense that it preserves the races that God created. The new South integrationist is the true racist. Integration leads to interracial marriages, which lead irrevocably to the destruction of the races. At least it has in all other societies that have tried it. I see no reason that the South would be any different. Because of its total destructiveness, racial integration must be based upon racial hatred. Racial destruction seems to be the position advocated by Mr. Vanover.
    Following Mr. Vanover’s logic (one “who truly loves the South loves it for what it is”), one must love and perhaps even advocate “White supremacy.” Historically and traditionally, Blacks generally have been subordinated politically, economically, and socially to Whites. [The same was true in the North.] At least this has been true up to the Second Reconstruction when State governments were prohibited from enforcing segregation and were required to enforce integration. White supremacy, segregation, and geographical separation are not necessarily motivated by racial hatred. Even if they were, there is less hatred in them than in integration. Integration has always led to the destruction of the races, which are God’s creations. Unlike advocates of the aforementioned three, the integrationist is consumed with self-hatred, for he seeks to destroy himself and his kind. In the long run, integration is a highly unchristian principle.
    [Historically and traditionally, not only did Southerners segregate Blacks, so did Northerners. However, unlike the South, which segregated Blacks by statute because of their large numbers, the North segregated Blacks by custom, because their small numbers did not require laws to segregate them. Moreover, the typical Northerner had a lower opinion of Blacks than did the typical Southerner. While Southerners saw Blacks as real persons, Yankees, especially the abolitionist types, saw them as abstractions.]
    Those in the same wing of the Southern National Party in which I am, advocate the preservation of the Negro race without White supremacy. We believe as Jefferson believed that this goal can only be achieved by geographical separation of the races. This position can hardly be considered antiblack — at least not by rational thinkers.
    Mr. Vanover never really answers his question: “Is the White Southerner ready for equality?” He implies that the answer is “yes.” He may be correct. However, if he is, the White Southerner is ready for something that is contrary to nature and the Bible. We may all be equally guilty of sinning, but that is about the end of our equality. What can be more unequal than some going to paradise while others do not? Or, as Calvin would put it, some are predestined to heaven; most are predestined to hell. Because every individual and every race is unique and innately different, they can never be equal. The closest man has come to achieving equality in recent times is in the Soviet Union, communist China, and Cambodia. I doubt that many Southerners desire such a society, but if they desire equality, this type of society is what they will achieve.
    The prevention of “mongrelization” and the preservation of “White civilization” is only one reason for an independent Southern Republic. (I suspect most Southerners prefer these goals to Mr. Vanover’s nebulous egalitarianism. I also doubt that most Southerners feel the same contempt for White civilization as Mr. Vanover seems to exhibit.) An independent Southern Republic would greatly improve our chances of preserving our Southern culture, heritage, and traditions for our great-grandchildren. Political boundaries can control immigration; thus, retard the influx of carpetbaggers and their socialistic, democratic, miscegenous, egalitarian Yankee ideology. Those values advocated in the Southern Partisan can best be preserved and regained with an independent South. In fact, I believe that is the only chance that they can be. An independent South would greatly improve our chances of regaining the liberties that our pre-Statue of Liberty antebellum ancestors enjoyed. Regaining these lost liberties in the present union is virtually nil. An independent South would free us from a federal court system, presidency, and Congress controlled by Yankeedom. Who knows, it may even end new South style progress and reduce the quantity of hazardous waste dumped in South Carolina.
    About the only thing that Mr. Vanover and I may agree on is our opposition to groups like the White Patriot Party and the Klans desecrating the Confederate flag. However, I do find myself in agreement with most of what the Southern Partisan advocates. Where we depart is to how to best achieve these goals. The writers in the Southern Partisan, for the most part, believe that the present union can be reformed and Southern values can thus be preserved, and those lost, regained. I am convinced that the present union cannot be so reformed and that these goals can only be achieved in an independent South. Of course, Southerners have been in this predicament before. In 1770 most Southerners believed that the union with England could be reformed. By 1776, many were convinced that their only hope lay in independence. In 1855, most Southerners believed that the union with the North could be reformed. By l861, most were convinced that it could not.
    For your erudition, several recent issues of the Southern National Party’s newsletter are enclosed. For your edification, I have marked the articles that I have written. Perhaps Mr. Vanover can peruse them to discover why someone not in prison would support Southern independence. I am sure that he will conclude that I am a member of the right-wing lunatic fringe. [If so, he would be wrong; according to Pam Dunn, I am a “a totally moronic left winger idiot.”] However, I suspect that if I were transported back to April 1776 when my ancestors, John Bradford and Jeptha Atherton, voted for the Halifax Resolves, I would be in the mainstream. [Later, I learned that Atherton was not a member of the Fourth Provincial Congress, which adopted the Halifax Resolves. He was a member of the Fifth Provincial Congress, which approved the first North Carolina Constitution, along with a “Declaration of Rights.”] I doubt if my Uncle Nathaniel Macon (an article about him appeared in an earlier issue of the Southern Partisan) would disagree with too many of my positions. I also suspect that my great-grandfather, who shed his blood at Chancellorsville, and his brother, who left an arm there, and a host of their comrades would be more inclined to agree with my position on race, equality, and Southern independence than with Mr. Vanover’s position.
    I have written numerous articles for the “Southern National Newsletter” over the past five years. Only two of these articles were on race per se. So there are other reasons for desiring Southern independence — namely, liberty. As John Randolph said, I believe that it was he, “I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality.” In other words, man can have liberty. Man can have equality. Man can have neither. But man can never have both.
    I write this letter not as an official or spokesman for the Southern National Party, for I have no authority to do so. I merely write to inform Mr. Vanover that the Southern National Party still exists and to let him know why one person who is not a convict would consider joining it.
    [In 1999, if I remember correctly, the Southern National Party dissolved. Sometime later, a new Southern National Party was formed. I have had no relations with the new party.]

Copyright © 1986, 2019 by Thomas C. Allen.

More Southern issues articles.

What Is Your View of the US Constitution?

What Is Your View of the US Constitution?

Thomas Allen

Do you view the US Constitution as the one that the founding fathers gave us? Or, do you view it as the one given us by Lincoln and the Radical Republicans as furthered developed by Presidents Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and carried to fruition by the Warren Court and especially Justice William Brennan, which is the current Constitution. To find out how you view the US Constitution, take the following test. The answers follow the test.

Test

1. Did the United States precede the States, or did the States precede the United States?

2. Can the United States exist without the States?

3. Does sovereignty reside in the United States (and, therefore, in the people thereof) as a whole, or in each State individually (and, therefore, in the people of each State)?

4. Currently, how many “we the people” are there?

5. When the Constitution was adopted, how many “we the people” were there?

6. Does the Constitution establish a national government or a federal government?

7. Are the United States a republic or a union of republics?

8. Is a person a citizen of a State by virtue of being a citizen of the United States (his loyalty is first to the United States and then to his State), or is a person a citizen of the United States by virtue of being a citizen of a State (his loyalty is first to his State and then to the other States, the United States)?

9. Was the Constitution written for a propositional (creedal) country or for a genetic country?

10. Should the Constitution be referred to as the “Constitution of the United States of American” or the “Constitution for the United States of America?”

11. Does/do the “United States” take a singular or plural verb?

12. Does the General Welfare clause grant Congress the power to enact any law that it considers being for the general welfare, or is this clause intended to restrict the powers of Congress?

13. Does the Interstate Commerce clause give Congress the power to regulate manufacturing, agriculture, mining, finance, employment, the environment, and all other production and consumption activities, or does it restrict Congress’ power just to regulating the trade and exchange of goods?

14. Does the Necessary and Proper clause grant Congress the power to enact any law that it finds convenient or useful, or does it restrict Congress to enacting incidental laws necessary to execute the powers delegated to Congress?

15. Does the Supremacy clause empower the US government to ensure that federal laws and treaties have precedence over State laws and State constitutions, or is its purpose to ensure that federal laws implementing the powers specifically delegated to Congress are constitutional?

16. Does the President have the authority to legislate by executive orders?

17. Can the President execute an offensive war without a Congressional declaration of war?

18. Does a State have the right to judge the constitutionality of laws of the US government and to interpose and nullify the laws that it finds unconstitutional?

19. Does a State have the right to secede?

20. Does the Constitution grant the US government the power to do whatever it wants to do unless the Constitution expressly prohibits such action, or does the Constitution limit the powers of the US government to those powers expressly granted?

21. Do States have only those powers that the US government allows them, or do States have all powers that the Constitution has not expressly denied them?

22. Does the Constitution authorize the US government to intervene and interfere with the internal affairs of a State?

23. Does the Bill of Rights apply to the States?

24. Does the US Supreme Court have the right, duty, and power to amend the Constitution with its rulings?

25. Is the Constitution teleological (establishing a society based on abstract principles of natural rights, equality, democracy, etc.) or nomocratic (bring government under the rule of law)?

Answer

1. Lincoln: The United States preceded the States.

Founding Fathers: The States preceded the United States.

2. Lincoln: Yes, the States are irrelevant administrative districts; just as a State can exist without counties, so can the United States exist without the States.

Founding Fathers: No, if the States ceased to exist, so would the United States — just as the union formed under the Articles of Confederation ceased to exist when North Carolina and Rhode Island finally seceded from it and acceded to the union formed under the US Constitution.

3. Lincoln: Sovereignty resides in the United States as a whole.

Founding Fathers: Sovereignty resides in each State individually.

4. Lincoln: One.

Founding Fathers: Fifty.

5. Lincoln: One.

Founding Fathers: Thirteen.

6. Lincoln: National government.

Founding Fathers: Federal government.

7. Lincoln: Republic.

Founding Fathers: Union of republics.

8. Lincoln: A person is a citizen of a State by virtue of being a citizen of the United States.

Founding Fathers: A person is a citizen of the United States by virtue of being a citizen of a State; a citizen of the United State means a citizen of a States.

9. Lincoln: Propositional (creedal); therefore, it was written for all races.

Founding Fathers: Genetic; it was written solely for the White (Aryan, Homo albus) race (species) and for no other race.

10. Lincoln: The “Constitution of the United States of American.”

  Founding Fathers: The “Constitution for the United States of America.”

11. Lincoln: Singular.

Founding Fathers: Plural.

12. Lincoln: The General Welfare clause grants power to Congress.

Founding Fathers: The General Welfare clause restricts the power of Congress.

13. Lincoln: Yes.

Founding Fathers: No, the Interstate Commerce clause limits Congress to regulating trade and exchanges of goods.

14. Lincoln: The Necessary and Proper clause grants Congress the power to enact any law that it finds convenient or useful.

Founding Fathers: The Necessary and Proper clause restricts Congress to enacting incidental laws.

15. Lincoln: The purpose of the Supremacy clause is to empower the US government to ensure that federal laws and treaties have precedence over State laws and State constitutions.

Founding Fathers: The purpose of the Supremacy clause is to ensure that federal laws implementing the powers specifically delegated to Congress are constitutional.

16. Lincoln: Yes.

Founding Fathers: No.

17. Lincoln: Yes.

Founding Fathers: No.

18. Lincoln: No.

Founding Fathers: Yes.

19. Lincoln: No.

Founding Fathers: Yes. (By 1791 the States had already seceded twice: once from the British Empire and once from the union created by the Articles of Confederation.)

20. Lincoln: The US government has unlimited power.

Founding Fathers: The powers of the US government are restricted to those powers expressly delegated to it.

21. Lincoln: The States have only those powers allowed.

Founding Fathers: The States have all powers not denied them.

22. Lincoln: Yes.

Founding Fathers: No.

23. Lincoln: Yes.

Founding Fathers: No.

24. Lincoln: Yes.

Founding Fathers: No.

25. Lincoln: Teleological.

Founding Fathers: Nomocratic.

Scoring

If you agreed with “Lincoln” 20 or more times, you view the Constitution as the one Lincoln gave us. If you agree with the “Founding Fathers” 20 or more times, you view the Constitution as the one the founding fathers gave us. However, if you agree with “Lincoln” less than 20 times and with the “Founding Fathers” less than 20 times, you may suffer from some kind of dissociative disorder — at the very least, you are inconsistent or perhaps ignorant.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Respecter of Persons

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moses wrote, “No half-bred [mongrel] may be admitted to the assembly of the Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh” — Deuteronomy 23:2. Since God refuses to allow mongrels in His assembly, He is acting like a respecter of persons. Moreover, His discrimination in this instance is not based on character or what a person does or does not do. It is based solely on a person’s genetics — something over which he has no control.

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

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

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.