Monday, October 19, 2020

Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck
Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Sunday, October 11, 2020

Analysis of a Speech Given to Black Lives Matters

Analysis of a Speech Given to Black Lives Matters
Thomas Allen

A local newspaper in a small town covered a small Black-Lives-Matter protest of about a dozen protestors.[1] (Based on the picture, Whites outnumbered Blacks.) This article analyzes that speech as presented in the newspaper article. My comments are enclosed in brackets.

Beginning the Black-Lives-Matter event, the organizers made some introductory remarks. They said that the event was being held for the cause of Black Lives Matter. Then, they introduced the guest speaker, who was a retired US Army Black female colonel.

The colonel began by praising the organizers and Black Lives Matter. [However, she failed to mention that goal of Black Lives Matter was to destroy White America and replace it with a socialistic Black America.]

Vigorously and joyfully, she approved of dismantling and removing the local Confederate monument. [Obviously, she is a Confederaphobe and probably a Dixiephobe, a hesperophobe, and an albusphobe. Consequently, she appears to suffer from mental problems. Ironically, she gave  her speech in front of another Confederate memorial, which has so far escape desecration.]

The article notes that the town has been sued for removing the statue. [However, the article does not mention that the statue was removed in violation of State law. Also, it was removed in violation of international law: “Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II),” Article 16 – “Protection of cultural objects and of places of worship,” which reads:
Without prejudice to the provisions of The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954, it is prohibited to commit any acts of hostility directed against historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples, and to use them in support of the military effort.]
She notes that people can never change history, but they can change their beliefs [by rewriting history to fit the current ideology or agenda — a la 1984].

Next, she comments about her father, who was a veteran of World War II, and about him being treated like a second class citizen. [Now, because of the civil rights laws of 1964 and 1991 and various other laws, court decisions, and administrative regulations, Whites are treated like second class citizens.] Moreover, when he returned home, he saw statues memorializing the Confederacy and none honoring the veterans of World War II. [When the Confederate soldiers returned home, they saw no statues honoring them. All they saw was devastation. Unlike her father, they also faced starvation. Moreover, most of these soldiers never saw a Confederate statue. Most of these statues were erected around the semicentennial and the centennial of Lincoln’s War.]

However, she does note that most of these Confederate statues were erected in the 1910s and 1920s with another wave of erections occurring in the 1950s and 1960s. She is convinced that they were erected to symbolize Jim Crow. Their purpose was to terrorize Blacks and convince Blacks that the White South had won Lincoln’s War. [If that were their purpose, they were highly ineffective. How many Southerners have ever met a Black who was so possessed by superstition that he lets statues terrorize him? This colonel has a low opinion of Blacks during this era if she believes what she says. Most Blacks seem to have ignored Confederate statutes until the White Confederaphobes demanded their removal. Just as the Puritan Yankee used the Negro to genocide the Southerner during the First Reconstruction, so he again uses the Negro to genocide the Southerner during the Second Reconstruction.]

Then, she attacks the Confederate soldier. According to her, they fought to defend an economic system based on the brutal destruction of Black families. [Apparently, she never considered that most Southerners were fighting to defend their homes and families from an invading horde. Furthermore, the welfare state of the Civil Rights Era has done more to destroy the Black family than slavery ever did. If she wants to save the Black family, she should lead the charge to dismantle the welfare state instead of focusing on destroying Confederate monuments.]

Like progressives, liberals, and neoconservatives, she accuses the Confederate soldier of treason. [If any treason were involved, Lincoln and his followers are the traitors. The reason that the US government never tried Jefferson Davis for treason is that it could not win the case. It even hired several leading attorneys to prosecute the case. These attorneys turned down the offer and advised the government that it had no case. Davis had no problem acquiring leading attorneys to defend him. Of course, this was a time when the courts had not been politicized as they are today.]

She claims that Southerners rebelled against the United States because they refused to accept a political solution to slavery. [Her knowledge (ignorance) of history ranks down there with that of the typical progressive, liberal, and neoconservative. Slavery was not the cause of the war; taxes were. Lincoln offered to concede almost any kind of protection and guarantee of slavery that the South demanded if it remained in the Union and let Lincoln collect the taxes for the benefit of the North. About Lincoln’s War,  The Quarterly Review of London wrote in 1862:
For the contest on the part of the North is now undisguisedly for empire. The question of Slavery is thrown to the winds. There is hardly any concession in its favor that the South could ask which the North would refuse, provided only that the seceding States would re-enter the Union. . . . Away with the pretense on the North to dignify its cause with the name of freedom to the slave!
In 1861, Karl Marx, who was an opponent of the South, summarized the war as follows:
The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty.]
After she has spent most of her speech lambasting, condemning, castigating, degrading, and lying about Confederate soldiers, she asks their descendants to join her and her agenda. She asserts that she wants peace, unity, and change. [Does her desire for change include ending Black supremacy and Black privilege that now controls the United States? Does it include ending the genocide of the Southerner in particular and the White race in general? Does her idea of unity mean unity in the genocide of the Southerner and the White race? Is her definition of peace the communist definition: Peace means no resistance to the agenda of Black Lives Matter and all the destruction that it entails? To the first two questions, the answer is “no.” To the last two questions, the answer is “yes.”

Disappointingly, far too many Southerners suffer from Confederaphobia, Dixiephobia, hesperophobia, and albusphobia. They gladly join the colonel and Black Lives Matter in the eradication of the South and the White race and the destruction of America and Western Civilization.

In a closing note, one must wonder whether she became a colonel because of merit or because of Black privilege. Until proven otherwise, the safe assumption is that she became a colonel because of privilege as she is doubly privileged: first as a Black and second as a woman.]

1.   Carey Johnson, “A Plea: ‘Move Forward Together,’” The Franklin Times, August 6, 2020, p. 1A.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Saturday, October 3, 2020

Who sold Joseph to the Egyptian?

Who sold Joseph to the Egyptian?
Thomas Allen

Did the Midianites sell Joseph to the Egyptians (Genesis 37:36: “And the Midianites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh’s, the captain of the guard”), or did the Ishmaelites sell him (Genesis 39:1: “And Joseph was brought down to Egypt; and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh’s, the captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him of the hand of the Ishmaelites, that had brought him down thither”)? Moreover, did Joseph’s brothers sell him to the Ishmaelites as Genesis 37:25–27 implies? Or, did the Midianites steal Joseph from the pit where his brothers had thrown him and sell him to the Ishmaelites as stated in Genesis 37:28.
According to some modern critics, the writer or editor of Genesis has combined two stories taken from two different sources: the Jehovistic or Yahwistic and the Elohistic. (The Jehovistic source uses the divine name of Jehovah, Yahweh, whereas the Elohistic source uses the divine name of Elohim.) These two stories explain Joseph’s arrival in Egypt differently.
According to the Jehovistic story, Judah saved Joseph by selling him to the Ishmaelites, who later sold him to the Egyptians. As stated in the Elohistic story, Reuben saved Joseph by persuading the other brothers to cast Joseph into a pit from which the Midianites later stole him. They do so without any of the brothers witnessing the kidnaping. Then, the Midianites sold him to the Ishmaelites according to Genesis 38:28 or directly to the Egyptian according to Genesis 38:36. (Genesis 40:15 [“for indeed I {Joseph} was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews . . .”] supports the Midianites kidnaping Joseph.) Apparently, the author attempted to make the stories agree by having the Midianites selling Joseph to the Ishmaelites, but for some reason left in the sentence about the Midianites directly selling Joseph to the Egyptian.
Some commentators skirt the apparent conflict by claiming that Midianite merchants were accompanying the Ishmaelites caravan. The Midianites kidnaped Joseph and sold him to the Ishmaelites. Then, the Midianites continued journeying to Egypt with the Ishmaelites, and the two tribes arrived in Egypt together. From here the Ishmaelites and Midianites get confounded with one story identifying the Midianites as selling Joseph to the Egyptian and the other identifying the Ishmaelites as the seller. Nevertheless, this explanation fails to identify who really sold Joseph to the Egyptian: the Midianites or the Ishmaelites.
Others claim that the Midianites and Ishmaelites were the same people. (A major problem with this explanation is that the Ishmaelites stole Joseph and sold him to themselves.) Many commentators avoid the apparent conflict of the two stories by not mentioning it.
A possible resolution of the conflicting stories follows. Judah and his brothers discussed selling Joseph to the Ishmaelites whom they see approaching, but they did not sell him. Instead, they left him it the pit where Reuben had persuaded them to put him while they departed to eat lunch — perhaps continuing their discussion of selling him. While his brothers were eating, Reuben returned to the pit to rescue Joseph. However, before he returned, the Midianites discovered Joseph in the pit, took him out, and sold him to the Ishmaelites. Unfortunately, this explanation does not eliminate the problem of Genesis 37:36, which states that the Midianites, not the Ishmaelites, sold Joseph to the Egyptian.
Why did the author keep Genesis 37:36? Only God knows. Without this sentence, the two stories can be made to harmonize. However, this sentence creates a conflict that cannot be easily explained away, if it can be explained away at all. So, the question remains: Who sold Joseph to the Egyptian? The weight of the evidence supports the Ishmaelites selling Joseph to the Egyptian. However, Genesis 37:36 makes this conclusion uncertain as it clearly states the Midianites sold Joseph to the Egyptian, although Genesis 37:28 clearly states that the Midianites sold him to the Ishmaelites. The solution to this dilemma may never be known. Thus, lacking a satisfactory answer are these two questions: (1) To whom the Midianites sell Joseph: — the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28) or the Egyptian (Genesis 37:36), and (2) who sold Joseph to the Egyptian — the Midianites (Genesis 37:36) or the Ishmaelites (Genesis 39:1)?

The Ishmaelites were descendants of Ishmael, Abraham’s son by Hagar, a Mizraim (Egyptian). They inhabited the desert of northern Arabia between Havilah, Egypt, and the Euphrates. Also, allied desert nomads who inhabited the region inhabited by true Ishmaelites were often included among the Ishmaelites.
The Midianites were the descendants of Midian, Abraham’s son by Keturah. Like the Ishmaelites, they were desert people. Their habitat was the northwest Arabian desert, east of the Gulf of Aqaba, and south of Moab. Moses’s wife was a Midianite.

Davis, John D. A Dictionary of the Bible. 4th rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Michigan: Baker Book House: 1957.

Eiselen, Frederick Carl, Edwin Lewis, and David G. Downey, editors. The Abingdon Bible Commentary. New York, New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1929.

Miller, Madeleine S. and J. Lane Miller. Harper’s Bible Dictionary. 6th ed. New York, New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1959.

Peake, Arthur S., ed., A Commentary on the Bible. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, n.d.

Laymon, Charles M., Editor. The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1971.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Friday, September 25, 2020

Some Thoughts Related to the US Constitution

Some Thoughts Related to the US Constitution
Thomas Allen

Erroneous interpretations of the US Constitution, treason, term limits, rule of law, and disqualification for serving as President are discussed below.

Erroneous Interpretations of the Constitution
Many conservative leaders and spokesmen mislead their followers and listeners in at least three important aspects related to the US Constitution.
First, they imply or say that the US Constitution is a contract or agreement between the States and the US government. The US Constitution is not and cannot be a contract between the States and the US government. Before the States adopted the Constitution and acceded to the union formed under it, the US government did not exist. Thus, the US Constitution created the US government. Therefore, the US Constitution cannot be a contract between the US government and the States. Instead, it is a contract among the States, and it created the US government as the administrator of that contract. According to the preamble, it is the “Constitution for the United States of American” and, consequently, not the “Constitution of the United States of America.”
Second, they give the phrase “We the People” in the Preamble of the US Constitution a misleading, or worse a deliberately wrong, interpretation. They speak of “We the People” as though it applies to or means one body politic for the whole union. This is the old nationalist interpretation of Webster and Lincoln, and it is wrong. “We the People” referred to the nine body politics that acceded from the old union under the Articles of Confederation to form the new union under the US Constitution. Now, “We the People” refers to fifty body politics or States. It means “We the People of the States as States.” The drafters initially listed the thirteen States in the preamble. However, they were uncertain if all the States would secede from the existing union and accede to the new union under the new constitution. So, they did not list the States. Moreover, each individual State acting as an independent sovereign body politic adopted the Constitution; that is, representatives of the people of each State in that State’s convention adopted the Constitution. A plebiscite of the people as a whole, that is, all the people of all the States acting as one body politic, did not adopt the US Constitution, either directly or indirectly through a representative convention.
Third, they apply the first nine amendments to the States. Those who drafted and adopted these amendments intended for them to apply only to the US government and never to the States. Each State had similar provisions in its own constitution to restrict its State government. With perhaps rare exception, none were ever applied to the States until the 1930s, when the Supreme Court began to misinterpret the fourteenth amendment to apply the first nine amendments to States — this is the incorporation theory of the fourteenth amendment. (With this theory, federal judges began finding all sorts of things in the Constitution that are not there, such as, the right to an abortion.) Those who drafted and adopted the fourteenth amendment never intended it to apply the first nine amendments to the States. Moreover, because the fourteenth amendment was adopted illegally and at the point of a gun, it should have no weight, and honest, patriotic judges should ignore it. (Along with the general welfare clause, interstate commerce clause, necessary and proper clause, the fourteenth amendment is responsible for consolidating and concentrating nearly all political power into the US government and to reducing the States to mere administrative provinces.)
One would expect progressives, liberals, and neoconservatives to promote these three errors because they are Hamiltonian-Lincolnians, who want to centralize and concentrate all power into the US government for the benefit of the ruling elite. However, true conservatives should oppose these three erroneous interpretations. Any conservative leader or spokesman who supports any of the above errors, and especially if he supports all three, is an agent of the ruling elite or an ignoramus. Like the progressives, their interpretation of the US Constitution is Hamiltonian and Lincolnian and not Jeffersonian and Calhounian (the decentralization and dispersal of power). Therefore, true conservatives should not follow them.

Some conservatives claim that the people (the Deep State) within the US government who are trying to overthrow President Trump and remove him from office are guilty of treason. Yet, is this true?
Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution defines treason as follows: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” (Notice the pronouns; they are plural. Obviously, each of the States individually [Jeffersonian-Calhounian] is meant and not all the States together as a single unit [Hamiltonian-Lincolnian]).
According to the constitutional definition, treason is warring against one or more States or aiding an enemy of the States. An internal coup to overthrow a president does not meet this definition of treason.
If one wants to find really treasonous actions, he needs only to look at presidents, Congresses, federal judges, and federal bureaucrats. These people have been warring against the States since 1861 and have been highly successful in destroying them in every way but name.

Term Limits
For years, people have been debating limiting the term of office for the US House of Representatives and the US Senate. However, much more than that is needed.
The argument against limiting the terms of Congressmen is that a Congressman with only two or three years of office is at a great disadvantage when he faces a bureaucrat with 20 to 30 years of experience of manipulating Congress.
To solve this problem, among others, the length of employment in the US government needs to be limited. No one should be allowed to receive a paycheck from the US government for more than, say, 10 or 12 years. That is, the total time that a person serves as President, Representative, Senator, a federal judge, appointed officeholder, civil servant, and a member of the armed forces when combined should not exceed 10 or 12 years.
One benefit of this total limitation is that employees will live most of their lives under the laws and regulations that they have enacted or enforced. Inferior judges who cannot read and understand the Constitution will not spend a lifetime making unconstitutional rulings. The top-heavy armed forces will less likely be overflowing with generals and admirals who are much better at politically correct politics than they are at being real generals and admirals. Moreover, the country would have a strong incentive to have well-trained and heavily armed militias, which would greatly aid the people in defending themselves from an oppressive government. Another benefit is that bureaucrats would have less incentive to build empires since they will not be there to rule over them. Also, far less information would be concealed from the people (if we really have a government of, by, and for the people, i.e., the people are the government, and governmental employees are the servants of the people, then employees of the government should keep no secret from the people). The advantages listed above are just some benefits of limiting the total employment in the US government. However, the most important benefit would be to move the government from a government of bureaucrats, by bureaucrats, and for bureaucrats to a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
(Furthermore, prohibiting any former employee of the US government, i.e., anyone who has received a salary from the US government, from working as a contractor for the US government or for a company that grosses more than, say, 10 percent of its income from the US government after his termination of employment is desirable. Likewise, forbidding any former employee from serving on any commission, advisory board, etc. is also desirable. Such prohibitions reduces the likelihood of corruption.)

Rule of Law
Politicians are always preaching the rule of law. With rare exceptions, almost no Representative, Senator, President, or federal judge has ever attempted to keep his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the US Constitution, the fundamental law of the country. Once sworn in, they proceed to govern as though the Constitution did not exist. If the rule of law existed in the United States, the US government would be less than 10 percent of its current size, and most of the country’s problems would not exist.

Disqualification for Serving as President
A friend of mine once said that if anyone desires to be President, he should be disqualified because he is already displaying too much lust for power.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Thursday, September 17, 2020

Josephus Daniels

Josephus Daniels
Thomas Allen

Josephus Daniels (1862–1948) owned the Raleigh News & Observer from 1898 until his death in 1948 when the paper passed to his descendants. He is reputed to have been a White supremacist, who used his paper to promote White supremacy. (Now, the owners, who bought the paper in 1995, use the newspaper to promote Black supremacy.) Daniels was the Secretary of the Navy (1913–1921) under President Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt’s ambassador to Mexico between 1933 and 1942.

One of the most despicable acts of unconditional surrenders to Black supremacy has to be the Daniels family taking down Josephus Daniels’ statue. His family took down the statue before even a threat was made. His grandson and great-grandson are a disgrace to their grandfather and great-grandfather. Moreover, this act is a blatant violation of the Fifth Commandment; it greatly dishonors one’s ancestors. If Daniels was as detestable as his family claims, why did they erect a statue in his honor?

Would Daniels be proud that his descendants who have become White-hating, racial nihilist, wokespersons, and social justice warriors, who worship Black supremacy, Black privilege, and Black power? Or, would he be disappointed in and ashamed of them? Regardless, their action is so disgraceful that no self-respecting Black will want to have anything to do with them — other than to take their wealth.

When the war comes, Blacks will take out the albusphobic, Dixiephobic, Confederaphobic Whites who destroy memorials to Southerners and other Whites quicker than they will any so-called White supremacists because these will offer no resistance. They see their duty as sacrificing themselves to their Black masters.

What will Whites receive from the removal of the Daniels’ statue and other statues of Whites? They will receive nothing desirable. Blacks will repay them with ever more degrading demands. If these demands are not met with alacrity and abasement, Blacks will vandalize, riot, loot, burn, and kill until they are met with extortionary and usury interest. Why should not Blacks behave like this when all they face are White albusphobes, who beg to surrender to Blacks so that the Blacks can whip them without mercy? Such is the just reward for anyone who destroys their family heritage the way that the Daniels have.

Now is the time for the Raleigh News & Observer to take the honorable action. It needs to go out of business immediately. Its buildings need to be torn down. All its equipment and other property need to be scrapped. Nothing should be salvaged because it would contaminate the new owner with racism and White supremacy. Josephus Daniels’ racism and White supremacy have so contaminated the News & Observer that no amount of repentance can redeem it. His descendants tried for years to cleanse the taint of racism and White supremacy before they sold the paper to another. Even the new owner has failed. Once an organization is infected with White supremacy and racism, it is beyond redemption. It must be eradicated. That is why the White race, especially those who grovel, needs to be genocided. If you do not believe me, ask Black Lives Matter.

These albusphobic, Dixiephobic, and Confederaphobic Whites, who enthrall themselves as wokespersons and social justice warriors, will avail themselves of nothing. Black Lives Matters and Blacks, in general, cannot respect such groveling self-abasing White albusphobes and consider them a joke — although their words and actions often say otherwise. Blacks see White albusphobes as traitors to their White kindred and, therefore, use them to advance the Black agenda of Black power, Black privilege, and Black supremacy. Consequently, removing the Daniels’ statue and other statues of Southerners will only lead to more violence and racial disharmony and more demands by Blacks and more surrenders by Whites. The only reason Blacks do not want to genocide the White race is that they need White slaves to produce wealth for them to plunder. However, far too many Whites do want to genocide the White race to rid the universe of its greatest disease: whitism.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Tuesday, September 8, 2020

Newt Gingrich: a Liberal in Conservative Clothing

Newt Gingrich: a Liberal in Conservative Clothing
Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1995 to the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party.]

Is Newt Gingrich a liberal in conservative clothing? Being a member of the Council on Foreign Relation (CFR), he has done little to oppose moving toward a one-world fascist state. He supported both NAFTA and GATT. (That GATT would have been passed by the new Congress is doubtful, which is why Clinton, who is also a member of the CFR, pushed to have the lame-duck Congress vote on GATT. Gingrich did not oppose GATT being brought before the lame-duck Congress, many of whose members had been voted out of office. He feared that the new Congress would defeat the “treaty.” He has been successful in keeping the House of Representatives from reconsidering the “treaty.”)

In order to consolidate his control over the Republicans in the House of Representatives, Gingrich came up with the “Contract with America.” Although the Contract contained several needed reforms, its purpose was not to reform the U.S. government, but to control the freshmen Republicans. The freshmen Republicans had been elected by people who wanted real reform and who wanted the illegal power that the U. S. government had usurped returned to the people and their States. While the freshmen Republicans were running on platforms to bring the U. S. government back into its constitutional bounds, the Contract guaranteed that only minor inconsequential changes would be made. It has prevented real reform from occurring. The Contract served to turn the anti-Washington feelings that swept so many incumbents out of office into an endorsement of the old-line establishment Republican Party.

Since Gingrich has been elected Speaker of the House, he has processed to accumulated unprecedented power into the office of the Speaker. Obviously, he does not believe in the dispersal and decentralization of power as do true conservatives. He is rapidly becoming dictator of the House of Representatives, especially of the Republicans in the House. In the name of reform, he is using his power to promote himself and the establishment. Furthermore, he uses his power to promote pseudo reforms and to thwart real reforms. This consolidation of power will enable him to deliver the votes for the establishment when the time comes. The vote will be for more, not less, government and socialism. With this power, Gingrich will be able to prevent real, needed reform from occurring.

Gingrich’s debate with President Clinton illustrates that Gingrich does not oppose liberalism. His arguments and disagreements with the President are over details, not principles or substance. (The primary purpose of the debate was to elevate the standing of the President in the eyes of the public. In achieving this goal, it was somewhat successful.)

Gingrich has also supported giving the President even more power by giving him the line-item veto on budgets and repealing the War Powers Act, which limits the amount of time that the President can commit the armed forces without a Congressional declaration of war.

A good indication of the direction that Gingrich is pulling the House Republican is the reaction of the establishment press. When Gingrich was pushing his Contract, the press perceived this as a move to the right, and Gingrich received much negative treatment. Since then the establishment press has learned how hallow much of the Contract is. Also, since becoming Speaker, Gingrich has made clear that he does not oppose a one-world fascist state, but he plans to deliver the votes in favor of issues that support such a state.

Another indication of Gingrich’s liberalism is his voting record. One conservative index shows Gingrich voting to the left of Bernie Sanders. Sanders is a self-professed socialist representing Vermont. He left the Democratic Party because it was too far to the right. According to this index, Gingrich is more of a socialist than the socialist is.

Gingrich is an establishment conservative. He is part of the establishment that has controlled the United States government most of this century [i.e., the twentieth century]. In spite of any rhetoric to the contrary — and virtually no rhetoric to the contrary has occurred — he supports a one-world fascist state. As the consolidation and concentration of political power into the U. S. government are necessary to achieve the goal of a fascist world state, he cannot be counted on to oppose the consolidation and concentration of political power in Washington — much less reverse the trend.

[Moreover, how Gingrich has treated his wives is reprehensible. He left his first wife while she was in a hospital suffering from cancer for his second wife. {When Deb was in the hospital, a few times a nurse would comment on me being there every day. I replied that I was not Newt Gingrich.} He left his second wife when he later decided to campaign to be President because she was not pretty enough to be the first-lady.]

Copyright © 1995, 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political issues articles.

Tuesday, September 1, 2020

Who Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?

Who Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?
Thomas Allen

In Solving the Exodus Mystery, Volume 1 (1999), Ted Stewart identifies the Pharaoh of the Exodus and the Pharaoh who appointed Joseph Vizier. His arguments should convince everyone who is not an orthodox Egyptologist.

According to Stewart, the Exodus occurred in 1446 B.C. (Ussher’s date is 1491 B.C., and Beecher’s is 1498.) According to the orthodox dating system of Egypt, Thutmose III of the Eighteenth Dynasty was the Pharaoh of the Exodus; his reign according to one orthodox chronology was 1479 to 1426 B.C. (Another orthodox chronology gives his reign as 1504 to 1452 B.C.) However, nothing in the history of Thutmose III’s reign matches the events of the Exodus.

Steward argues that the orthodox Egyptian chronology, which has changed over the years, is about 300 years too long. Consequently, he places Thutmose III’s reign from 1140 to 1086 B.C.

None of the Egyptian historical records of the Seventeenth or Eighteenth Dynasties match the description given in the Bible about Egypt in the time of Joseph or Moses. Therefore, many modern scholars consider the Biblical accounts of Joseph and Moses to be myths.

However, Stewart argues that the Egyptian and Biblical scholars are looking at the wrong dynasties. He evidences that Joseph and Moses lived during the Twelfth Dynasty and that Egyptian records of that Dynasty match the Biblical Account.

Moreover, Steward also adjusted the traditional Biblical dating of Ussher, Beecher, and others. Scholars who use the New International Version and like translations have the Israelites being in Egypt for 430 years beginning when Jacob entered Egypt and ending 430 years later with the Exodus. Scholars who use the King James Version and like translations argue that the 430 years begin with God’s promise to Abraham. Steward agrees with the scholars who follow the King James translation. Consequently, Steward reduces the time that the Israelites were in Egypt from 430 years to 210 years. With the adjustment to the traditional Biblical chronology, Biblical chronology matches his revised Egyptian chronology.

According to the Biblical account, Stewart states that Joseph became Pharaoh’s Vizier in 1665 B.C. (Ussher’s date is 1716 B.C., and Beecher’s is 1723 B.C.) Based on his chronology, he identifies Sesostris I as the Pharaoh who appointed Joseph Vizier. His chronology gives Sesostris I’s reign from 1667 to 1625 B.C. (The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia gives his reign as 1971 to 1926 B.C., and the New Encyclopaedia Britannica gives 1916 to 1876 B.C. Carbon 14 dating is 1680 B.C.)

Based on his revised chronology and the Egyptian historical record, Stewart identifies Amenemhet IV as the Pharaoh of the Exodus. According to his chronology, Amenemhet IV reigned from 1456 to 1446 B.C. (According to the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, he died in 1792 B.C.) Amenemhet IV seems to have vanished in 1446 B.C. Nothing is heard of him afterward, and his tomb has never been found. His sister-wife became queen and reigned four years until 1450 B.C. when the Twelfth Dynasty ended.

Thus, Amenemhet I, the founder of the Twelfth Dynasty, was Pharaoh when Joseph entered Egypt in 1678 B.C. (Ussher’s date is 1718 B.C., and Beecher’s is 1736 B.C.). Sesostris I appointed Joseph Vizier in 1665 B.C. (Ussher’s date is 1716, and Beecher’s is 1723 B.C.) When Moses was born in 1526 B.C. (Ussher’s date is 1571 B.C., and Beecher’s is 1578 B.C.), Sesostris III was Pharaoh. He was the Pharaoh who knew not Joseph. During the reign of Amenemhet III, Moses fled Egypt in 1486 B.C. (Ussher’s date is 1491 B.C., and Beecher’s is 1989 B.C.) When Moses returned to Egypt in 1446 B.C. (Ussher’s date is 1491, Beecher’s is 1498), Amenemhet IV was Pharaoh. Soon after Moses’ return, came the plagues and the Exodus.

By adjusting the Egyptian and Biblical chronology, Stewart has identified the Pharaohs of Joseph’s and Moses’ time. He confirms that the Twelfth Dynasty is the correct Dynasty by comparing the Biblical account of Joseph and Moses with the Egyptian historical record.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.