Has the Time for Amillennialism Arrived?

Has the Time for Amillennialism Arrived?

Thomas Allen

Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ Second Coming occurs before the Millennium,  Jesus’ thousand year-rule on earth. Postmillennialists believe that Jesus’ Second Coming occurs after the Millennium.  Amillennialists reject the notion that Jesus physically rules on earth for a thousand years. According to amillennialists, the millennial is symbolic and refers to heaven where the saved reign with Christ.

Postmillennialism became the dominant eschatology following Lincoln’s War until the Great Depression. By the time Israel became an independent country in 1948,  premillennialism was the predominant eschatology.

During the 1830s, postmillennialism became popular among the Puritans in New England and New York and eventually spread across the country. By the latter part of the nineteenth century, it was the dominant eschatology. It was prominent in the Republican Party since its founding in 1854. (Since its founding, the Republican Party has been the party of big government and government-business partnership.) With the William Jennings Bryan revolution, postmillennialism captured the Democratic Party in 1896. (Before 1896, the Democratic Party was the party of small government and laissez-faire economics.) Postmillennialists believed that the world must become evermore righteous and sin evermore suppressed before Jesus returns. Thus, postmillennialists become an integral part of the progressive movement. Abolitionism grew out of postmillennialism. Later, postmillennialism led to prohibition and women’s suffrage (because most women favored prohibition).

Postmillennialists allied with the Progressives, many of whom were already steeped in postmillennialism. With the election of Wilson, postmillennialists came to power. It could and did use the US government to impose its program to make all Americans righteous. With the war, it could make the world righteous. Then, Jesus would return.

However, between the two world wars, postmillennialism began to wane, and premillennialism began to wax. With the Great Depression and World War II, support for postmillennialism faded, and premillennialism moved to the forefront.  With the Reagan administration, premillennialism gained an enormous influence over the federal government as many key officials, including President Reagan, were premillennialists.

The Balfour Declaration during World War I and the founding of Israel following World War II were a boom for premillennialism. The Balfour Declaration in 1917 and the founding of Israel in 1948 used to be key dates for premillennialists. Based on the date of the Balfour Declaration, Jesus’ Second Coming should have occurred in 1957 (40 years) or 1987 (70 years). Based on the founding of Israel, the Second Coming should have been in 1988 (40 years) or 2018 (70 years). (Since these key dates have passed, they have to find new timelines. The Six-Day war of 1967 has become popular with many premillennialists.)

Premillennialists believe that the world must become worse and worse before Jesus returns. So, they offer no resistance to despotic governmental oppression and perpetual war. After all, most premillennialists believe that they will be raptured before the horrors of the tribulation arrive. Besides, they can do nothing to prevent the inevitable. Moreover, since Israel and large scale war in the Middle East and probably a nuclear world war are key to their eschatology, they promote war in the Middle East and readily sacrifice America and the rest of the world on the altar of Israel and Zionism. Some even promote war and tyranny to hasten Jesus’ return.

While the postmillennialists encourage evangelizing Jews, premillennialists discourage evangelizing Jews. Most premillennialists believe that God made a deal with the Jews such that they, unlike the rest of mankind, can be saved independently of Jesus.

Since both postmillennialism and premillennialism lead to oppressive despotic government and war, has the time come to abandon them for amillennialism, which is popular among many denominations? Amillennialists believe that good and evil will ebb and flow, but the world will never become as good as the postmillennialists believe and seek to make it or as bad as the premillennialists believe and seek to make it before Jesus returns. Consequently, amillennialists have less incentive to promote oppression and war than do the postmillennialists and premillennialists. 

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Four Poisonous Clauses

Four Poisonous Clauses

Thomas Allen

Since the end of the American Revolution, two political factions or philosophies have fought each other for supremacy: the centralists and the decentralists. For the most part, the centralists have prevailed.

With the adoption of the Constitution, the centralists gained dominance. Lead by James Madison, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris, the centralists maneuvered the people of the States (the bodies politic) as represented in State conventions to ratify the Constitution. The goal of the Federalists, the centralists of that time, was to consolidate all power into the federal government, called the general government in the Constitution, and to reduce the States and the people thereof to insignificance.

(Those who favored adoption of the Constitution were called Federalists, and those who opposed, Antifederalists. Ironically, the Antifederalists, who were decentralists, were true federalists, and the Federalists opposed true federalism.

Later, the Federalists became the Whigs, such as Daniel Webster and Henry Clay. Following the Whigs were Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans. After them came the Progressives, such as Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Following the Progressives were the liberal Democrats beginning with Franklin Roosevelt and followed by all Presidents since including Republican Presidents.)

Fortunately, for people who value and love liberty, the Antifederalists got the Bill of Rights added to the Constitution. The first nine amendments prevented (in theory) the federal government from encroaching on the unalienable rights of the people. The tenth amendment limited (in theory) the federal government to those powers that the States delegated it by reserving all powers not delegated to it to the States or the people thereof (bodies politic).

(Some argue that the second through the ninth amendments apply to the States as well as to the federal government. However, federal courts did not apply them to the States until the 1920s when federal courts began to apply them to the States with the incorporation doctrine via the fourteenth amendment. Since then, federal courts have applied the second through the ninth amendments to the States with much more vigor than they have applied them to the federal government. Although the first amendment is worded clearly and strictly to apply to Congress, federal courts have applied it to the States. Thus, federal courts zealously apply the first through the ninth amendments to the States. However, federal courts are reluctant to apply the first through the tenth amendments to the federal government — especially the tenth amendment. Since all State constitutions contain a bill of rights, the only reason for federal courts to apply the first nine amendments to the States is for the federal government to gain more control over the States and the people thereof.)

Despite the Antifederalists’ attempts to restrain the federal government, the Constitution contains four clauses that have achieved the Federalist goal of concentrating all power in the federal government and reducing the States and the people thereof to insignificance. These four clauses are the General Welfare Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Supremacy Clause. (Antifederalists objected to these clauses but they failed to eliminate or modify them to protect the States and the people thereof from a metastatic cancerous federal government.)

General Welfare Clause

Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

“General Welfare” is also mentioned in the Preamble to the Constitution. However, preambles do not and are not intended to grant any authority or power. Preambles serve to state the purpose of a document in broad strokes. Consequently, the Preamble of the Constitution cannot be used as a grant of power to the federal government.

Expanding the General Welfare Clause beyond its intent, the federal government has established the welfare state and everything else that it claims benefits the welfare of the people. This clause has been used to extend the powers of the federal government far beyond those explicitly listed in the Constitution.

Contrary to popular beliefs and court rulings, the General Welfare Clause was intended to restrict the powers of the federal government — not to expand them. This Clause was never intended to give the federal government boundless, unspecified powers. According to Madison, the purpose of the General Welfare Clause was to restrain Congress in the exercise of the powers delegated to it — primarily the power to regulate commerce with foreign countries and taxation. According to Hamilton, the General Welfare Clause did not grant the federal government any powers beyond those specifically listed.

Thus, any law enacted was to benefit all the States and the people thereof. Consequently, no law was to benefit one State, region, or group of people more than another. For example, protective tariffs and import quotas benefit the protected industry at the expense of others. Likewise, subsidies to agriculture benefit one segment at the expense of others. Other examples are guarantying loans; making loans; forgiving student loans; unemployment insurance; preventing people injured by vaccines from suing vaccine manufacturers; replacing the gold-coin standard with a fiat-money standard; bailing out banks; constructing roads, waterways, and airports; giving grants to States, universities, and private organizations and businesses; pursuing foreign interventionism; and favoring some States, regions, or groups over others. All these benefit one easily identifiable segment at the expense of others. Even welfare-state programs violate the General Welfare Clause because they forcibly take from producers and give to nonproducers, and, by that, they benefit some at the expense of others.

According to Roger Sherman, who got the General Welfare Clause inserted in the Constitution, its purpose was to clarify that taxes could only be collected to carry out the specifically delegated powers in Article 1, Section 8. Thus, the intent of this Clause was to limit the power to raise money by taxes, duties, and imposts. According to Madison, the intent of this Clause was also to limit spending money to carrying out the powers delegated to Congress.

The General Welfare Clause requires that federal laws benefit all the States and the people thereof — not to expand the power of the federal government. Its intent was to preserve State governments and not to govern individuals. Its purpose was to keep the federal government within narrow limits.

  If the General Welfare Clause was as broad as the expansionist claim, the enumeration of powers that follows it would not be needed. Moreover, if citing the General Welfare Clause can justify any purpose, then the entire Constitution is reduced to this one phrase; the remainder of the Constitution becomes merely a redundancy.

As can be seen from the above discussion, the General Welfare Clause has come to mean the opposite of its original intent. Before the twentieth century, federal courts interpreted the General Welfare Clause narrowly. Beginning in the 1930s, federal courts began giving it a broad, nonrestrictive interpretation. Now, the General Welfare Clause justifies the federal government taxing and spending on whatever it desires. Moreover, this Clause can be and has been used to force States to comply with whatever national standard of which the federal government can dream. Thus, the General Welfare Clause has been used to further reduce the States to insignificance and to further limit the liberties of the people.

Commerce Clause

Article I. Section 8. Paragraph 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

One of the most misconstrued and misapplied clauses of the Constitution is the Commerce Clause. This Clause has been expanded to cover not only intrastate commerce but also personal activities that do not involve trade or exchanges for value. With this Clause, the federal government has usurped the power to regulate every conceivable activity in the country.

Part of the problem in understanding the intent of the Commerce Clause is that the terms “regulate” and “commerce” have changed meaning.

“Regulate” as used in the Constitution means to “make regular,” i.e., to remove conditions that have a negative impact. Now, most people use “regulate” in the sense of control, restrain, or subdue, i.e., to impose conditions that have a negative impact.

When the Constitution was written, “commerce” was understood to mean “trade” or “exchange” of goods. As such, it did not cover manufacturing, agriculture, mining, and other means of producing goods for trade or exchange. Moreover, it did not cover consuming, discarding, or doing anything else with goods besides exchanging them. (The States retained the authority to regulated these production and consumption activities.) Thus, the Commerce Clause covers the exchange of goods, but it does not cover the production or consumption of goods. Now, the federal government uses this Clause to regulate every conceivable economic or gainful employment.

The original purpose of the Commerce Clause was to prevent the States from restricting trade across state lines and to authorize the federal government to restrict international trade for the benefit of domestic businesses. Domestically, the intent of the Commerce Clause was to create a free trade zone between the States and, by that, encourage commerce between States. As for foreign trade, the Clause enabled the federal government to enact trade barriers against countries that restricted shipping and imports from the United States. Thus, the intent of the Commerce Clause was to promote trade by preventing the States from restraining interstate commerce and by authorizing the federal government to retaliate against countries that restricted trade with the United States.

However, federal courts, especially in the twentieth century, have corrupted the Commerce Clause to justify the federal government enacting all sorts of laws that restrain commerce. Examples are minimum-wage, price controls, limitations on the production of crops, preventions of farmers raising crops for personal use, criminalization of growing cannabis for personal use, endangered species laws, and environmental laws. It has also been used to create most federal regulatory agencies, such as the FTC, SEC, EPA, and FDA. Constitutionally, these activities come under the jurisdiction of the States.

Necessary and Proper Clause

Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

With a long history of misinterpretation, the Necessary and Proper Clause has become one of the most transformed parts of the Constitution. Federal courts have used this Clause to justify nearly everything that the federal government wants to do — especially in conjunction with the General Welfare Clause. Giving this Clause a broad interpretation, federal courts have given Congress extensive power to enact any law that it fines convenient or useful. With the blessings of the federal courts, Congress has used this Clause to enact any law that it claims is necessary and proper.

The Necessary and Proper Clause was never intended to create any new powers or any implied or inherent powers. (If Congress has implied powers, no one would know where Congress’ powers stopped, and constitutional restrictions on Congress’ power become meaningless.) Its intent was to allow incidental acts that were necessary for implementing the powers delegated to Congress.

Nevertheless, federal courts have interpreted the Necessary and Proper Clause to vest complete and unlimited legislative power in the federal government. Using this Clause, the federal government has seized private property in the interest of historical preservation, has restricted the medical use of alcohol, has detained indefinitely lawbreakers, and has even established centralized banking.

Although the Necessary and Proper Clause was not intended to destroy the States, it has been used to reduce the significance and importance of the State by expanding the power of the federal government far beyond its constitutional bounds.

Supremacy Clause

Article VI, Paragraph 1: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which they shall make, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

With the Supremacy Clause, the federal government has reduced the States and the people thereof to insignificance. Using this Clause, especially in conjunction with the Necessary and Proper Clause, the federal government has nullified the tenth amendment.

Originally, the purpose of the Supremacy Clause was to ensure that unconstitutional laws were not supreme or binding. Only federal laws implementing the powers specifically delegated to Congress were constitutional; all other laws that Congress enacted were unconstitutional (today, the vast majority of the US statutes are unconstitutional).

Now, the federal government uses the Supremacy Clause to ensure that federal laws and treaties have precedence over State laws and State constitutions except in the few incidences where the federal courts have declared the federal law unconstitutional. No longer do federal laws have to be made pursuant to the Constitution, i.e., be constitutional, to have precedence over State laws. Using this Clause, the federal government has preempted or limited States regulating healthcare, medicine, banking, securities, transportation, labor, employment, meat inspection, and a host of other activities that are constitutionally reserved for the States. Thus, Congress, the President, and the federal courts have used this clause to impose their predilections on the States and people thereof.

Unlike today, the Supremacy Clause originally acknowledged that the Constitution was a compact among the States. It acknowledged that the federal government had only the few powers that the States delegated to it. All other powers, the States retained. Now, the federal government uses this Clause to subordinate the States and the people thereof to its whims.

Using the Supremacy Clause to justify the doctrine of judicial review, federal courts have declared a monopoly on deciding which laws and acts are constitutional and which are not. However, this Clause does not give the federal courts such a monopoly. It merely requires federal courts to uphold the supreme law of the land. Consequently, the States individually also have the right to rule on the constitutionality of a law — and even more so because they created the federal court system.

(Oddly, the US Supreme Court has ruled that although when a statute of Congress does not preempt a State’s law, regulations of regulatory agencies can preempt State laws. Apparently, regulations of federal regulatory agencies trump both Congressional laws and the Constitution.) 

Conclusion

With these four clauses, the centralists have expanded the federal government beyond the wildest dreams of the Federalists. Using these four clauses, federal courts, Presidents, and Congresses have greatly concentrated power in the federal government. Along with the fourteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth amendments, these four clauses have reduced the States and the people thereof (bodies politic) to insignificance. Now, the States have only those powers that the federal government condescends to give them. Likewise, the people have only those freedoms that the federal government condescends to allow them. Thus, liberty dies! The spirit of 1776 is no more. The spirit of 1984 has risen.

References

Abbott, Greg. Restoring the Rule of Law with the States Leading the Way.

Benner, David. Compact of the Republic: The League of States and the Constitution. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Live & Liberty Publishing Group, 2015.

Rothbard, Murray N. Conceived in Liberty: The New Republic, 1784–1791. Volume V. Editor Patrick Newman. Auburn, Alabama: Mises Institute, 2019.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Wisdom of James K. Vardaman

Wisdom of James K. Vardaman

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1998 to the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party.]

James K. Vardaman was a political leader in Mississippi during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He was a governor and a senator during this time. He believed that the races should be separated. Blacks should be trained in useful trades so that when they were repatriated, they could support themselves in their homeland. However, in the interim, he opposed allowing them to govern, yet he did not oppose allowing them to vote provided they met the same high standards required of White voters of that time. He also opposed social integration of the races, which would lead to interracial marriages, which he also adamantly opposed. The following are some interesting exerts from part of his biography, Chapter Number Six, The Race Question from The White Chief; A Story of the Life and Times of James K. Vardaman by Archibald Goody IV (Jackson, Mississippi, 1944). Little has changed in the fifty years [now 75 years] since these words were written or in the hundred years since Vardaman’s time.

“The cause of the intolerably bad government of the negro was his incompetence, not his dishonesty. It demonstrates that political power in the hands of the ignorant or the indifferent brings as bad results as if in the hands of the corrupt. There are always at hand those who prey upon and profit by ignorance or indifference. The negro was taught that he could earn a living by voting and holding office, rather than by honest toil. Hence, he expected to barter his vote for the things which are ours only by work. He was given the worst possible conception of the privilege of the ballot, and this bad conception persists even unto this day. It was easy for the negro to reason that, since the white man was better off than the negro and could vote, the vote was the cause of the favorable circumstance. And he still relies upon this simple syllogism.” (p. 58)

“For seventy-five years there has been no variation in the plea for the negro. He has been taught, systematically and with malice aforethought, that he was oppressed, denied his ‘rights,’ refused opportunity, robbed of the product of his labor, and generally mistreated. He has not been taught that man must work for his place in the sun and obtain the treasures of life by industry, frugality, self-denial and a rigorous self-discipline. The price of success is ‘sweat, toil, blood and tears.’ It may well be doubted that ‘heaven is had for the asking.’ He needs to be told to correct his own moral delinquencies, apply himself assiduously to the task he has to do, and find in himself the courage and the fortitude to meet the duties and responsibilities of life. His formula for success is the same as that of other men. ‘Responsibility is the price of greatness.’” (p. 61)

“The negro may qualify as an elector under the same terms as the white man. It is merely a question of possessing the qualifications, paying all taxes, and registering. Mississippi has no ‘grandfather clause.’ All white voters have complied with every law and obligation imposed on the negro. No more, no less. But the negro’s spokesmen demand the standard be lowered to the level of the negro, instead of the negro rising to the standard.” (p. 67) (Today, we have lowered the standard to the Negro’s level instead of the Negro rising to the standard of the White man.)

“Against the Bill of Compliant, suppose we examine the advantages enjoyed by the American negro. He is in one of the great nations of the earth, and enjoys without cost or effort on his part, all essential privileges of a free people; privileges developed by the white man and requiring thousands of years of labor and sacrifice. The only price exacted of the negro was a short period of slavery, a period of time but a tick of the clock in human history.” (p. 73)

“In marriage of black and white, upon whose past do we build? Sleswick or the Congo? Of what history would the child be proud? To whom would homage be paid? To what ideals would its allegiance be given? A marriage between white persons, one an American and one, say a German, poses a problem of loyalty. The child has two great traditions of culture and achievement, but it must and will believe in one more, than in the other. But it is a problem only of present and surface emotions and psychology. The problem of the mulatto is infinitely greater because he combines two diverse and irreconcilable traditions. Loyalty to one means repudiation of the others. He is at home with neither the white nor the black. Unable to be true to either parent, he cannot be true to self. These and other conditions needless to mention, are sufficient to show the utter futility of any plan of social equality. For social equality is worse than a farce if we draw the line at marriage — it ceases to have meaning.” (p. 85) (Today we have answered these questions. The answer is the Congo — not only for mulattos, but also for Whites.)

“The one and only solution of the race question which confronts the South is complete separation, and that is the physical removal of the negro to a country of his own. Less than this is not a solution, but an armed truce. All have overlooked, or ignored, this elemental proposition.” (p. 89)

“The only sensible end our race problem can have is to transport the negro to another continent. If he remains, and he will, hybridism is certain. Social and political separation, and other devices may delay, but not prevent it. Popular government makes the removal of ten million people an impossibility, for the simple reason a majority are indifferent to the result, and could not be persuaded to embark upon so large an enterprise. Only a very few will put forth great effort for the ideal, or to meet a future danger.”

“The removal of the negro, is the only escape from ultimate amalgamation, and that, as stated, will not be undertaken. Too many desire to use the negro for their profit. Employers need his labor; ‘ring’ politicians need his vote; fanatic friends need him as a subject to ‘uplift’; and his own self-appointed leaders look to their own welfare and security. It is passing strange that no one seems interested in the genuine welfare of the black man, although he is the leading figure in the drama. His zealous advocates have failed to consult those negro leaders who are qualified to speak for their people and to express their wishes.” (pp. 100-101)

[Unfortunately, Vardaman’s advice and recommendations have not only been ignored but have been vigorously attacked. Consequently, both Blacks and Whites have needlessly suffered, and the country is rapidly deteriorating to a third world country where Whites have shrunken from about 90 percent to about 60 percent of the population. Worst of all is that Whites have been taught to hate themselves and their culture and civilization. Moreover, most of these self-hating Whites look forward with joy to the complete genocide of the White race and Western civilization.]

Copyright © 1998, 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Masks

Masks

Thomas Allen

The governors and mayors who force people to wear masks and federal officials who strongly urge people to wear masks claim that they are following the science. Making the same assertions are the presstitutes. However, are they really following the science? Are masks as protective as the mask-wearing proponent claim? (If wearing masks is as protective as the mask-wearing proponents claim, then mask wearers have nothing to fear from non-mask wearers. So, why do most mask wearers fear people who do not wear masks?) 

First, Dr. Fauci and other governmental health officials tell people not to wear masks. Not only is wearing a mask unnecessary, but it may also do more harm than good. Later, they tell people to wear masks, even two, three, or more masks at the same time, because their lives depend on wearing masks — as these officials strongly imply. Yet, the CDC admits that there is no conclusive evidence that cloth masks protect wearers from COVID-19 — especially since most people wear them incorrectly and do not keep them clean.

Good evidence showing that masks protect people from COVID-19 and prevent its spread is scant. The studies showing that wearing masks is effective in protecting from and preventing the transmission of COVID-19 are observational studies, which are an inferior form of research.

However, the good studies are coming out that show that wearing masks have little or no benefit in preventing COVID-19. On the contrary, wearing a mask may cause more harm than not wearing one.

A Danish study found no statistical evidence that wearing a mask offered any protection. This study was a randomized controlled study of 6000 people. Interestingly, the study showed that 98.2 percent of those who wore masks and 97.9 percent of those who did not wear masks remained infection-free. Likewise, studies from Guinea-Bissau and India showed that wearing a mask does not prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Several studies on using masks to prevent the spread of influenza found that whether people wore masks or not made little or no difference. Also, whether the person was infected or not infected, wearing a mask made no difference in the transmission of the disease. Since the influenza virus is about twice the size of COVD-19, these influenza studies are highly relevant. Thus, COVID-19 studies agree with the influenza studies. Wearing masks make little or no difference. (So, why force people to wear masks — even jailing them if they are not wearing a mask?)

(In 2008, Dr. Fauci coauthored a paper on the Spanish Flu Epidemic. He discovered that most victims of the Spanish Flu died of bacterial pneumonia and not from the flu. Wearing masks caused the bacterial pneumonia.)

The Rational Ground study shows that States that required people to wear masks had more cases of COVID-19 than States where wearing masks was optional. States that required wearing masks had 27 cases per 100,000 people per day whereas States that did not require wearing masks had 17 cases per 100,000 people per day.

Moreover, the Rational Ground study found no correlation between forced mask-wearing and reduced cases of COVID-19. It also found that after a high rate of daily COVID-19 deaths, the daily death rate fell to close to zero within 20 to 30 days regardless of mask-wearing or any other nonpharmaceutical intervention, e.g., lockdowns, curfews, and stay-at-home orders.

A CDC study found that 70.6 percent of the people in the study always wore a mask and 14 percent often wore a mask 14 days immediately before they got sick with COVID-19. This compared with 3.9 percent who never wore a mask and 3.9 percent who rarely wore a mask 14 days immediately before they got sick with COVID-19. Consequently, according to this study, wearing a mask greatly increases a person’s chances of contracting COVID-19.

Sheftall’s study of wearing masks found that governments forcing people to wear masks did not noticeably affect the number of COVID-19 cases or deaths. COVID-19 cases and deaths in countries that made wearing masks optional were no worse than in countries that mandated wearing masks.

Before June 2020, WHO stated that people who are not displaying symptoms for COVID-19, such as coughing, fever, and difficulty breathing, do not need to wear a mask. (If a person tests positive for COVID-19 and shows no symptoms, he is asymptomatic and, therefore, is not sick or infectious and poses no risk to others. Most of these positive tests are just picking up inactive [noninfectious] viral particles.) Wearing a mask offers no benefits. In June, WHO began encouraging everyone to wear a mask. Why? It claimed “evolving evidence.” Where is the evidence? (Most likely, it was “evolving politics.”) Nevertheless, WHO continued to claim that asymptomatic people “rarely” transmit COVID-19. (The Wuhan study, which is described below, shows that asymptomatic people do not transmit COVID-19. Consequently, asymptomatic people transmitting COVID-19 is not rare; it is nonexistent.)

If the politicians and government health officials who claim that they are following the science were following the science, they would not force asymptomatic people to wear masks. Science shows that asymptomatic people do not transmit COVID-19.

Between May 14 and June 1, 2020, a study was done in Wuhan, China on the asymptomatic spread of COVID-19. The study involved 9,899,828 people. This study found that none, zero, not one asymptomatic person transmitted COVID-19.

According to the Wuhan study even asymptomatic people who had had a COVID-19 infection that produced antibodies did not transmit COVID-19. That is, an asymptomatic person who was or had been a carrier of live COVID-19 did not transmit the virus to others. Therefore, no need exists for an asymptomatic person who has tested positive for COVID-19 to be isolated or wear a mask.

Governments have used asymptomatic transmission as justification for forcing people to wear masks, lockdowns, and the like. The Wuhan study takes away this reason for forcing people to wear masks. Contrary to their claims otherwise, if these governors continue to force mask-wearing, lockdowns, etc., they are proving that they are not following the science.

A major reason that masks are ineffective at preventing the spread of COVID-19 is that COVID-19 is an aerosolized virus and can remain suspended in the air for hours. Although a properly fitted N95 mask may offer some protection, the cloth masks that most people wear offer none. (Hardly anyone in the public who wears an N95 mask wears it properly fitted.)

COVID-19 has a diameter between 0.06 and 0.14 microns, which is much smaller than the holes in cloth masks. N95 masks filter particles as small as 0.3 microns. Consequently, none of these masks filter out aerosolized COVID-19.

Moreover, wearing masks can be dangerous and can cause injuries and increase illnesses. Wearing a mask lowers oxygen levels in the blood while raising carbon dioxide levels. Wearing a mask quickly lowers blood-oxygen levels below the OSHA standard for employees. Lower oxygen in the blood makes COVID-19 more dangerous. Therefore, wearing a mask can increase the severity of COVID-19. Also, wearing a cloth mask may increase the risk of contracting COVID-19.

Other adverse effects from wearing a mask are facial rashes, fungal infections, and bacterial infections, especially pneumonia. Improperly wearing masks for an extended time or wearing unsterilized masks may be the cause of these infections. Also, wearing a mask may lead to inflammation of the gums and cavities.

As shown above, wearing masks offers no protection and does not prevent the transmission of or deaths from COVID-19. Masks do not prevent inhaling or exhaling aerosolized viruses. Wearing a mask only fools one into thinking that he is safe.

If political leaders and government health officials were really following the science, they would not require asymptomatic people to wear masks. Contrariwise, they would recommend that they do not wear masks.

Surely, they are aware of the studies mentioned above. (If a health official is not aware of them, he ought to be fired.) So, why do they force asymptomatic people to wear masks? What is their real agenda? Are governments promoting and forcing wearing masks to psychologically manipulate people to be vaccinated with experimental gene-therapy drugs? Is the purpose of lockdowns, forced mask-wearing, etc. to feed the lust of political leaders for power and control? Since the science is being ignored, have the presstitutes terrorized people to hysteria to advance the goal of the globalists of a one-world fascist government with only one currency, a cryptocurrency? Or, is it some combination of these things?

In conclusion, governments’ approach to COVID-19 has not been based on science. It has been based on superstition and politics. Forcing people to wear masks falls in the realm of science denial. Once again, the rich and powerful have tricked emotionally driven ignoramuses into transferring more wealth and power to the rich and powerful. This time they are doing it with the demand for mask-wearing, lockdowns, etc., and vaccination.

References

Allan, Steve Reminders CDC Says Facemasks Don’t Stop Covid.” LewRockwell.com. September 24, 2020. https://www.!ewrockwell.com/2020/09/ailan-stevo/renninder-cdc-says-facerriasks-don’t-stop-covid/. Accessed Sept. 24, 2020.

Boyd, Connor. “Masks ‘Don’t Stop You Getting COVID’: Top Experts Criticise ‘Troubling Lack of Evidence’ to Justify Wearing Them after Major Danish Study Concluded They Don’t Protect the Wearer.” November 19, 2020. https://www.dailymail. co.uk/news/article-8966883/Masks-DON’T-stop-spread-Covid-experts-criticise-troubling-lack-evidence.html. Accessed Feb. 2, 2021.

Claboueh, Ravan “CDC Admits: No Conclusive Evidence Cloth Masks Work Against COVID.” New American. October 29, 2020.

Haynes, Michael. “Asymptomatic Transmission of COVID-19 Didn’t Occur at All, Study of 10 Million Finds Only 300 Asymptomatic Cases in the Study of Nearly 10 Million Were Discovered, and None of Those Tested Positive for COVID-19.” Dec. 23, 2020. https://www. lifesitenews.com/news/asymptomatic-transmission-of-covid-19-didnt-occur-at-all-study-of-10-million-finds. Accessed Dec. 31, 2020.

Manley, John C. A. “Medical Doctor Warns that ‘Bacterial Pneumonias Are on the Rise’ from Mask Wearing." Global Research. October 06, 2020. https://www.globalresearch.ca/medical-doctor-warns-bacterial-pneumonias-rise-mask-wearing/5725848. Accessed Oct. 13, 2020.

Mercola, Dr. Joseph. “Asymptomatic People Do Not Spread COVID-19.” https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/12/04/do-asymptomatic-people-spread-coronavirus.aspx?ui=684b40cdac888b48995fb5507f.... Accessed Dec. 4, 2020.

Mercola, Dr. Joseph. “COVID Conflicts: Asymptomatic Testing, Lack of Danger to Kids.” https://articles.merco!a.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/12/29/asymptomatic-covid-testing.aspx?ui=684b40cdac888b48995fb5507fa878c3c3a7bf68.... Accessed Dec. 29, 2020.

Mercola, Dr. Joseph. “Landmark Study Finds Masks Are Ineffective.” https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/12/03/efficacy-of-surgical-masks.aspx?ui=684b40cdac888b48995fb5507fa878c3c3a7bf6890.... Accessed Dec. 3, 2020.

Mercola, Dr. Joseph. “Mask Mandates Are Absolutely Useless.” https://articles.mercola.com/S!tes/artic!es/archive/2020/12/31/pandemic-face-mask.aspx?ui=684b40cdac888b48995fb5507fa878c3c3a7bf68901. Accessed Dec. 31, 2020.

Mercola, Dr. Joseph. “What Will It Take for Masks and Face Shields to End?” https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articies/archive/2020/10/09/face-shield-and-mask.aspx. Accessed Dec. 31, 2020.

Mercola, Dr. Joseph. “The Fog of COVID War — Locking Down the Healthy.” https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/01/27/fog-of-covid-war.aspx?ui=684b40cdac888b48995fb5507fa878c3c3a7bf6890156ca02d.... Accessed Jan. 27, 2021.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.