Saturday, September 14, 2019

Milton on the Holy Spirit: Scriptural Description of the Holy Spirit

Milton on the Holy Spirit
Scriptural Description of the Holy Spirit
Thomas Allen

    John Milton (1608–1674), who is best known as the author of Paradise Lost, believed in a unipersonal God instead of the triune God of three persons or gods in one God of today’s orthodox Christianity. The following summaries Milton’s view of the Holy Spirit as presented in Milton on the Son of God and the Holy Spirit from His Treatise on Christian Doctrine (London, England: British & Foreign Unitarian Association, 1908). About 150 years would pass before Milton’s essay was published. Page numbers enclosed in parentheses are to the book referenced above. Biblical quotations are Milton’s translations. My comments are enclosed in brackets.
    The Scriptures do not say in what manner the Holy Spirit, which is also “called the Spirit of the Father and the Son” (p. 109), exists or when it arose. “For though it be a Spirit, in the same sense in which the Father and Son are properly called Spirits; though we read that Christ by breathing on his disciples gave to them the Holy Ghost, or rather perhaps some symbols or pledge of the Holy Ghost, John XX. 22. — yet in treating of the nature of the Holy Spirit, we are not authorized to infer from such expressions, that the Spirit was breathed from the Father and the Son” (p. 109).
    Milton notes, “The terms emanation and procession employed by theologians on the authority of John xv. 26, do not relate to the nature of the Holy Spirit” (p. 109). He adds that on a single statement (“the Spirit of truth who proceedeth [or goeth forth] from the Father” – John 15:16) is a weak foundation on which to base the nature of the Holy Spirit — especially since these words relate to the mission of the Holy Spirit and not to its or his nature (pp. 109-110). Moreover, nowhere do the Scriptures say that the Holy Spirit is generated or created or “is any other mode of existence specifically attributed to it in Scripture” (p. 110). [Thus, the Trinity Doctrine of the Holy Spirit’s nature or substance is based on nothing more than pure speculation.]
    First, Milton examines Spirit in the Old Testament. He remarks, “The name of Spirit is also frequently applied to God and angels, and to the human mind” (p. 110). The Spirit sometimes “signifies God the Father himself — as Gen. vi. 3, ‘my Spirit shall not always strive with man’; sometimes the power and virtue of the Father, and particularly that divine breath or influence by which everything is created and nourished” (p. 110).
    Then, he notes that Spirit sometimes means an angle. For example, Isaiah 48:16 (“the Lord Jehovah and his Spirit hath sent me”) and Ezekiel 3:12 (“then the Spirit took me up”).
    Sometimes, Spirit means Christ, “who according to the common opinion was sent by the Father to lead the Israelites into the land of Canaan” (p. 111). [Like Trinitarians, Milton believed that the Son existed before his conception and that the preexisting Son interacted at times with Israel.] To support this supposition, Milton cites Isaiah 63: 10, 11 (“they rebelled and vexed his Holy Spirit . . . where is he that put his Holy Spirit within them”).
    Occasionally, Spirit “means that impulse or voice of God by which the prophets were inspired” (p. 111). An example is Nehemiah 9:30 (“thou testifiedst against them by thy Spirit in thy prophets”).
    At other times, Spirit means “that light of truth, whether ordinary or extraordinary, wherewith God enlightens and leads his people” (pp. 110-111). Examples are Numbers 14:24, Nehemiah 9:20, and Psalms 51:11, 12 and 143:10.  Then, Milton comments, “Undoubtedly neither David, nor any other Hebrew, under the old covenant, believed in the personality of that ‘good’ and ‘Holy Spirit,’
unless perhaps as an angel” (p. 112).
    More particularly, Spirit “implies that light which was shed on Christ himself” (p. 112). Examples are Isaiah 11:2 (“the Spirit of Jehovah shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Jehovah”)  and 42:1 (“I have put my Spirit upon him”), which compares with Acts 10:38 (“how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power”).
    Additionally, Spirit is “used to signify the spiritual gifts conferred by God on individuals, and the act of gift itself” (p. 112). Then, Milton cites several supporting verses.
    Concluding, Milton writes, “Nothing can be more certain than that all these passages, and many others of a similar kind in the Old Testament, were understood of the virtue and power of God the Father, inasmuch as the Holy Spirit was not yet given, nor believed in, even by those who prophesied that it should be poured forth in the latter times” (pp. 112-113).
    Turning to the New Testament, Milton notes that “what is called the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit of God, sometimes means the Father himself” (p. 113). Matthew 1:18, 20 (“that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost”) and Luke 1:35 (“the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God”) are examples.
    Sometimes, Spirit “means the virtue and power of the Father” (p. 113). Luke 11:20 (“I cast out devils by the Spirit or finger of God”) and Romans 1:4 (“declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead”) are examples.
    Milton notes that in many passages in the New Testament, phrases containing the word “Spirit” should “be understood of the power of the Father, than of the Holy Spirit himself” (p. 114). Examples are Hebrews 9:14, Luke 4:1 and 5:18 and Acts 1:2 and 10:38.
    Milton writes:
I am inclined to believe that the Spirit descended upon Christ at his baptism, not so much in his own name, as in virtue of a mission from the Father, and as a symbol and minister of the divine power. For what could the Spirit confer on Christ, from whom he was himself to be sent, and to receive all things? Was his purpose to bear witness to Christ? But as yet he was himself not so much as known. Was it meant that the Spirit should be then manifested for the first time to the church? But at the time of his appearance nothing was said of him or of his office; nor did that voice from heaven bear any testimony to the Spirit, but only to the Son. The descent therefore and appearance of the Holy Spirit in the likeness of a dove, seems to have been nothing more than a representation of the ineffable affection of the Father for the Son, communicated by the Holy Spirit under the appropriate image of a dove and accompanied by a voice from heaven declaratory of that affection. (pp. 114-115)
    Continuing, Milton notes that “the Spirit signifies a divine impulse, or light, or voice, or word, transmitted from above either through Christ, who is the Word of God, or by some other channel” (p. 115). Examples are Mark 12:36, Acts 1:16,  and 28:25, Hebrews 3:7, 9:8, and 10:15, 2 Peter 1:21, and Luke 2: 25, 26. He adds “that these and similar passages cannot be considered as referring to the express person of the Spirit, both because the Spirit was not yet given, and because Christ alone, as has been said before, is, properly speaking, and in a primary sense, the Word of God, and the Prophet of the Church” (p. 116). Citing Hebrews 1:1, Milton concludes that God “did not speak by the Holy Spirit alone, unless the term be understood in the signification which I have proposed, and in a much wider sense than was subsequently attributed to it” (p. 116).
    “Further, the Spirit signifies the person itself of the Holy Spirit, or its symbol” (p. 116). In Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:10, Luke 3:22, and John 1:32, a dove symbolizes the Spirit.
    Lastly, the Spirit “signifies the donation of the Spirit itself, and of its attendant gifts” (p. 117). John 7:39, Matthew 3:11, Acts 1:5 and 11:16 and 1 Thessalonians 5:19 are examples.
    Next, Milton asks who is this Holy Spirit, from where does he come, and what are his offices? He answers these questions by citing numerous passages where the Christ gives and the apostles give answers to these questions (pp. 118-119).
    Then, Milton notes that the Spirit “is called the Spirit of the Father, the Spirit of God, and even the Spirit of Christ” (p. 119). He cites several verses to support this claim.
    Milton writes,
If it be the divine with that a doctrine which is to be understood and believed as one of the primary articles of our faith, should be delivered without obscurity or confusion, and explained, as is fitting, in clear and precise terms — if it be certain that particular care ought to be taken in everything connected with religion, lest the objection urged by Christ against the Samaritans should be applicable to us —  “ye worship ye know not what,” John iv. 22 — if our Lord’s saying should be held sacred wherever points of faith are in question — “we know what we worship” — the particulars which have been stated seem to contain all that we are capable of knowing, or are required to know respecting the Holy Spirit, inasmuch as revelation has declared nothing else expressly on the subject. The nature of these particulars is such, that although the Holy Spirit be nowhere said to have taken upon himself any mediatorial functions, as is said of Christ, nor to be engaged by the obligations of a filial relation to pay obedience to the Father, yet he must evidently be considered as inferior to both Father and Son, inasmuch as he is represented and declared to be subservient and obedient in all things; to have been promised, and sent, and given; to speak nothing of himself; and even to have been given as an earnest (pp. 120-121).
[Trinitarians have certainly ignored Milton’s advice and conclusions.]
    Milton adds:
[nowhere do the Scriptures] expressly teach the doctrine of his [the Holy Spirit’s] divinity, not even in the passages where his office is explained at large, nor in those where the unity of God is explicitly asserted, as in John xvii. 3, I Cor. viii. 4, etc., nor where God is either described, or introduced as sitting upon his throne, — if, further, the Spirit be frequently named the Spirit of God, and the Holy Spirit of God, Eph. iv. 30, so that the Spirit of God being actually and numerically distinct from God himself, cannot possibly be essentially one God with him whose Spirit he is (except on certain strange and absurd hypotheses, which have no foundation in Holy Scripture, but were devised by human ingenuity, for the sole purpose of supporting this particular doctrine) — if, wherever the Father and the Holy Spirit are mentioned together, the Father alone be called God, and the Father alone, omitting all notice of the Spirit, be acknowledged by Christ himself to be the one true God (pp. 121-122).
    Continuing, Milton states, “It seems exceedingly unreasonable, not to say dangerous, . . . believers should be required to receive a doctrine, represented by its advocates as of primary importance and of undoubted certainty, on anything less than the clearest testimony of Scripture” (p. 122).

Copyright © 2018 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2

More religious articles.

Thursday, September 5, 2019

Libertarians Versus Marxists

Libertarians Versus Marxists
Thomas Allen

Libertarians and Marxists are more alike than many realize. Libertarians agree with Marxists on at least one thing: economics is the most important factor in life and takes precedence over everything else. Like Marxists, libertarians believe that economics is the principal cause of social organization. Both treat economics like a religion. To them, country (a territory), nation (an ethnicity), race, culture, and the like have little or no value, especially if it conflicts with economics. (However, unlike libertarians, Marxists find some value in these collectives as tools to create turmoil.)
    Marxists and most libertarians believe that people need to be liberated from nationality, ethnicity, sex (distinguishing between male and female), and religion. Marxists believe that the best way to accomplish this goal is through socialism, whereas libertarians believe that capitalism is the best way.
A major difference between libertarians and Marxists is that Marxists know that they must impose their will on their opponents and proceed to do so. For the most part, libertarians fail to realize that they must force their will on Marxists and other statists and suppress them to establish a libertarian society. Persuasion will not stop those who feel compelled to run other people’s lives. Only force will stop them.
Another real difference between libertarians and Marxists is that libertarians favor little or no government while Marxists favor absolute government. Still, this difference is highly important, for a Libertarian regime guarantees much more liberty than a Marxist regime, which guarantees none. While Marxists want to use the government to destroy culture, etc., Libertarians object to using the government to protect and preserve culture, etc.
Unlike Marxists, who are nearly always wrong about economic issues, libertarians are usually right. However, on social issues and other noneconomic matters, both are usually wrong.
While Marxists promote homosexuality and other sexual perversions, unlimited immigration, and miscegenation to destroy society, Libertarians offer no objection to such destruction, especially when their beloved multinational corporations are promoting the destruction of society. However, libertarians seem to value the family more than Marxists do; at least, they are not as negative toward the family as Marxists are.
Genocide is another similarity between Marxists and libertarians. Genocide by Marxist is obvious. With mass murder, deportation, and integration, genocide by Marxist is too overt to ignore. On the other hand, Libertarians genocide in more subtle ways. For example, few libertarians would object to the Chinese overwhelming the Tibetans in such numbers that the Tibetans would cease to exist. However, most would object to the Tibetans trying to protect their ethnicity by such actions as prohibiting intermarriage and keeping the Chinese out of their community. Most libertarians object to using governmental power to protect and preserve races and ethnicities.
Whereas Marxists see the government as the priesthood of their god, libertarians view government as the priesthood of Satan (even if they do not believe in Satan). On the other hand, libertarians view corporations as angels, while Marxists present them as pure evil (although most Marxists are owned, directly or indirectly, by these corporations). As long as corporations promote the destruction of society and the enslavement of the people, libertarians do not object if the corporations do not collaborate directly with the government in the destruction. Likewise, Marxists do not object. Only when a corporation collaborates with the government to gain a market advantage do libertarians criticize the actions of a corporation.
However, libertarians and Marxists do disagree on some political correctness. Marxists favor political correctness no matter who imposes it because it is an effective weapon in destroying a society and a country. Libertarians only object to political correctness if the government imposes it. Yet, if their beloved corporations promote political correctness, they find it acceptable.
In summary, neither Marxists nor libertarians oppose the annihilation of noneconomic collectives, such as country, nation, race, religion, and culture. Whereas Marxists do not oppose using the government to destroy these noneconomic collectives, libertarians do. Nevertheless, libertarians have no objection to the government allowing and even encouraging, their destruction. Moreover, libertarians promote preventing the government from doing anything to protect them.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Tuesday, August 27, 2019

A Letter: Al Qaeda and 9/11

A Letter: Al Qaeda and 9/11
Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 2005 responding to an article in the Middle American News.]

    In your May 2005 issue, you state on page 9, “Kreis is parroting the nutty theories of the lunatic fringe about 9/11, denying al Qaeda was behind the attacks.” If al Qaeda were behind 9/11, then it had control of the U.S. government.
    Was it al Qaeda that prevented the FBI agents from investigating Moslems training to fly? Was it al Qaeda that gave suspected and known Moslem terrorists visas to come to the United States? How did al Qaeda get the CIA to train Moslems in terrorism? How did al Qaeda manage to switch the Boeing 747 that left Boston to a Boeing 737 that hit the south tower of the World Trade Center? Was al Qaeda the one who planted explosives in the twin towers and building number seven so that these buildings could be brought down?  How was al Qaeda able to bring down a steel structure where the steel was coated with fireproof material with a fire that probably did not exceed 800°F? Was it al Qaeda that got the EPA to tell New Yorkers that the air was safe to breathe when it was filled with tons of fine particulate and toxic and radioactive material? Why would al Qaeda want to bring down building number seven, which apparently contained evidence that pointed away from al Qaeda? Was it al Qaeda that ordered the quick destruction of the crime scene to prevent independent investigators from finding evidence that would conflict with the Bush administration’s and your conspiracy theory? What hold does al Qaeda have over the U.S. government to prevent it from releasing videotapes, aircraft parts, and other evidence that would support the government’s theory that al Qaeda did it? Did al Qaeda control the CIA so that it could get CIA funding and training?
    How could an al Qaeda pilot, who could not even fly a single engine training aircraft, fly a jet airliner, put that airliner in a rapidly spiraling descent, and then level the aircraft to fly just above the ground into the first floor of the Pentagon — a maneuver that would be difficult for an experienced pilot? The airliner that hit Pentagon was coming from the east and could have avoided this difficult maneuver if it were flown into the east side. Why did not al Qaeda fly the aircraft into the east side where Rumsfeld was instead of undertaking a very difficult maneuver to avoid killing Rumsfeld? (If al Qaeda had as much control over the U.S. government as you insinuate, then it would have certainly known where Rumsfeld’s office was and that he was in his office on 9/11.) Furthermore, how could the airliner flown by al Qaeda have left a hole in the Pentagon smaller than the fuselage, and much smaller than the wingspan, of the airliner that supposedly hit the Pentagon?
    Does al Qaeda operate under different laws of chemistry and physics than other people? How could they create a fire at the Pentagon to burn hot enough to vaporize aluminum (more than 4000°F) yet cool enough not to cremate human bodies (less than 1200°F)?
    Was it al Qaeda that sent most of the fighters stationed in the East to a training exercise in the West on September 11? Was it al Qaeda that created the CIA exercise on September 11 simulating a hijacked airliner flying into a building in Washington? Was it al Qaeda that created the other hijack training exercises that occurred on September 11 to confuse the FAA, NORAD, and others?
    How did six or more of the al Qaeda hijackers manage to survive crashing airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? With the country on high alert, how did they evade capture and flee the country?
    Kreis and many others claim that al Qaeda did not control the U.S. government and, therefore, could not and did not do these things. Conversely, you claim that al Qaeda did these things and, therefore, must have controlled the U.S. government.
    Cui bono! Who benefitted from 9/11? Was it the Moslems? So far, they have had two of their countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, destroyed, turned into radioactive waste dumps, and victimized by U.S. imperialism.
    The principal beneficiaries have been Israel, the rapture cult, the imperialists, the oil industry, the military-industrial complex, and the statists.  They all wanted war with the Moslem world. 9/11 gave Bush the excuse to give them that war.
    Israel got one of its staunchest enemies destroyed and now has a large U.S. army stationed indefinitely in the Middle East to protect Israeli interests.
    The rapture cult believes that a world war must start in the Middle East to bring Christ back to Earth. (Of course, most of the rapture cultists do not believe that they will be around to enjoy the fruits of their labor as they will have been raptured away before things get too bad.)
    The imperialists (like the abolitionists of the antebellum South era) get to remake someone else’s country in their own image. They get to remake the Middle East into a liberal, democratic, humanistic society without having to endure the destruction and devastation that they bring to these people to achieve their dream. At least their idea is noble [in their own minds], and that is all that really matters.
    The oil industry has gained control of Iraqi oil and the rights to the pipeline to be built through Afghanistan.
    The military-industrial complex has made a fortune from destroying Iraq and will make a fortune in rebuilding it — nearly all will be paid for by the U.S. taxpayers.
    The statists have turned the United States into a police state with the “PATRIOT” act, Homeland Security, and similar laws that have gutted what little remained of the Bill of Rights in the name of protecting us from Moslem terrorists. (If Bush were correct in asserting that the terrorists attacked us because they hated our freedom, then we should now be living in peace. In the name of protecting us from terrorism, Bush has destroyed our freedoms. Actually, Bush was correct if you realize that the terrorists to whom he refers are not in the Middle East, but are in Washington.)
    Everyone of importance in the Bush administration, or connected with it, belongs to one or more of these aforementioned groups.
    Al Qaeda had little to gain from 9/11 while these aforementioned groups have gained enormous wealth and power from 9/11. To believe that al Qaeda was the mastermind of 9/11 is the really nutty lunatic theory. This theory has nothing to support it but assertions by the open-borders, unlimited immigration, globalist, “diversity is strength,” outsourcing Bush administration.

    [Editor’s note: Joyce Reilly, may she forever be remembered, former air force captain and hostess of The Power Hour, which is still an excellent radio program, had the ultimate litmus test of a person’s credibility: If the person believes the official US government’s conspiracy theory about 9/11 or even pretends to believe it, then that person has no credibility. Another curiosity of 9/11 is that people who are convinced that the government always lies have made one exception to this belief: the government has told the truth about 9/11. This proves Hitler correct when he said, “The great masses of people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one — especially if it is repeated over and over.” Concurring, Joseph Goebbels said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”]

Copyright © 2005, 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More historical articles.

Saturday, August 17, 2019

A Letter: Money and Conspiracy Part 2 — Conspiracy

A Letter: Money and Conspiracy
Part 2 — Conspiracy
Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 2004 responding to an article by Mr. Rittenouse in Countryside. This letter has been divided into two parts: Part 1 — Money and Part 2 — Conspiracy.]

    Mr. Rittenhouse pooh-poohs the thought that some cabal may be working to control governments and the world. Some high and mighty people disagree with him. Here is a sample of what some of these important people have said about this cabal. I dare say; these people had much more insider information than Mr. Rittenhouse.
    Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.: “We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as words and money.”
    Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, “the outstanding power behind the New Deal”: “The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes.” At a dinner party, Frankfurter was asked who ran the United States; he replied, “The real rulers of a nation are undiscoverable.”
    John F. Hylan, mayor of New York: “The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over our city, state and nation. . . . At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as the international bankers [who] virtually run the U.S. government for their own selfish purposes.”
    After observing governmental leaders of the United States consistently making concessions to the Soviet Union, James Forrestal, the first Secretary of Defense, commented, “These men are not incompetent or stupid. They are crafty and brilliant. Consistency has never been a mark of stupidity. If they were merely stupid, they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor.”
    President-elect Ronald Reagan: “I think there is an elite in this country and they are the very ones who run an elitist government. They want a government by a handful of people because they don’t believe the people themselves can run their lives. . . . Are we going to have an elitist government that makes decisions for people’s lives, or are we going to believe as we have for so many decades, that the people can make these decisions for themselves?”
    A few years after resigning as President, Richard Nixon wrote, “The nation’s immediate problem is that while the common man fights America’s wars, the intellectual elite sets its agenda. Today, whether the West lives or dies is in the hands of its new power elite: those who set the terms of public debate, who manipulate the symbols, who decide whether nations or leaders will be depicted on 100 million television sets as ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ This power elite sets the limits of the possible for President and Congress. It molds the impressions that move the nation, or that mire it.”
    Jim Kirk, who had been a member of the Students for a Democratic Society, Communist Party, and the Black Panthers, said about the control of radical left groups: “Young people have no conception of the conspiracy’s strategy of pressure from above and pressure from below. . . . They have no idea that they are playing into the hands of the Establishment they claim to hate. The radicals think they are fighting the forces of the super rich, like Rockefeller and Ford, and they don’t realize that it is precisely such forces which are behind their own revolution, financing it, and using it for their own purposes.”
    Nicholas M. Butler, president of Columbia University, said to the Union League of Philadelphia: “The old world order died with the setting of the day’s sun and a New World Order is being born while I speak.” Butler was “J.P. Morgan’s chief spokesman for ivied halls.”
    Edward Bernays, chief advisor to William Paley, founder of CBS: “Those who manipulate the organized habits and opinions of the masses constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of the country. . . . It remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons. . . . It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world. . . . As civilization has become more complex, and as the need for invisible government has been increasingly demonstrated, the technical means have been invented and developed by opinion may be regimented.”
    Manly P. Hall, 33rd degree Freemason and a member of its inner circle, and probably the greatest Freemason of the twentieth century: “There exists in the world today, and has existed for thousands of years, a body of enlightened humans united in what might be termed, an Order of the Quest. It is composed of those whose intellectual and spiritual perceptions have revealed to them that civilization has secret destiny. The outcome of this ‘secret destiny’ is a World Order ruled by a King with supernatural powers. This King was descended of a divine race; that is, he belonged to the Order of the Illumined for those who come to a state of wisdom then belong to a family of heroes-perfected human beings.” He also wrote, “. . . It is beyond question that the secret societies of all ages have exercised a considerable degree of political influence. . . .”
    Winston Churchill admitted the existence of conspiracy when he wrote in 1920, “From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky, Bela Kun, Rosa Luxemburg, and Emma Goldman, this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization . . . has been steadily growing.”
    According to Lenin, the Communist Party could not survive without conspiracy. He wrote, “Conspiracy is so essential a condition of an organization of this kind that all other conditions . . . must be made to conform with it.”
    In a speech in 1931 before the Institute for the Study of International Affairs, the historian Arnold Toynbee said, “We are at the present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world. All the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands, because to impugn the sovereignty of the local national states of the world is still a heresy for which a statesman or publicists can perhaps not quite be burned at the stake but certainly be ostracized and discredited.”
    ABC commentator Cokie Roberts remarked, “Global bankers are really running the world.”
    James Warburg, son of Paul Warburg, the author of the Federal Reserve System: “We shall have world government whether or not you like it — by conquest or consent.”
    Benjamin Disraeli, Prime Minister of Great Britain: “The world is governed by very different personage from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”
    Benjamin Disraeli: “The governments of the present day have to deal not merely with other governments, with emperors, kings and ministers, but also with the secret societies which have everywhere their unscrupulous agents, and can at the last moment upset all the governments’ plans.”
    Franklinton Delano Roosevelt: “Nothing just happens in politics. If something happens you can be sure it was planned that way.”
    Franklin Delano Roosevelt: “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.”
    Elliot Roosevelt, son of Franklin Roosevelt: “There are within our world perhaps only a dozen organizations, which shape the course of our various destinies as rightly as the regularly constitutional government.”
    William Colby, CIA Director: “Sometimes, there are forces too powerful for us to whip them individually, in the time frame that we would like. . . . The best we might be able to do sometimes, is to point out the truth and then step aside.”
     Gary Allen, a historian of conspiracies: “. . . many of the major world events that are shaping destinies occur because somebody or somebodies have planned them that way. If we were merely dealing with the laws of average, half of the events affecting our nation’s well-being should be good for America. If we were dealing with mere incompetence, our leaders should occasionally make a mistake in our favor. . . . we are not really dealing with coincidence or stupidity, but with planning and brilliance.”
    Andre Baron: “Remember that the constant rule of the secret society is that the real authors never show themselves.”
    If these quotations do not suggest a conspiratorial cabal, then the origins of the Federal Reserve System should. The essence of what eventually became the act that established the Federal Reserve System was written by Paul Warburg of Kuhn, Loeb and Co. Assisting him were  Henry P. Davison, senior partner of J. P. Morgan and Co.; Charles D. Norton, president of (Morgan’s) First National Bank of New York; Frank A. Vanderlip, President of (William Rockefeller’s) National City Bank of New York; Benjamin Strong, vice-president of (Morgan’s) Bankers Trust Co.; A. Piatt Andrew, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; and Senator Nelson Aldrich, Morgan’s leading representative in Washington. This group met in secret in 1910 on Jekyll Island and drafted what eventually became the Federal Reserve System.
    The conspiratorial historians may be wrong, but the evidence strongly suggests that they are right.

Copyright © 2004, 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More historical articles.
Part 1

Thursday, August 8, 2019

A Letter: Money and Conspiracy: Part 1 — Money

A Letter: Money and Conspiracy
Part 1 — Money
Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 2004 responding to an article by Mr. Rittenouse in Countryside. This letter has been divided into two parts: Part 1 — Money and Part 2 — Conspiracy.]


    The following are a few comments on Mr. Rittenhouse’s article “Commodities, Fiat, and Theories,” which appeared in the July/August issue.
    In defining money, Mr. Rittenhouse gives three components that an item must meet to be used as money. It is used as a medium of exchange, a store of value, and a unit of account. Federal reserve notes, which are what passes for money today, meet only two of these three criteria. It is not a store of value. Since the beginning of the Federal Reserve System in 1914, which has a governmentally protected monopoly on issuing (creating) money, the dollar has lost 95 percent of its value. Over this period, an ounce of gold is still worth an ounce of gold. In dollar terms, an ounce of gold equaled about $20 in 1914; today, it equals about $400 [at the beginning of 2019, it buys about $1280 in federal reserve notes]. Thus, gold has retained its value. It is far superior to federal reserve notes as a store of value.
    Furthermore, if federal reserve notes, which are instruments of debt, were the market’s first choice of money, the government would not have to make them legal tender. The legal tender law requires people to accept the governmentally declared money, federal reserve notes, in payment of debt or to forego payment of the debt.
    What made gold and silver money, along with the other items that Mr. Rittenhouse lists that have been used as money, is that they had other uses. Gold and silver are commodities that can be used for something other than money. That they can be used for other things gives them intrinsic value. Before we became so sophisticated, people would never have thought of voluntarily using paper for money because paper has such low intrinsic value. (The paper that was used for exchange was redeemable in gold or silver.) The intrinsic value of a $10 bill is the same as that of a $100 bill. They both use the same amount of paper and ink and cost the same to make. The lack of intrinsic value necessitates legal tender laws.
    Mr. Rittenhouse identifies problems with counterfeiting gold coins or stamping gold coins with a higher weight and purity than it actually has. Paper money has the same problems. There are licensed counterfeiters, which in the United States is the Federal Reserve System. There are unlicenced counterfeiters, who are the people that the Treasury Department goes after. In a society accustomed to a gold coin monetary system, detecting a counterfeit gold is easier for more people than detecting high-quality counterfeit money. (This is especially true when a situation like the one that occurred at the end of World War II. At the end of World War II, the United States gave the Soviet Union the plates and paper needed to print U.S. occupational currency.)
    What Mr. Rittenhouse writes about the Federal Reserve controlling the money supply as a matter of law is true. His claim that federal reserve notes are fiat currency and that people are required to accept them under the penalty of law is also true. The Federal Reserve may be doing a good job of controlling, i.e., increasing the money supply, but any good counterfeiter could do that. However, it has been an extremely poor steward of the dollar having destroyed 95 percent of its value.
    Mr. Rittenhouse goes on to describe the Kondratiev Wave. Like him, I am not sold on this theory. The stories that I read today arguing that we are in the trough the Kondratiev Wave are similar to those that I read in the 1970s. (When corrected for inflation, a bottom in real terms occurred in the 1970s, but was masked by inflation.) If the bottom occurred in the 1970s, then according to the timeline of this theory, the next bottom should not occur until circa 2020. Many of the current advocates of the Kondratiev Wave are predicting that gold like everything else, except the dollar, will decline in value.
    Paper money always loses value over time and eventually becomes worth no more than its Btu content or toilet paper. (In Zimbabwe, a roll of toilet paper has 720 squares and cost 10,000 Zimbabwean dollars. So, if one changes his $10,000-note in the one thousand $10-notes, he has 720 sheets for wiping and $280 left over for spending. [This was in 2004 before Zimbabwe's hyperinflation began really to accelerate.]) An ounce of gold remains an ounce of gold forever. Paper money loses value because the government, through its surrogate central bank, can print money easier than it can raise taxes.
    My outlook on the dollar is pessimistic. The dollar is going down and gold up. Debt is going to drive the dollar down. Before this run is over, which will last another five to ten years, gold is going to $5000 an ounce assuming things do not get really bad [my timing was off considerably for the dollar amount or for the years]. (The run is not over until the DJIA can be bought for an ounce of gold, which means stocks have a long way to fall and gold has a long way to rise.) If things get really bad, then gold is going beyond anyone’s wildest speculation. The wildest speculation that I have come across made by a person who follows the gold market is $111,000 per ounce. This should be a floor. If things get really bad, Mr. Rittenhouse is correct in that all our lives will be in great danger.
    Gold is probably the hardest market to trade or to invest in. In stock, bonds, real estate, and all other markets, the trader or investor has to fight his greed or his fear — never both together. In gold, he has to fight both at the same time. When gold is sky-high, greed enters as it does in other markets. Yet, when gold is sky-high, it is there because of fear.
    The bottom line is spend your federal reserve notes but save your gold. Use federal reserve notes as a purchasing medium, and use gold as a store of value.


Copyright © 2004, 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More money articles.

Part 2

Tuesday, July 30, 2019

Mencken on the Future of Democracy

Mencken on the Future of Democracy
Thomas Allen

    In 1926, H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) wrote Notes on Democracy in which he expressed his views on democracy and related issues. He was a journalist, satirist, and critic and a libertarian and one of the leaders of the Old Right. In his book, he describes the future of democracy, pages 207-224. Below is an overview of his discussion on the future of democracy; my comments are in brackets.
    Mencken does not know if democracy will survive until the end of the age — the Second Coming. Nevertheless, democracy “came into the world as a cure-all, and it remains primarily a cure-all to this day. Any boil upon the body politic, however vast and raging, may be relieved by taking a vote; any flux of blood may be stopped by passing a law.” Under democracy “[t]he aim of government is to repeal the laws of nature, and re-enact them with moral amendments.” Thus, “[w]ar becomes simply a device to end war.” Moreover, “[t]he State, a mystical emanation from the mob, takes on a transcendental potency and acquires the power to make over the father which begat it.”
    Under democracy, nothing “remains inscrutable and beyond remedy, not even the way of a man with a maid. It was not so under the ancient and accursed systems of despotism, now happily purged out of the world. They, too . . . had certain pretensions of an Homeric gaudiness, but they at least refrained from attempts to abolish sin, poverty, stupidity, cowardice, and other such immutable realities.” [Thus, democracy has its war on poverty, war on drugs, war on the male and female sexes, war on racism, war on Confederate monuments, war on Christianity {Mencken may have approved of this war}, war on common sense, war on ____ {you fill in the blank}.] In the time of absolute monarchs, the “evils of the world were incurable: one put off the quest for a perfect moral order until one got to heaven.” Consequently, “a scheme of checks and balances [arose] that was consummate and completely satisfactory, for it could not be put to a test, and the logical holes in it were chinked with miracles. But no more. To-day the Holy Saints are deposed. Now each and every human problem swings into the range of practical politics.”   He continues, “Democracy becomes a substitute for the old religion, and the antithesis of it.” [Today, all issues have been politicized. Thus, everything preached in a church relates to politics — so much for the separation of church and state unless churches cease to exist, of which Mencken might have approved.]
    Mencken notes that democracy “shows all the magical potency of the great systems of faith. It has the power to enchant and disarm; it is not vulnerable to logical attack.” For proof, he comments on James Bryce’s Modern Democracy. Bryce “amasses incontrovertible evidence that democracy doesn’t work — and then concludes with a stout declaration that it does.” Then he cites “Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, with its argument that the North fought the Civil War to save self-government to the world! — a thesis echoed in falsetto, and by feebler men, fifty years later.”
    Continuing, Mencken remarks, “There is, in the human mind, a natural taste for such hocus-pocus. It greatly simplifies the process of ratiocination, which is unbearably painful to the great majority of men. . . . No doubt there is an explanation here of the long-continued popularity of the dogma of the Trinity, which remains unstated in plain terms after two thousand years.”
    He continues, “Democracy is shot through with this delight in the incredible, this banal mysticism. One cannot discuss it without colliding with preposterous postulates, all of them cherished like authentic hairs from the whiskers of Moses himself.” An example is the “acceptance of the faith that progress is illimitable and ordained of God that every human problem, in the very nature of things, may be solved.” Corollaries to this belief “are even more naive. One, for example, is to the general effect that optimism is a virtue in itself — that there is a mysterious merit in being hopeful and of glad heart, even in the presence of adverse and immovable facts. This curious notion turns the glittering wheels of Rotary, and is the motive power of the political New Thoughters called Liberals.”
    Mencken illustrates Liberal optimism with the League of Nations — which offered “superb clinical material to the student of democratic psychopathology.” The Liberal “began by arguing that the League would save the world.” [The same is seen with its descendant, the United Nations.] According to Mencken, “this sweet democratic axiom . . . is, fundamentally, what is the matter with the United States.”
    In spite of its multitude of flaws, Mencken believes that democracy “has some valuable merits.” He argues “that its [democracy] manifest defects, if they are ever to be got rid of at all, must be got rid of by examining them realistically.” For this to be accomplished, democracy must cease being a religion. Mencken has found no evidence that would convince “an ordinary jury, that vox populi is actually vox Dei. The proofs, indeed, run the other way. [In the Bible, God always chooses a spokesman of one and never chooses the majority.] The life of the inferior man is one long protest against the obstacles that God interposes to the attainment of his dreams, and democracy, if it is anything at all, is simply one way of getting round those obstacles.” Thus, democracy “represents, not a jingling echo of what seems to be the divine will, but a raucous defiance of it.” According to Mencken, democracy is truly civilized when it is “an effort to remedy the blunders and check the cruel humours of the Cosmic Kaiser.” [Thus, the primary usefulness of democracy is overcoming God.]
    Mencken states that “democracy may be a self-limiting disease, as civilization itself seems to be.” Then he comments on some of the “paradoxes in its philosophy,” some of which “have a suicidal smack.” For example, “[i]t offers John Doe a means to rise above his place beside Richard Roe, and then, by making Roe his equal, it takes away the chief usufructs of the rising. . . . [T]he history of democratic states is a history of disingenuous efforts to get rid of the second half of that dilemma. There is not only the natural yearning of Doe to use and enjoy the superiority that he has won; there is also the natural tendency of Roe, as an inferior man, to acknowledge it.” Mencken adds, “Democracy, in fact, is always inventing class distinctions, despite its theoretical abhorrence of them. . . . [Further,] [d]emocratic man . . . is quite unable to think of himself as a free individual; he must belong to a group, or shake with fear and loneliness and the group, of course, must have its leaders.”
    Mencken remarks that “there is a form of human striving that is understood by democratic man . . . and that is the striving for money. Thus the plutocracy, in a democratic state, tends to take the place of the missing aristocracy, and even to be mistaken for it.” [This is the Puritan mentality at work: Acquiring wealth is all-important.] However, a plutocracy “lacks all the essential characters of a true aristocracy: a clean tradition, culture, public spirit, honesty, honour, courage — above all, courage. It stands under no bond of obligation to the state; it has no public duty; it is transient and lacks a goal.” [Actually, the plutocracy does have a goal: the acquisition of absolute power. Anyway, the heads of multinational corporations and big banks fit Mencken’s description of a plutocrat.] The most all-powerful plutocrat comes “out of the mob only yesterday — and from the mob they bring all its peculiar ignobilities.” [Examples are the billionaires in the high technology industry and multimillionaires in entertainment and sports.] “As practically encountered, the plutocracy stands quite as far from the honnete homme [gentleman] as it stands from the Holy Saints.” The main characteristic of the plutocracy is its incurable timorousness; it is for ever grasping at the straws held out by demagogues.” Mencken claims, “Half a dozen gabby Jewish youths, meeting in a back room to plan a revolution . . . are enough to scare it half to death.” [Today, as was the situation when Mencken wrote, the plutocrats would be backing these “gabby Jewish youths” — guiding, inspiring, and financing them.]
    Mencken continues, “The plutocracy . . . is comprehensible to the mob because its aspirations are essentially those of inferior men: it is not by accident that Christianity, a mob religion, paves heaven with gold and precious stones, i.e., with money.” However, “reactions against this ignoble ideal among men of more civilized tastes, even in democratic states [do occur], and sometimes they arouse the mob to a transient distrust of certain of the plutocratic pretensions. But that distrust seldom arises above mere envy, and the polemic which engenders it is seldom sound in logic or impeccable in motive.”
    A plutocracy lacks the disinterestedness of an aristocracy. No body of opinion stands behind a plutocracy that is a free opinion. “Its chief exponents, by some divine irony, are pedagogues of one sort or another which is to say, men chiefly marked by their haunting fear of losing their jobs. Living under such terrors, with the plutocracy policing them harshly on one side and the mob congenitally suspicious of them on the other, it is no wonder that their revolt usually peters out in metaphysics, and that they tend to abandon it as their families grow up, and the costs of heresy become prohibitive. The pedagogue, in the long run, shows the virtues of the Congressman, the newspaper editorial writer or the butler, not those of the aristocrat.” If the pedagogue “persists in contumacy beyond thirty, it is only too commonly a sign, not that he is heroic, but simply that he is pathological.” He is a fanatic and not a statesman.
    “Thus politics, under democracy, resolves itself into impossible alternatives[:] . .  . the plutocracy on the one side and a rabble of preposterous impossibilists on the other.” Mencken remarks that “what democracy needs most of all is a party that will separate the good that is in it theoretically from the evils that beset it practically, and then try to erect that good into a workable system.” That is, what democracy “needs beyond everything is a party of liberty.” Mencken concludes, “It [democracy] produces, true enough, occasional libertarians, just as despotism produces occasional regicides, but it treats them in the same drum-head way. It will never have a party of them until it invents and installs a genuine aristocracy, to breed them and secure them.
    Mencken closes with democracy “is, perhaps, the most charming form of government ever devised by man. . . . It is based upon propositions that are palpably not true and what is not true, as every one knows, is always immensely more fascinating and satisfying to the vast majority of men than what is true. Truth has a harshness that alarms them, and an air of finality that collides with their incurable romanticism. . . . More, democracy gives it a certain appearance of objective and demonstrable truth. The mob man, functioning as citizen, gets a feeling that he is really important to the world — that he is genuinely running things. . . . [He is convinced] that he is somehow wise, that his views are taken seriously by his betters.” Moreover, happiness for the democrat is illusionary. “The seeds of his disaster . . . lie in his own stupidity: he can never get rid of the naive delusion . . . that happiness is something to be got by taking it away from the other fellow. . . . Here the irony that lies under all human aspiration shows itself: the quest for happiness, as always, brings only unhappiness in the end. . . . [Thus,] the true charm of democracy is not for the democrat but for the spectator.” Mencken contends, “The fraud of democracy . . . is more amusing than any other — more amusing even, and by miles, than the fraud of religion.”
    [Most of Mencken’s animosities toward religion as presented in this book seems to flow primarily from Methodists and Baptists of the South and West with some minor input from the New England religions. Their support of Prohibition, creationism, censorship, and general opposition to vice seems to be the major cause of his rancor toward religion. Moreover, Mencken seems to judge Christianity by the charlatan, scoundrels, buffoons, fanatics, Puritans, sharpies, shysters, and ignoramuses who speak in its name rather than by the words on which it is founded. If he studied the Bible instead of relying on those who claim to speak for God, he may have still concluded that religion, Christianity, is a fraud. {For all that I know, he may have done this.} However, his judgment would be based on the Bible and not what others claim about it or say about it. Unfortunately, too many Christians take the lazy and easy way out by following the charlatan, scoundrels, buffoons, fanatics, Puritans, sharpies, shysters, and ignoramuses instead of studying the Bible themselves. Most of the problems that Mencken associates with Christianity come from these lazy Christians taking the easy road of following the wrong leaders.]

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Tuesday, July 23, 2019

A Letter: Comparison of Secession of the Baltic States to the Southern States

A Letter: Comparison of Secession of the Baltic States to the Southern States
Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1990 responding to Mr. Howard Ruff about an article that he wrote for his newsletter, “The Ruff Times.”]

    In your speech for Bush to give Gorbachev, your analogy with the Southern States fighting for freedom and independence fails on all points. Gorbachev is correct. He is analogous to Lincoln. The Soviet Union is analogous to the United States. The Baltic States are analogous to the Southern States.
    True, South Carolina voluntarily entered the Union. It had the right under the Tenth Amendment to voluntarily leave the Union. Nowhere did (and nowhere does) the United States Constitution deny a State the right to secede. Moreover, both Virginia and New York entered the Union on the expressed condition that they could leave it at will. Until 1861, almost every political scientist and political philosopher in America believed that a State had the legal right to secede freely in peace.
    True, South Carolina did not subject its ordinance of secession to a plebiscite. Some Southern States did, although their plebiscite would not qualify under your criteria because they were undemocratic in that they did not allow women or Blacks to vote, but what State or country did allow women and Blacks to vote in the mid-nineteenth century? South Carolina’s secession convention was popularly elected to consider secession as were all the other secession conventions in the other Southern States. Even without a plebiscite, the support, sacrifice, and loyalty shown by a majority of the woman and Blacks of the South for the cause of Southern independence showed that secession did have popular support even among the disfranchised.
    If denying women and Blacks the right to vote is to deny legitimacy to political action, then the action undertaken by Lincoln and the North would have to be illegal because neither woman nor Blacks were allowed to vote for or against Lincoln or other Northern political leaders. In fact, following your theory that secession is illegal unless supported by a plebiscite in which women and Blacks are allowed to vote, the founding of the United States was (and remains) illegal and unacceptable. The secession of the colonies from Great Britain was not supported by any plebiscite. Not only were women and Blacks not allowed to vote on the question, but neither were white male property owners. To follow your democratic argument to its logical conclusion, everything that the United States did politically before 1920 was illegal because women did not have the right to vote.
    False, Lincoln did not wage war to end slavery. Midway through the war when ending slavery became politically expedient, he did issue his Emancipation Proclamation. However, not only did he not have any legal authority to issue the proclamation, he did not free a single slave with it. His proclamation proclaimed freedom to slaves in areas under the control of the Confederate army while excluding slaves in areas under the control of the Union army.
    Lincoln opposed secession by the Southern States for many of the same reasons that Gorbachev opposes secession by the Baltic States.  Both lusted for power and empire. Still, more important, both wanted the wealth of the seceding States. Lincoln said that he did not care if the Southern States seceded if the United States continued to collect the taxes (tariffs).
    The modern Baltic States came into being in 1917/1918 when they seceded, with the help of Germany, from the Russian Empire just like the Southern Confederation came into being when several Southern States seceded from the United States and then formed the Confederate States of America. During World War II, Russia conquered her lost provinces of the Baltic States and reincorporated them into the Soviet Union just like the United States conquered the Southern States and reincorporated them into the United States. After 1940, the Baltic States became conquered territories just like the Southern States after in 1865. The Baltic States had less of a legal right to secede in 1917-1918 than the Southern States had in 1860-1861. The Baltic States have just as much or just as little right to secede as the Southern States have today.
    If the United States were to support the Baltic States, they would have to admit, if they were at least slightly honest, that they were wrong in subjugating the Southern States in 1861–1865. The Southern States had (and still have) just as much right to leave the United States as the Baltic States have to leave the Soviet Union.
    Another reason that the United States offer no support to the Baltic States is quid pro quo. Russia supported the United States in their suppression of Southern independence. Now the United States can return the favor by supporting the Soviet Union in its suppression of Baltic independence.
    Perhaps the most important reason that the United States refuse to support the Baltic States drive for independence is that the official foreign policy of the United States has been since World War I, and still is, to support and expand communism and the Soviet Empire at all cost to freedom. [With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States have replaced their support of the Soviet Union with support of China and have made China an industrial giant.]
    The United States should show the Soviet Union and the rest of the world by example how to treat secession. They should let the Southern States create a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern State and let them go in peace and friendship. Then the Soviet Union could learn how to let go of the Baltic States. All that the United States have shown the Soviet Union and the rest of the world is how to stifle freedom and independence by stifling secession. [As events turned out, the reverse is true. The Soviet Union allowed the Baltic States to secede in peace and friendship. Thus, it gave the United States the example to follow in the treatment of seceding States. Will the United States learn from the now-defunct Soviet Union about the proper treatment of secession?]
    Gorbachev is correct in claiming that he is acting like Lincoln. The argument that he is not acting like Lincoln is an untenable, unconvincing, and invalid argument. To admit that Lincoln was a despot and his suppression of Southern independence was tyrannical and to argue that when Gorbachev emulates Lincoln, he is nothing more than a despot copying Lincoln’s tyrannical methods, is much more tenable, cogent, and valid.

Copyright © 1990, 2019 by Thomas C. Allen.

More political articles.

Thursday, July 11, 2019

A Letter: Communist Democracy, Genocide, Fascism

A Letter: Communist Democracy, Genocide, Fascism
Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1990 responding to Mr. Howard Ruff about an article that he wrote for his newsletter, “The Ruff Times.”]

    I agree with your comments in the March 12, 1990, issue of “The Ruff Times” about the dangers of Gorbachev consolidating power in his hands. Anyone who prefers liberty to despotism seeks to decentralize and disperse power rather than to centralize and concentrate it as Gorbachev is doing.
    However, I disagree with you that “communist democracy” is an oxymoron, much less the oxymoron of the year. Enclosed is a short article that I wrote for the “Southern National Newsletter” about a year ago in which I aver that democracy is much more compatible with and akin to socialism, of which communism is just one branch, than a free market economy and that democracy has little to do with freedom — at least in the sense that freedom was thought of before the coming of the welfare state. If you want to pursue an oxymoron, try the ever-popular, ever-present oxymoron “Judeo-Christian.” [Judaism teaches that Jesus was a bastard, sorcerer, blasphemer, and worse. How does that compare the teachings of the Christian New Testament about Jesus?]
    As for South Africa, your prognostication is not as dismal as mine. The Afrikaner is on his way to extinction. The genocide of the Afrikaner will be both by the more traditional violent method typically practiced in Africa and by the more subtle method typically practiced in the United States and the rest of the Western Hemisphere. [The Black controlled government of South Africa is now actively promoting genociding the Afrikaner and other White South Africans.] Most likely, Apartheid will win in the end. As the various South African tribes war with each other for supremacy, South Africa will become divided into several countries. There will be only four winners: the Black African leaders who survive to become dictators, the British multinational corporations, the international bankers, and the Soviet Union. [We can now omit the Soviet Union from the list. I guess that the globalist, i.e., the multinational corporations and international bankers, no longer have any use for the Soviet Union. Most likely, China will take the place of the extinct Soviet Union in South Africa.]
    Perhaps the reason that “genocide” is such an abused term is to conceal from the American public that genocide, as defined by the Genocide Convention, is an official governmental policy of the United States. Enclosed is an article that I wrote for the “Southern National Newsletter” after Congress approved legislation to implement the Genocide Convention in which I aver that according to the Convention, genocide is an official governmental policy in the United States.
    To conceal from the American public that they live in a fascist country, albeit a democratic fascist country if you want an apparent oxymoron, is perhaps why the term “fascist” is abused as much as if not more than “genocide.”  The United States are a fascist country. It has adopted the welfare state and it has total control of all property in the United States — both of which are key elements of fascism. As in the autocratic fascist countries about 50 years ago [now 75 years ago], individuals are allowed to own property, pay taxes on their property, and are held responsible and liable for their property.  However, the government tells them what they may, can, and shall do with their property and what they may not, cannot, and shall not do with their property. (The government may not be involved in all areas of property usage, but the people have conceded it the right to be so.) The government has the benefits of ownership while the property owners have the responsibility.

Copyright © 1990, 2019 by Thomas C. Allen.

More political articles.

Tuesday, July 2, 2019

Libertarians and Open Borders

Libertarians and Open Borders
Thomas Allen

Most libertarians favor open borders and unlimited immigration. According to them, everyone ought to be free to live wherever he wants to live if the taxpayer does not have to pay for it. These libertarians place no value on countries (territory) or nations (people). However, most libertarians refuse to acknowledge that open borders and unlimited immigration are highly destructive to liberty — the thing that most libertarians claim to adore, ranking it just behind unrestrained capitalism.
Libertarians who advocate open borders and unlimited immigration are willing to sacrifice their ideology for the sake of their ideology. Do they really believe that if 100 million Latinos, 100 million Asian Indians, and 100 million East Asians migrated to the United States over the next several decades, they would become more libertarian than they are today? Do they really believe that people who have authoritarianism instilled in them for generations really appreciate liberty? If they did, they would already be living in countries that practice libertarian values.
Moreover, most of these people come from countries where only the opinions of people who wield power matter. Only members of the ruling faction have any rights; the purpose of government is to advance their agenda; rulers are above the law. Furthermore, the powerful are not expected to subordinate their ambition to the wishes of others. Political leaders are expected to loot the country. If given the chance, most of the oppressed in these countries would imitate their oppressors. Yet, libertarians want to flood the United States with people who hold these beliefs.
Only countries where the population is White or mostly White (at least 85 percent) have pursued libertarian ideas. When non-White countries have adopted libertarian ideas, Whites have nearly always imposed such ideas on them, and the remainder have copied them from Whites. When Whites withdraw or dwindle below a critical number, libertarian ideas vanish. Africa is a prime example.
One major cause of the United States becoming more Marxist and having a larger and more intrusive government is the influx of people from highly statist societies. Adding ever increasing numbers of these people will move the country further away from libertarian ideas.
Moreover, Marxists and their kindred control the school systems in the United States. Thus, they are indoctrinating the children of these new arrivals and the children of native-born Americans with Marxist ideas. Unless libertarians are willing to do an unlibertarian thing and capture control of the public school systems and teach these children libertarian ideas, rare will be a student who knows any libertarian ideas.
A historical example of immigration moving the United States from libertarianism toward statism occurred with the failed Revolution of 1848. Many radicals involved in that conflict fled to the United States. Soon afterward, they joined with the Yankee abolitionists and Puritan industrialists and established the imperial president in the person of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln rewarded them by destroying the US Constitution and concentrating all political power in the US government. If a few thousand radicals uniting with the Puritan Yankee could cause this much destruction, imagine what several hundred million aliens united with the progressive liberals, who are descendants of the Puritan Yankee and 1848 radicals, could do to destroy what little remains of the United States. (Although progressive liberals despise nearly everything that libertarians advocate in the economic and political realm, they agree with libertarians on nearly everything that they advocate in the social realm.)
Additionally, many libertarians teach the idea that people should act like atomized individuals with no loyalty to their race, nation (ethnicity), or gene pool — especially those who follow Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. Like the neo-conservatives, these libertarians push the notion that the United States are a concept country. With their actions, they adamantly oppose the notion that the United States are a genetic country — or, perhaps more correctly today, were a genetic country since they have degenerated into a multiracial, multicultural empire. Furthermore, most libertarians seem to want to eliminate political borders altogether, which is a goal of the globalists, who are scheming to form a totalitarian global government.
Most libertarians have an uncontrollable compulsion to turn the United States into a third world ghetto with their open borders and unlimited immigration policies. Do they really believe that libertarianism could and would thrive in such an environment? So far, it never has. To the contrary, libertarianism has never even been considered in such an environment. People in such a society are too concerned about their next meal or even surviving the day to bother with libertarian ideas. America’s accumulated capital can only last so long. When it is consumed, such poverty will be the norm.
Open borders and unlimited immigration will end all hope of a libertarian society. Are libertarians this ignorant? Are they suicidal? Are they a front for the ruling elite, who want a one-world totalitarian government? Do they hate Whites and Western Civilization? What is their reason for promoting a policy that will destroy their goal of a libertarian society?

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.



Sunday, June 23, 2019

The Conservative Threat to the White Race

The Conservative Threat to the White Race
Thomas Allen

    Perhaps, the greatest threat that the White race faces today is the so-called White conservative spokesmen and leaders because their attack is unsuspected. They are Trojan horses.
    With rare exception, conservative leaders promote, or at least accept without protest, conditions that will genocide the White race. Sadly, most do not even know that which they condone leads to genocide. However, their ignorance does not lessen the genocide; most likely, it makes it more certain. Unfortunately, even if they know, most probably would not object to these conditions.
    Moreover, these conservative leaders do not even realize that the Black race and what little remains of the American Indian will be destroyed with the genocide of the White race. Blacks and other non-Whites are the tools of genocide. This is especially true since many of these conservatives oppose flooding the country with Indians and mestizos from Latin America and Melanochroi and Turanians from Asia, who are also being used to genocide the White race.
    A major cause of this problem is that most conservative live in fear of the “R” word — “racist” — although they are by definition racist (all Whites are racist by definition). They need to get over this fear. With more than 280 definitions, “racist” has become a meaningless word whose sole purpose is to smear the person against whom it is hurled.
    Furthermore, many conservatives have fallen in love with “diversity,” so much so, that distinguishing their worship of diversity from that of a liberal is often difficult. However, few acknowledge that integration and amalgamation destroy diversity. Real diversity can only be achieved with segregation and separation. Unfortunately, most of the conservatives who oppose diversity want to replace it with amalgamation, the melting pot. Amalgamation is nothing more than racial suicide, i.e., genocide.
    Another cause is that most conservatives do not know what a nation is. They believe that a nation can be multiracial and multiethnic. However, they confuse “nation” (a people) with “territory” (a country).  A nation or nationality is a people of the same biological race (species) who have a common origin, culture, language, and history and who have common traditions and customs. A country can be multiracial, multiethnic, and multicultural, but a nation cannot. When in their praise of nationalism, they imply or even state that a nation can be multiracial, they are covertly supporting genocide.
    Also, many conservatives show an inability to distinguish between a biological race and ethnicity or between a biological race and a nation. For example, Danes are an ethnicity and a nation of the White or Aryan race, while Zulus are an ethnicity and a nation of the Black or Negro race within the country of South Africa. Both Poles and Portuguese are ethnicities and nations of the Aryan race. Catalans and Basques are ethnicities of the Aryan race who live in the multiethnic country of Spain.
    What is the genocide that these conservative leaders condone? It is amalgamation through miscegenation. When two or more races interbreed, they are destroyed, which is genocide, i.e., the systematic annihilation of a race.
    Besides the fear of being smeared as “racist,” another reason that these conservatives fail to condemn miscegenation as genocide is ignorance. Most fail to realize that interracial mating is genocide because it is subtle and slow. This is ignorance that kills.
    Regrettably, others promote this genocide for the nefarious reason that they are agents of the ruling elite, who seek to annihilate the White race for satanic reasons (it is the race created in the image of God).
    These conservative leaders and spokesmen are much more dangerous to the White race than liberals. Their conservative followers know the hatred of liberals for Whites and their desire to destroy them. However, because of the conservative credentials of these conservative leaders, their followers give less attention to, or even ignore, the hostilities that these conservative leaders have toward the White race. Often, these leaders conceal their animus by praising Whites, expressing a desire to preserve or protect Whites, and protesting discrimination against Whites.
    Beware, if a conservative leader or spokesman (1) continuously or vigorously insists that he is not a racist, (2) praises Martin Luther King, (3) believes that a nation can be multiracial, (4) responds to racial diversity with amalgamation, which he calls assimilation, i.e., the “melting pot” principle, (5) does not object to interracial marriages, (6) gives the impression that the Black man is the same as the White man except that his skin contains more melanin and his hair is curlier,  (7) claims there is only one race: the human race, and (8) objects to aliens illegally entering the country, but expresses no concern about non-Whites entering if they do it legally, he may be an agent of the ruling elite, a coward, or an ignoramus. In any event, conservatives who value the White race need to jettison these traitorous conservative leaders. Such conservatives apparently place little or no value on the White race, the White gene pool. Any person who does not advocate the preservation of his own race and nation (ethnicity) — his gene pool — is a traitor to his people.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Friday, June 14, 2019

Are the United States a Communist Country?

Are the United States a Communist Country?
Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1988 to the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party.]

    The United States are well on their way to becoming a communist country. About 70 percent [revised to about 80 percent] of the trip has been completed as the following comparison with the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto illustrates.
    1. “Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.” The U. S. government owns 32 percent of the land in the United States. Indian reservations own 2 percent. State and local governments own 7 percent. Zoning, land use, rent control, and similar laws control much of the remaining 59 percent. Thus, governments in effect control most of the land in the country, i.e., have the benefit of ownership, while leaving landowners the responsibility of ownership. Much of the income that one may earn from his land is taxed away, and most of the taxes that a landowner pays on his property have nothing to do with protecting his land. Plank No. 1 has been essentially implemented — 8 points. [When what the Bureau of Land Management has done in recent years, this score needs to be raised to 9 points.]
    2. “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.” The Sixteenth Amendment gave the U. S. government the authority to levy a progressive income tax. The U.S. government and most States levy a progressive income tax. Plank No. 2 has been implemented — 10 points.
    3. “Abolition of all rights of inheritance.” People still retain the right to will property and to inherit property. However, inheritance is taxed heavily enough that property left often has to be sold, and is, therefore, lost by the inheritor, to raise money to pay inheritance and estate taxes. Plank No. 3 has been partially implemented — 3 points. [Although some tax relief has been given in recent years, this plank still deserves at least 3 points.]
    4. “Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.” Southerners, whom the conquering horde considers rebels, have had much of their property confiscated over the years. Also, investments in foreign countries, which is a form of emigration, is controlled and restricted by the U.S. government. The U.S. government claims the authority to limit the amount of property that a citizen may take out of the country. Plank No. 4 has been partially implemented — 4 points. [With all the security laws enacted in recent years, the score for this plank needs to be raised to 6 points.]
    5. “Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and exclusive monopoly.” The Federal Reserve Act centralized credit in the hands of the U.S. government. It along with various other federal banking laws has established an exclusive banking monopoly controlled by the U.S. government. Federal debt accounts for a significant part of the reserves of the banking system. They have implemented Plank No. 5 — 10 points.
    6. “Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.” The U.S. government has centralized the control of communication and transportation in its hands. Some of the agencies that have been used to implement this plank are the post office, FCC, FPC, CAB, FAA, FMB, FRA, and ICC. Plank No. 6 has been implemented — 10 points.
    7. “Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation waste lands, and the improvement of soil generally in accordance with a common plan.” The U.S. government has been implementing this plank over the years with such agencies as the Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Although the U.S. government and the States have usually refrained from taking over the ownership of factories, they have not hesitated to claim control of them. They tell employers whom they must hire, the kind of benefits to give employees, the minimum wage to pay employees, and a host of other items that are better left to negotiation between employers and employees because they are rightfully within their purview and not that of the government. Plank No. 7 has been substantially implemented — 8 points.
    8. “Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.” This plank is one that the welfare state has managed to avoid. Plank No. 8 has barely been implemented — 1 point.
    9. “Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; A gradual abolition of distinction between town and country, by more equitable distribution of the population over the country.” Zoning, land use, and similar laws are removing the distinction between town and country. Agricultural and tax policies are forcing agricultural operations to resemble manufacturing industry.  Plank No. 9 is well on its way to being implemented — 8 points. [With the U.S. governments and State and local governments adopting laws to implement Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 to greatly restrict the use of rural land and to force most people to live in cities, this plank has now been substantially implemented and deserves 10 points.]
    10. “Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc.” Plank No. 10 has been completely implemented — 10 points.
    Out of a possible 100 points, the United States score 72 points [revised to 77 points]. That is, the United States have already implemented 72 percent [revised to 77 percent] of Marx’s planks. Therefore, judging by the ten planks that Marx presents in the Communist Manifesto, the United States have almost completed their journey of becoming a communist country.

Copyright © 1988, 2019 by Thomas C. Allen.

More political articles.

Wednesday, June 5, 2019

Mencken on Corruption Under Democracy

Mencken on Corruption Under Democracy
Thomas Allen

    In 1926, H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) wrote Notes on Democracy in which he expressed his views on democracy and related issues. He was a journalist, satirist, and critic and a libertarian and one of the leaders of the Old Right. In his book, he describes corruption under democracy, pages 187-203. Below is an overview of his discussion on corruption under democracy; my comments are in brackets.
    Nine-tenth of the Puritan and democrat is “cruelty, envy and cowardice.” About the early Puritans of New England, Mencken writes, “He was not only a very carnal fellow, and given to lamentable transactions with loose women and fiery jugs; he was also a virtuoso of sharp practices, and to this day his feats in that department survive in fable.” Then he notes that no perceptible improvements have been found in his successors.
    Mencken remarks, “A sixth of the Americano’s income is rooked out of him by rogues who have at him officially, and in the name of the government; half the remainder goes to sharpers who prefer the greater risks and greater profits of private enterprise.” [Today, the government gets half and the sharpers still get half, if not more, of the remainder. Thus, they typical American has much less to live on than he did in the 1920s.] “All schemes to save him from such victimizations have failed in the past, and all of them . . . are bound to fail in the future.”
    Dreaming eternally of utopia makes the democratic man easy “prey to shibboleths, and those that fetch him in his political capacity are more than matched by those that fetch him in his role of private citizen.” The poor old democrat is always facing schemes “full of virtuous pretences,” only to discover that “they are unmitigated swindles.” [Pick your favorite federal program as an example.]
    “All observers of democracy . . . have marvelled at its corruptions on the political side.” Democracy brings bribery, “and thus destroy[s] the integrity and authority of the State.” [In a democracy, incumbent politicians are notorious for bribing voters with money from the public treasury and businesses with subsidizes and special privileges. Also, lobbyists are notorious for bribing politicians with contribution to their election campaigns and by other means. Foreign governmental officials bribed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with donations to the Clinton Foundation.] Historians marvel that such blatant bribery occurs in a democracy “and marvel even more that democracy takes them calmly, and even lightly.” Democracy seems to accept bribery as inevitable and natural. Commenting on corruption during the Harding administration, Mencken states that a “small body of specialists in rectitude . . . ventured to protest, and in the end they found themselves far more unpopular than the thieves.” [Whenever a whistle blower presents evidence of corruption and even crimes by high-ranking personnel of the U.S. government, most often the whistle blower is persecuted and often prosecuted while the culprit remains unmolested and goes free.]
    Although “[s]uch phenomena . . . puzzle the more academic pathologists of democracy, . . . they seem to be in strict accord with God’s invariable laws.” Then Mencken asks, “Why should democracy rise against bribery? It is itself a form of wholesale bribery.” He adds, “In place of a government with a fixed purpose and a visible goal, it sets up a government that is a mere function of the mob’s vagaries, and that maintains itself by constantly bargaining with those vagaries. Its security depends wholly upon providing satisfactory bribes for the prehensible minorities that constitute the mob, or that have managed to deceive and inflame the mob.” [Thus, bribery is an essential, vital part of democracy.] “The whole process of government under democracy . . . is a process of” granting privileges and benefits to various groups in exchange for granting privileges and benefits to other groups. Moreover, “[t]he very head of the State, having no title to his office save that which lies in the popular will, is forced to haggle and bargain like the lowliest office-seeker.” [Many third-world countries have solved this problem by having  their president elected for life — life being until assassinated or overthrown by some rival gang.] Mencken continues, “There has been no President of the United States since Washington who did not go into office with a long list of promises in his pocket, and nine-tenths of them have always been promises of private reward from the public store. It is surely not regarded as immoral by the democratic ethic to make and execute such promises, though statesmen of lofty pretensions, e.g., Lincoln, sometimes deny having made them.” He adds, “What is reproached as immoral is making them, and then not keeping them.”
    Commenting on the foreign policies of the United States, Mencken writes, “That the United States, in its foreign relations, has descended to gross deceits and tergiversations since the earliest days of the Republic was long ago pointed out by Lecky; it is regarded universally to-day as a pious fraud — which is to say, as a Puritan.” [What would one expect from foreign policies developed and controlled by Yankees? Historically, the United States have been notorious for betraying its friends and aiding its enemies — especially during the Cold War, when they betrayed nearly every ally whose government actively opposed Communism. One of the most detestable of these acts was the U.S. government betraying one its World War II allies, Chiang Kai-shek, in favor of Mao and his communist regime.]
    Next Mencken comments on democracy’s domestic relations. “The government deals with the citizens from whom it has its mandate in a base and disingenuous manner, and fails completely to maintain equal justice among them. It not only follows the majority in persecuting those who happen to be unpopular; it also institutes persecutions of its own, and frequently against men of the greatest rectitude and largest public usefulness.”
    About the Department of Justice, he remarks, “It has been engaged in sharp practices since the earliest days, and remains a fecund source of oppression and corruption to-day.” [Nothing has changed. Many lovers of liberty refer to it as the “Department of Injustice.”] Moreover, “it has actually resorted to perjury in its efforts to undo men guilty of flouting it, and at all times it has laboured valiantly to nullify the guarantees of the Bill of Rights.” [It still does today.]
    “As Mill long ago pointed out, the tyranny of the majority under democracy is not only shown in oppressive laws, but also in a usurped power to suspend the operation of laws that are just.” [John Stuart Mill {1806–1873} was an English philosopher, political economist and civil servant.] To this observation, Mencken adds, “In this enterprise a democratic government always marches ahead of the majority. Even more than the most absolute oriental despotism, it becomes a government of men, not of laws. Its favourites are, to all intents and purposes, immune to criminal processes, whatever their offences, and its enemies are exposed to espionage and persecution of the most aggravated sort.” [We see this today in America’s multitiered “justice” system. The well-connected people, such as Hillary Clinton, are not even charged when they commit crimes that would send a commoner to prison for life. On the other hand, people whose “crime” is merely supporting the Bill of Rights are prosecuted with full vigor and resources of the Department of “Justice” and are charged with a multitude of crimes. These people are usually convicted by a corrupt court system and are sentenced to the maximum possible term in prison. Likewise, specially protected groups like Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and the anti-Confederate protestors can violate all sorts of laws with impunity. Although politicians frequently prattle that we have a government of laws and not of men, the opposite is true.] Above all, the government “always shows that characteristically Puritan habit: . . . to wit, of inflicting as much mental suffering as possible upon its victims.”
    Next Mencken writes, “The constant and central aim of every democratic government is to silence criticism of itself. It begins to weaken, i.e., the jobs of its component rogues begin to be insecure, the instant such criticism rises. It is thus fidei defensor [defender of the faith] before it is anything else, and its whole power, legal and extra-legal, is thrown against the sceptic who challenges its infallibility. Constitutional checks have little effect upon its operations, for the only machinery for putting them into effect is under its control.” [Thus, the necessity of a well-armed citizenry — one that outguns the government.] Mencken continues, “No ruler, indeed, ever wants to be a constitutional ruler, and least of all the ruler whose reign has a term, and who must make hay, in consequence, while the sun shines. . . . No man would want to be President of the United States in strict accordance with the Constitution. There is no sense of power in merely executing laws; it comes from evading or augmenting them.”
    Mencken writes, “ I incline to think that this view of government as a group of men struggling for power and profit, in the face and at the expense of the generality of men, has its place somewhere in the dark recesses of the popular mind, and that it accounts, at least in large part, for the toleration with which public corruption is regarded in democratic states. Democratic man, to begin with, is corrupt himself: he will take whatever he can safely get, law or no law. He assumes, naturally and accurately, that the knaves and mountebanks who govern him are of the same kidney.” Democratic man is not shocked “to find them running true to the ordinances of their nature. If, indeed, any individual among them shows an unusual rectitude, and refuses spectacularly to take what might be his for the grabbing, Homo boobiens sets him down as either a liar or an idiot, and refuses to admire him.” [Does this explain in part the popularity of Presidents Clinton and Obama, who grabbed all they could?] “Democratic man is stupid, but he is not so stupid that he does not see the government as a group of men devoted to his exploitation that is, as a group external to his own group, and with antagonistic interests.” Moreover, democratic man believes that the government’s “central aim is to squeeze as much out of him as he can be forced to yield, and so he sees no immorality in attempting a contrary squeeze when the opportunity offers. Beating the government thus becomes a transaction devoid of moral turpitude.”
    Capitalism is secure in democratic societies. “Democratic man can understand the aims and aspirations of Capitalism; they are, greatly magnified, simply his own aims and aspirations.” [The type of capitalism described by Mencken should be called crony capitalism. It certainly is not free market capitalism. Under crony capitalism, capitalists use their control of the government, usually from behind the scene, to give themselves subsidies, contracts, and special privileges and to penalize competitors. Moreover, Mencken seems to contradict himself. Earlier in his book he describes the Dictatorship of the Proletariat as being democratic; however, the economy under it was not capitalistic in any form. Nevertheless, being by nature democratic, socialism is much more compatible with democracy than any form of capitalism.]
    Mencken notes, “An aristocratic society may hold that a soldier or a man of learning is superior to a rich manufacturer or banker; but in a democratic society the latter are inevitably put higher, if only because their achievement is more readily comprehended by the inferior man, and he can more easily imagine himself, by some favour of God, duplicating it.”
    Mencken observes that “the average American banker or business man, whatever his demerits otherwise, is at least more competent professionally than the average American statesman, musician, painter, author, Labour leader, scholar, theologian or politician.” [Perhaps this is why big bankers and big businessmen are the real power controlling the government.] Then Mencken notes, “The capitalists, in fact, run the country, as they run all democracies. . . . They organize and control the minorities that struggle eternally for power, and so get a gradually firmer grip upon the government. . . [T]hey [the capitalists] dispose of . . . [the] demagogues . . . and put the helm of state into the hands of trusted and reliable men.”
                                               
Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.