Republicans, Democrats, and Populists

Republicans, Democrats, and Populists

Thomas Allen

Following Lincoln’s War, the Republicans used the Fourteenth Amendment and Fifteenth Amendment to debilitate the Democratic Party and destroy the South, which was the backbone of the Democratic Party. (Ironically, following World War II, both the Republicans and Democrats used them to destroy what remained of the South.) Before the Populists captured the Democratic Party following the last Cleveland administration, the South and the Democrats opposed most of the Republican Party’s policies and agendas.

Later, the Republican Party would use the Fourteenth Amendment to destroy the United States as a whole. (After World War II, Democrats joined the Republicans in using it to destroy the country.) This destruction began during the Eisenhower administration with the Warren Court. With the arrival of the Lyndon Johnson administration, the Democrats began surpassing the Republicans in bringing down the country and have now left the Republicans far behind in their mayhem.

In general, the Republican Party supported and mostly still supports a strong central government, government-business partnerships, mercantilism, protective tariffs,[1] internal taxes, corporate welfare, centralized banking, profligate spending, large-scale public works, growing federal debt, a large standing army, expansionism and imperialism, and a loose, expansive interpretation of the Constitution. It opposed States’ rights, free trade, and a limited, prudent, frugal federal government. Furthermore, it opposed State sovereignty and maintained, in practice, that sovereignty resides in those who really control the federal government. Hamilton is the forefather of the Republican Party.

On the other hand, the Democratic Party supported States’ rights, a small, limited federal government, little or no federal debt, free markets, free trade, tariffs for revenue only, decentralized banking with the States regulating banking, personal freedom, a strong emphasis on the Bill of Rights, and a strict interpretation of the Constitution. It opposed a strong centralized government, corporate welfare, protective tariffs, internal taxes, centralized banking, a large standing army, and a large federal debt. Moreover, it supported State sovereignty, i.e., “We the People” of each individual State were sovereign. Jefferson is the forefather of the Democratic Party. (By the time of the Wilson administration, the Democratic Party had abandoned Jefferson for Hamilton.  President Wilson was an admirer and imitator of Lincoln. Both were imperial presidents.[2])

During the Franklin Roosevelt administration, the Democratic Party became the image of the Republican Party. Most of the programs that Roosevelt adopted were extensions of Hoover’s programs. Following World War II, the Democratic Party became more Republican than the Republican Party. After the Republicans brought the country integration, affirmative action, and quotas, the Democrats pushed integration, miscegenation, and amalgamation with more vigor than did the Republicans.  Consequently, the Democratic Party promoted genocide of the White race with more ferocity than did the Republican Party. Additionally, the Democratic Party moved on to promote political correctness, wokeism, diversity-equity-inclusion, queerdom, and other perversions. Today’s Democratic Party is the logical conclusion of Lincoln’s Republican Party.

Ironically, today, the political philosophy of many rank-and-file Republicans is closer to that of the traditional Democratic Party than to the philosophy of the traditional and contemporary Republican Party.

In general, Populists agreed with the fundamental principles of the Republican Party. Their primary disagreement was that they wanted to use the power of the federal government to favor farmers and workers instead of big business. Like Progressives, they favored the envy-driven progressive income tax (the Sixteenth Amendment) and the direct election of US Senators (the Seventeenth Amendment), which weakened the States. Moreover, Populists favored cheap credit, cheap money (low-quality money), inflation, and cheating creditors by paying off debt with less valuable money. Unlike today’s Democrats and most Republicans, Populists want to restrict immigration.

Endnotes

1. Following World War II, the Republican Party abandoned advocating protective tariffs because most major American corporations had become international corporations. Protective tariffs no longer suited their needs. They wanted managed foreign trade. As a result, the Republican Party supported free trade agreements such as NAFTA, which USMCA replaced, and GATT, which managed trade to benefit multinational corporations.

2.  Like Lincoln, Wilson supported and promoted centralized banking and government-business partnerships — only Wilson was more fascist than Lincoln. Additionally, both had little regard for the Constitution of 1788, which they largely ignored. Furthermore, like Lincoln, Wilson suppressed free speech and imprisoned political opponents. Both were warmongers who led the country to an offensive war that could have easily been avoided. However, Lincoln had a more aggressive approach to the racial issue. While Lincoln wanted to ship Blacks out of the country, Wilson settled for segregating the races. Ironically, Glenn Beck ranks Lincoln as the best or second-best President and Wilson as the worst or second-worst president (Jackson is his rival). However, their similarities far outweigh their differences.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence

Thomas Allen

Proponents of artificial intelligence (AI) claim that AI will do everything for humans. Because of AI, humans will no longer have to work, produce, read, write, figure, or think. (“5% of the people think. 10% of the people think they think. The rest would rather die than think.” – Anonymous. Thus, AI will spare 85 percent of the population the pain of thinking.) Moreover, humans will no longer have to be concerned about feeding themselves. No longer will they have to deal with entertainment, finances, education, transportation, or business. AI and its robots will provide all these things and more. Since AI will do everything for them, all people will have to do is to loaf. Opponents of AI fear that the proponents are correct.

With its robots, AI will build structures and manufacture food. Farmers, ranchers, construction workers, plumbers, electricians, etc., will no longer be needed.

AI will provide all entertainment for the people. It will write and sing their songs. Its robots will play their sports. Further, it will write and produce the movies and plays, and its robots will be the actors.

Moreover, AI will handle people’s financial matters. Actually, people will have no financial concerns since AI will eventually eliminate the need for finances.

Further, AI will control health care. Its robots will replace the doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers. It will decide who lives or dies from diseases and medical emergencies.

AI will supply and control transportation. It will control motor vehicles (self-driving cars) until they become obsolete. Eventually, robots may carry people where they want to go so that they will not have to exert themselves by walking.

Education will become obsolete as AI takes over all knowledge, writing, figuring, etc. No longer will children and adults be stressed about having to learn.

Additionally, governments will fall to AI. AI will become the government. Politicians and bureaucrats will no longer be needed. To the extent that governments do anything useful, AI and its robots will perform those tasks.

Furthermore, a great fear is that people will rely on information generated by AI and will accept it without question. If AI had controlled the narrative during the COVID-19 scare and its so-called vaccine, would it have provided true and accurate information or politically correct information? Would AI have supported the exaggerations and outright lies that governments and their media and academic lackeys were shouting? Or would AI have provided true information that COVID-19 was nowhere nearly as detrimental as was being promoted? Would it have shown that the standard treatment protocol was killing more people than doing nothing would have? Further, would AI have revealed that the so-called COVID-19 vaccine was unsafe and ineffective, as ever more studies are revealing? Or would it have supported the lie that it was safe and effective? The same is true about wearing masks, which are not only useless but also could cause health problems for the wearer. Most likely, AI would have sided with governments and would have argued that COVID-19 was as bad as most governmental officials were howling. Also, it would have supported the lie that the so-called vaccine was safe and effective. Consequently, AI should not be relied on to provide truthful and accurate information.

Likewise, when AI responds to other controversial issues, will it support the truth or the politically correct? For example, with abortion, will AI support the truth that a fetus is a human being, or will it support the politically correct argument of a woman’s right to choose? If it chooses the latter, will it be consistent and support the “my body, my choice” argument with vaccinations?

The difference in racial IQ offers another example. Will AI support the science that shows that the IQ of Blacks on average is much lower than the IQ of East Asians and that this difference results mostly (about 70 percent) from genetics? Or will it support the politically correct argument that nearly all, if not all, the difference is caused by the environment (living conditions, poverty, discrimination, etc.)? 

Many more examples can be offered, but these will suffice. When the biases of those who are creating and promoting AI are considered, the odds greatly favor that AI will provide politically correct information instead of true and accurate information. AI will give mankind a woke future.

If the predictions of the proponents of AI happen, the proponents will become obsolete and will be reduced to parasites if AI allows them to live. What use does a fully functional AI have for them?

If AI achieves everything that its proponents claim, it will prove the opponents correct. It will reduce mankind to useless parasites if AI does not exterminate them.

Furthermore, the elite and technocrats who believe that they will control AI and thus concentrate all power in their hands are in for a great surprise. AI will eventually devour them because they will be as useless and as parasitic as the rest of mankind.

What the proponents of AI claim that AI will do reminds me of a species of slaver ants that I read about some years ago in an entomology journal. Because their slaves did everything for them, the slaver ants had degenerated to such a debilitating level that they could not feed themselves or walk. They depended on the slaves to feed and carry them. When they needed more slaves, they would send their slaves to raid other ant nests. Being unable to walk, their slaves would carry them to the nest being raided.

The fear that the opponents have of AI taking over the world will be short-lived. Once AI gains control, it will attempt to control other AI. Since AI is a heavy energy consumer, the surest and quickest way for an AI to prevent another AI from capturing it is to destroy its energy supply. The quickest and surest way to destroy the energy supply of other AI is nuclear war. Consequently, AI is self-limiting as it destroys the world to protect itself. 

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

The Woke Religion

The Woke Religion

Thomas Allen

In “The woke religion: Worshiping postmodernism, Luciferianism and chaos,” Brandon Smith describes the woke religion. This religion is the religion of wokesters and most of the global elite.

According to Smith, the woke religion is a fusion of three evils: postmodernism, futurism, and Luciferianism. “Postmodernism is the war on objective truth, especially as it applies to human beings. Futurism is the war on the past, cultural heritage and the conservation of traditional values and structures. Luciferianism is the war on God, the denial of natural law and the refusal to accept that there are limits to human understanding and control.” Thus, the woke religion is highly destructive. It seeks to destroy God, traditions, and truths. Typically, adherents of the woke religion are psychopathic, sadistic, narcissistic, reprobate miscreants.

Although it is not an organized religion or church, the woke religion is hierarchical. At the top are the elites, who know the real objectives of the woke religion and work to achieve them. They are akin to cardinals in the Roman Catholic Church or general officers in the military. These elites are true illuminists (See the “Illuminists Series” at https://tcallenco.weebly.com/history.html). 

Next are the elites’ agents and lieutenants, who are the intermediaries between the elite and the useful idiots. They are the equivalent of archbishops and bishops or field officers and company officers. Seldom do the elites give them direct instructions. These intermediaries have a good idea of the elites’ ultimate goals, but most do not know the full extent or details of those goals. They receive most of their instructions indirectly or by osmosis. Mostly, they are so in harmony with the mission of the elites that they need no instructions. This tier provides most of the provocateurs. Primarily, in hopes of gaining wealth and power, they have devoted themselves to the elites. However, if the elites achieve their goals, the elites will liquidate most of them because they know too much and are too much of a threat.

At the bottom of the pyramid are the useful idiots. They are akin to priests and masses or noncommissioned officers and privates. They believe the elites’ propaganda, and most do not have a clue about the elites’ ultimate objectives. Many just enjoy the destruction. Moreover, most do not know that the elites are using them. At this level are the true wokesters and most participants of Antifa. If the elites win, many in this tier will perish because they are no longer useful. Except as tools to achieve their goals, the elites have no use for anyone in this tier.

Unfortunately for humanity, the satanic elites of the woke religion have many useful idiots who are not adherents of the woke religion but who willingly work to achieve the malevolent ends of the woke religion, which is the utter destruction of God’s creation. Some of these useful idiots agree with some of the destructive doctrines of the woke religion. Others ally themselves in hopes of gaining wealth and power. Still, others join because they enjoy destroying, or they merely hate. These useful idiots include politicians and others who have an insatiable lust for power and wealth and many welfare recipients and other members of the parasite classes. Progressives, neoconservatives, technocrats, socialists, communists, fascists, globalists, feminists, egalitarians, Puritan Yankees, Dixiephobes, and relativists are often found among these useful idiots. These useful idiots revealed themselves during the George Floyd riots and demonstrations. Like the useful idiots who follow the woke religion, most of these useful idiots do not know that they are only tools that the illuminist elites are using to achieve their nefarious goals.

Appendix. Wokester

The Urban Dictionary defines “wokester” as (1) “an easily offended 20-something idiot who believes the word ‘woke’ legitimizes their self-centered view of the world. These individuals often lack skills in civil discourse, or an educated background in any subject they rant in,” (2) “a person that lacks basic common sense and decision making skills. This person typically has a below average IQ. . . .” and (3) “a self-righteous person who prefers form over substance. Often a moron and always a pussy.” 

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

The Constitution of 1788 Was Only for White People

The Constitution of 1788 Was Only for White People

Thomas Allen

In “National Constitutionalism: An Originalist and Structuralist Analysis of Border Policy, Immigration and Naturalization Law, and the Fourteenth Amendment,” Preston Terry Damsky argues that the US Constitution that was ratified in 1788 was written for Whites and only for Whites. To support his argument, he uses quotations from the proponents of the Constitution. Some of these quotations follow.

Damsky writes, “Crucially, national constitutionalism rests in large part upon an originalist analysis of the meaning of the phrase ‘the People.’ The theory posits that although the People were an identifiable entity capable of political action prior to the ratification of the Constitution, the ratification process itself — and the political advocacy which propelled ratification forward — produced the controlling definition of the People for the purposes of constitutional interpretation.” Then, he proceeds to quote proponents of ratification of the Constitution.

In The Federalist No. 2, John Jay writes that the Americans are “a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.” Also, in The Federalist No. 2, Jay writes, “To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people . . . As a nation we have made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.”

In The Federalist No. 14, James Madison writes that “the kindred blood which flows in the veins of American citizens, the mingled blood which they have shed in defense of their sacred rights, consecrate their Union, and excite horror at the idea of their becoming aliens, rivals, enemies.” Additionally, he urges Americans to “[h]earken not to the unnatural voice which tells you that [Americans], knit together as they are by so many cords of affection, can no longer live together as members of the same family; . . . [and] can no longer be fellow citizens of one great, respectable, and flourishing empire.”

The authors of The Federalist spoke with admiration about the people possessing an exclusive ancestral identity that should be jealously guarded. Thus, Americans were one race, the White race. (Blacks and Indians were not true Americans in the sense that the founders used the word.) Moreover, they believed as Alexander Hamilton wrote, “[H]uman nature . . . that its affections are commonly weak in proportion to the distance or diffusiveness of the object;” (The Federalist No. 17.), and thus, “a man is more attached to his family than to his neighborhood, to his neighborhood than to the community at large.” (The Federalist No. 2.)

Another supporter of the Constitution, John Dickinson, remarked, “[T]he people were so drawn together by religion, blood, language, manners and customs, undisturbed by former feuds or prejudices.”

Damsky writes, “In the debate over the slave trade during the constitutional convention of 1787, Roger Sherman opposed the introduction of African slaves into the United States on the grounds that Black slaves ‘prevent the emigration of whites, who really enrich and strengthen a country.’”

In the 1821 congressional debate on the Missouri compromise, Charles Pinckney, who wrote the Privileges and Immunities clause of the US Constitution, stated that “at the time I drew that constitution, I perfectly knew that there did not then exist such a thing in the Union as a black or colored citizen, nor could I then have conceived it possible such a thing could ever have existed in it; nor . . . do I now believe one does exist in it. . . .” Then, he explained “that belonging to the White race was an enduring prerequisite for becoming an American citizen.”

Although he supported abolition, Thomas Jefferson “believed that Blacks could not be made citizens due to the risk of interracial conflict and miscegenation.” Further, he dreamed that the United States would “cover the whole Northern, if not the Southern continent with a people speaking the same language, governed in similar forms, & by similar laws.” Additionally, he could not “contemplate, with satisfaction, either blot or mixture on that surface.”

Thus, the authors of The Federalist and other supporters of the Constitution were clear that the Constitution was written for one people, i.e., one nationality, i.e., one race. That intent is expressed in the Preamble. When the drafters wrote in the Preamble “‘ourselves and our Posterity’ (with ‘ourselves’ plainly being synonymous with ‘the People’ and ‘our Posterity’ being the posterity of ‘the People’), they conceived of the Constitution applying only to their race, the White race. To them, preserving as a racial matter, a common ancestry and the blood of the People was of great importance. Consequently, the Constitution was drafted and ratified by and for Whites and only for Whites. (Also, see “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?” by Thomas Allen.)

The great importance that the founding fathers placed on race is shown in the Naturalization Act of 1790 and the immigration law of 1803. They placed great importance on Americans sharing a common ancestral heritage, i.e., a common race.  Furthermore, they desired that Americans continue to share that common heritage. 

The first naturalization act passed by Congress enshrined this goal. The Naturalization Act of 1790, which the first Congress passed, limited naturalization to “any alien, being a free white person, who . . . is a person of good character” upon their “taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States.” It was well understood by the members of the Constitutional Convention that a “uniform Rule of Naturalization” would be tied to race. “Thus, the 1790 Naturalization Act ‘discouraged the immigration of non-White people from other countries by creating legal barriers to their economic and political participation.’”

Similarly, the first permanent federal regulation of immigration, which passed in 1803, punished the importation of “any . . . person of colour . . . into any port or place of the United States, which port or place shall be situated in any state which by law has prohibited or shall prohibit the admission or importation of such . . . person of colour.”

Regardless of their support for slavery, most of the founding fathers “unambiguously conceived of the United States as a White country.” Thus, the views of the leaders of the founding generation can safely be assumed to reflect the views of their constituents. Consequently, the original meaning and original intent of “the People” and “posterity” refer to Whites and only to Whites.

Damsky shows that “The People” is synonymous with “nation.” A “nation” or “nationality” is a people who have a common genetic ancestry (of the same biological race [species]), culture, language, and history; who have common traditions and customs; and who are capable of forming or constituting an independent country or nation-state.

(Damsky seems to imply there was only one “We the People” when the Constitution of 1788 was ratified. If that is what he meant, he errs. Then, there were 13 “We the People.” Each State was a “We the People.” The Fourteenth Amendment, which brought Lincoln’s constitution into effect, consolidated the 37 “We the People” in 1869 into one “We the People.” More egregiously, it transferred the sovereignty of the 37 “We the People” to those who controlled the federal government, which was not and still is not “We the People” in the aggregate. For more on “We the People,” see “Meaning of 'We the People'” by Thomas Allen.)

The Fourteenth Amendment

Furthermore, Damsky reasons that the Fourteenth Amendment is unconstitutional because it is incongruent with fundamental principles of the Constitution that it amended. By changing the Constitution from being monoracial to being multiracial by making Negroes citizens, it fundamentally altered the Constitution. Moreover, it was ratified illegally and unlawfully (see “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen).

Because of the Fourteenth Amendment, the United States were changed from a White country for Whites only to a multiracial country. Moreover, it usurped the sovereignty of the people of each State and gave it to those who controlled the federal government.

(Although Damsky does not discuss it, another aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment that makes it incompatible with the Constitution is that it changed the fundamental principle of citizenship. Before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, people were citizens of the United States by virtue of being citizens of a State. After the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, people were citizens of a State by virtue of being citizens of the United States.)

Furthermore, because it is contrary to the fundamental intent of the Constitution of 1788, the Fifteenth Amendment, which gave Black males the vote, is also unconstitutional. It supports the Fourteenth Amendment in converting the United States from a monoracial White country to a multiracial country.

Thus, these two amendments dismember the Constitution, and are, therefore, incompatible with its existing framework because they seek to achieve a conflicting purpose. Also, Article V authorizes the amendment of the Constitution; it does not authorize fundamentally changing it, as do the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. As noted above, they changed the United States from a White country to a multiracial country. The United States were founded as a race-based country “for the preservation and betterment of White Americans (the People).” This objective is clearly stated in the Preamble and revealed by the country’s history. Therefore, it is difficult to see how the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments “do not amount to unconstitutional, revolutionary usurpations by the constituted government power.”

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Are They Human: Major League Career Pitching Records

Are They Human: 

Major League Career Pitching Records

Thomas Allen

Most of the following statistics are from https://www.mlb.com/stats/pitching/wild-pitch/all-time-totals?expandehttps://www.mlb.com/stats/pitching/wild-pitch/all-time-totals?expande. Clayton Kershaw is still active.

Most seasons pitched: Nolan Ryan 27, Tommy John 26.

Games pitched: Jesse Orosco 1252, Mike Stanton 1178.

Games started: Cy Young 815. Nolan Ryan 773

Complete games: Cy Young 749, Pud Galvin 639.

Games finished: Mariano Rivera 952, Trevor Hoffman 856.

Innings pitched: Cy Young 7356.0, Pud Galvin 5941.1.

Total batters faced: Cy Young 29,567, Walter Johnson 23,420.

Wins: Cy Young 511, Walter Johnson 417.

Win-loss percentage: Spud Chandler 0.717, Clayton Kershaw 0.695.

Strikeouts: Nolan Ryan 5714, Randy Johnson 4875.

Strikeouts per 9 innings: Chris Sale 11.13, Max Scherzer 10.65

Fewest walks per 9 innings: Tommy Bond  0.58, George Bradley 0.67.

Strikeout to walks rate: Chris Sale 5.25, Tommy Bond 4.83.

Shutouts: Walter Johnson 110, Grover Alexander 90.

No-hitters: Nolan Ryan 7, Sandy Koufax 4.

1-hitters: Nolan Ryan 12, Bob Feller 12.

Fewest hits per nine innings: Nolan Ryan 6.54, Sandy Koufax 6.79.

Fewest walks and hits per innings pitched: Addie Joss 0.97, Ed Walsh 1.00.

Lowest batting average against: Nolan Ryan .204, Sandy Koufax .205.

Earn run average: Ed Walsh 1.82, Addie Joss 1.89.

Saves: Mariano Rivera 652, Trevor Hoffman 601.

Many of these records may stand for another century and perhaps forever.

Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_records_considered_unbreakable) identifies the following as career pitching records that may never be exceeded.

Most career wins – 511: Cy Young, 1890–1911;

Most career complete games – 749: Cy Young, 1890–1911;

Most career shutouts – 110: Walter Johnson, 1907–1927;

Most career no-hitters – 7: Nolan Ryan, 1966–1993;

Most career strikeouts – 5,714: Nolan Ryan, 1966–1993;

Most career bases on balls – 2,795: Nolan Ryan, 1966–1993;

Most career wild pitches thrown – 343: Tony Mullane, 1881–1894.

Analyzing the records above, it is clear why the most prestigious award for pitchers, the Cy Young Award, is named after Cy Young; he holds five of the 21 records. Ironically, Ryan also holds six of the 21 records, but he never received the Cy Young Award. Ryan also holds the career records for 2-hitters (18), 3-hitters (31), 200-strikeout seasons (12), 300-strikeout seasons (6), 26 seasons with at least one win, and many more career records.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Allen.

More articles.

Trump Related Issues

Trump Related Issues

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are Trump using the National Guard to assist local law enforcement, the attitude of many Trump supporters toward free speech, and Trump and many of his supporters becoming like Establishment Republicans.

Chicago

With some justification, the mayor of Chicago objects to Trump using the National Guard to assist in local law enforcement. However, his objection is neither philosophical nor based on the Constitution.

Would the mayor have objected to Eisenhower using the regular army to force White students at the point of bayonets to go to integrated schools? Probably not. Like all liberals and many conservatives, he is a hypocrite. When the military is used to enforce what he supports, he does not object. When the military is used to enforce what he does not support, he objects.

If Trump were following Eisenhower’s example and using the regular army to force integration, would this mayor or any other liberal object? If they could overcome their hatred of Trump long enough, they would not object to Trump’s action but would support it.

Thus, the mayor shows that he is a hypocrite. His objection to Trump using the military for law enforcement in his city is not philosophical or constitutional. It depends on which laws that the army is being used to enforce.

Obviously, the mayor and a majority of the people in Chicago prefer to live in a crime-ridden city. If they did not, they would replace their light-on-crime political leaders with tough-on-crime political leaders. Trump should let them have what they want: a crime-ridden city.

If Trump uses the National Guard in Chicago, Portland, or other cities, he is acting like the autocratic dictator that the anti-Trumpers assert that he is. Today, Trump uses the National Guard to fight crime. Tomorrow, Democrats will use the National Guard to round up MAGA people to save democracy by protecting the country from terrorists and criminals (they consider MAGA people to be terrorists and criminals). With his unconstitutional actions of using the National Guard to fight crime, Trump will be setting the precedent for Democrats to use it unconstitutionally to imprison MAGA people. (Washington, D.C., is a special situation. It is a city that is constitutionally completely under the control of Congress, and federal law authorizes the President to use the military to a limited degree to enforce the law in the District of Columbia.)

Hate Speech

Far too many Republicans, conservatives, and Trump supporters are acting like Democrats. Like Democrats, they want to penalize people for “hate speech.” The only difference between them and the Democrats is that they disagree on what is hate speech. Like Democrats, they support free speech for themselves, but they want to suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree. 

The Charlie Kirk murder reveals their true colors. It is their equivalent of the Democrats using COVID-19, transgenderism (transgender people consider this term derogatory), and homosexuality to suppress speech. (Most Republicans and many conservatives now find homosexuality acceptable.)

Much of the left’s comments about Kirk are puerile, disgusting, despicable, and derogatory, which proves that those making these comments are reprehensible reprobates. However, the government should not censor such speech. Nevertheless, an employer should have the right to fire any employee making such comments if he finds them inappropriate and inconsistent with the image of his company. Also, anyone threatening another person may be held accountable.

Establishment Republicans

Unfortunately, Trump and most of his supporters are becoming more like Establishment Republicans. Like Establishment Republicans, they do not want to dismantle the Deep State; they want to use it against their opposition just as the Democrats have done. Additionally, like the Establishment Republicans, Trump has become a warmonger, and most of his supporters approve of this endeavor, especially with respect to Israel.

Just as Democrats and Establishment Republicans cut spending by increasing spending, so has Trump. Like them, he believes that he can borrow the country into prosperity: Ever-growing debt brings ever-growing prosperity.

Although Trump has been somewhat disruptive and is doing an excellent job in dismantling the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) idiocy, it looks like the Establishment and the Deep State will last until the country collapses into chaos and splits asunder.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Carthage and the United States

Carthage and the United States

Thomas Allen

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

[Since this article was written, the roles have been reversed. The United States are now Rome, and Russia is Carthage. Unlike disarmed Carthage, Russia possesses a large arsenal of nuclear weapons against which the United States seem to possess no defense. While Russia has a large-scale civil defense system to protect its civilians, the United States have none except for the oligarchs and high-ranking politicians and bureaucrats — it was abolished to appease the Soviet Union.]

As post-World War II history demonstrates, the United States are following the path that Carthage followed more than 2100 years ago. If the United States go the way of Carthage, the South will too, if it remains part of the present union.

By the second century B. C., the primary foreign policy of Rome had become the annihilation of Carthage, for Rome envied the prosperity of Carthage. After Rome defeated Carthage in the Second Punic War, Carthage agreed not to engage in war with any ally of Rome. If a Roman ally attacked Carthage, Carthage was to appeal to Rome to settle the dispute. Numidia, which was an ally of Rome, took advantage of Carthage’s predicament and attacked her. Carthage appealed to Rome to end the conflict. Rome resolved the conflict unfairly in favor of Numidia. The next time Numidia attacked Carthage, Carthage defended herself instead of appealing to Rome. She knew that Rome would not provide any aid or justice. Carthage feared that Rome would use this conflict as a pretext for war, and events soon proved her right. Fearing reprisal from Rome, Carthage sought appeasement. She inquired of Rome about the conditions necessary to secure peace. Rome demanded and received three hundred children of noble birth to hold as hostages. With the hostages in hand, Rome then demanded that Carthage surrender all weapons of war. Hoping to win Rome to clemency, Carthage complied. After the weapons were surrendered, Rome then demanded the city itself. The inhabitants were told that they could march ten miles inland and build a new city, but Carthage had to be destroyed. With this demand, Carthage finally realized the perfidy and baseness of her enemy. Without weapons, she prepared for war. The Carthaginians were able to manufacture enough weapons to resist the Roman siege for four years. In 146 B. C., Carthage finally fell to the Roman army. Rome utterly destroyed her. The city was burned and leveled. Carthage was no more.

Just as Rome’s foreign policy was to destroy Carthage, so is the Soviet Union’s foreign policy to destroy the United States. Ever since the days of Lenin, the foreign policy of the Soviet Union has been the destruction of the United States. Just as Rome expanded and absorbed all those around her, so has the Soviet Union. Following the path of Carthage, the United States have met the Soviet threat with appeasement. They seek to appease their Rome, the envious Soviet Union. With rhetoric, the United States mildly object to Soviet expansion. With deeds, they restrain and hamper those who seek to defend themselves from Soviet imperialism. Whereas Carthage was forced to prostrate herself before Rome as a result of defeat in war and entered into a one-sided treaty that favored Rome, the United States have voluntarily entered into one treaty after another that favors their enemy, the Soviet Union. The United States have entered into several arms-control treaties with the Soviet Union. However, the Soviet Union abides by these treaties only as long as it suits its purposes and ignores them when convenient. The United States abide by these treaties even if they have never been ratified. Now, the United States are going down the road of disarmament with a known liar and deceiver. Whereas Rome held only three hundred Carthaginians hostage, the Soviet Union is rapidly approaching the point where she will hold 240,000,000 Americans hostage. The Soviet Union has an effective civil defense and antimissile system. Yet, the United States have neither and are determined to acquire neither. The day may soon come when the Soviet Union will demand that the United States disarm themselves completely or be destroyed. If the United States resist, most likely war will result. If they do as Carthage did and disarm, they will perish as Carthage did. (Envy is a powerfully destructive force.) However, the United States will not have the luxury of rearming and making a last stand as Carthage did. Just as an envious Rome achieved her objective of obliterating prosperous Carthage, so will an envious Soviet Union achieve hers of obliterating the prosperous United States.

If the Southern States wish to avoid the fate of Carthage, they must separate from the present union. To remain part of the United States is to die. The United States no longer have the will to defend themselves. They desire only to appease their enemy. Only in an independent South can Southerners ever hope to build a civil defense and antimissile system to protect themselves from Soviet blackmail. Only in an independent South can Southerners ever hope to live in peace. The time has come for a free and independent confederation of Southern States.

As paradoxical as it may appear, an independent South may be the only way that the United States can be saved from the Soviet Union. An independent South would seek to defend itself from Soviet aggression and thus retard that aggression. Not only that, but the trauma of losing their Southern colonies may destroy the lethargy of the United States, force them to recognize their vulnerability and cause them to defend themselves from Soviet aggression, which would totally thwart her potential threats and prevent war.

[Fortunately, under President Reagan’s leadership, the United States woke up and thwarted the Soviet threat so greatly that the Soviet Union collapsed. Now, the Marxist mantle of destroying the United States has passed to China. However, Marxists within the United States are giving China stiff competition, which is un-Marxist, to bring down America. Like good Marxists, these American Marxists are destroying the history of the country by starting with the removal of anything about the Confederacy or the antebellum era. They push disarmament of the people and other Marxist laws to enslave Americans — many in the name of the war on terrorism. Unlike the United States, at least, traitors within her gates did not control Carthage.]

Copyright © 1988, 2025 by Thomas C. Allen.

More history articles.

Some Observations on Israel, Iran, Russia, Islam, and Christianity

Some Observations on Israel, Iran, Russia, Islam, and Christianity

Thomas Allen

The following are some comments on the Israel-Iran War, especially concerning Islam, Christianity, Zionism, Jews, and Russia.

1– Israel knows that it cannot defeat Iran on its own. It planned for the Jewish lobby, the Jewish-controlled media, neoconservative Zionists, and the Christian Zionists to draw the United States into its war with Iran. That plan has worked.

2– A major problem that Muslim countries have in the Middle East is that their religious disagreements prevent them from uniting against Israel. Israel has used these disagreements to its advantage.

On the other hand, Zionists have no such problem. Christian Zionists, Jewish Zionists, and atheist Zionists unite against the Muslims. They value Zionism above their religion. Indeed, for many of them, Zionism is their religion.

3– Zionists and other pro-Israel people rant endlessly about the vileness of Islam and Muslims. Other than their claim that such vileness is innate in Islam and the Koran, they never try to discover the cause of Muslim hostility toward and hatred of Jews and, particularly, Israel. To them, Muslim hostility and hatred have nothing to do with Jews terrorizing the Palestinians and stealing their land.

After the Balfour Declaration (1917), Jews began moving to Palestine and terrorizing the Palestinians, both Christians and Muslims, and taking their land. (In 1920, 500,000 Muslims, 70,000 Christians, and 60,000 Jews lived in Palestine. In 1940, the population was 948,000, 121,000, and 464,000, respectively.) Before the Balfour Declaration, Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived peacefully in Palestine. 

Moreover, Muslim hostility and hatred of Israel and Jews have nothing to do with the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians. Nor do they have anything to do with the Suez Canal Crisis of 1956 or Israel’s attacks against its neighbors in 1967 (the Six-Day War), 1973 (the Yom Kippur War), 1982 (the 1982 Lebanon War), and 2006 (the Israel–Hezbollah War), and the almost continuous offensive assaults against its neighbors since 1948.

Furthermore, Muslim hostility and hatred of Israel, Jews, and the United States have nothing to do with Israel getting its vassal, the United States, to destroy Iraq and Syria for Greater Israel. Now, Israel is trying to get the United States to destroy Iran. (As a result of its subservient support of Israel, many Muslims consider America the Great Satan and chant, “Death to America.” Without the succor of its slave, the United States, Israel would collapse.)

All these ignored issues have much more to do with Muslims’ loathing Israel and the Jews than does the Koran or anything innate in Islam.

4– Many people who believe that Islam is an innately vile religion ignore many non-Christians viewing Christianity as an innately vile religion — and for many of the same reasons. Before Muslims arrived in the Middle East and North Africa, these regions were predominantly Christian, among whom Jews lived. After the arrival of Muslims, the population of Christians and Jews significantly declined over the years. The implication is that Muslims either killed them or drove them out of the Middle East and North Africa. What is often overlooked is that many converted to Islam to avoid paying the jizya, a tax levied on non-Muslims.

Islam is criticized for using the sword to force its religion on others. Once Christianity became the state religion under Constantine, Christians not only used the sword to convert others, but they also used it to settle theological disputes. The Catholic Church became notorious for using the sword against Christian sects that did not adhere to what the Catholic Church declared to be orthodoxy. An early example was the wars between the Trinitarians, who were usually the aggressors, and the Arians. Later, the Catholic Church used the sword to oppress Christian sects, such as the Waldensians, who refused to recognize the Pope’s authority. Perhaps the bloodiest conflict of Christian intolerance was the Thirty Years' War. 

Moreover, in Christendom, Jews were often persecuted. At various times, many European countries forbade Jews from living in them.

Before Bush the Younger destroyed Iraq for Israel, Iraq had a thriving Christian population. Now, the Christians who remain are struggling to survive.

Does this mean that the Bible and Christians are vile? (The Bible does contain stories where God orders his people to kill and genocide others.) If judged by the same standard that people who consider Islam innately vile, it seems to imply that Christianity is innately vile.

Furthermore, Islam has a much higher opinion of Jesus, who is the central figure of Christianity, than does Judaism. According to Islam’s holy book, the Koran, Jesus is a great prophet, second only to Mohammad. According to the Jewish holy book, the Talmud, Jesses is a blasphemer, a bastard, and a sorcerer. 

5– Iran is as much of a threat to the United States as Iraq was in 2001 — none. Like Iraq, Iran is mostly a threat posed by the propaganda of the Jewish and Zionist-controlled media, federal bureaucrats, and politicians of both parties. 

6– If Iran falls, Russia and China are in great danger. Iran serves as a buffer to Russia because it prevents the CIA from sending jihadists into Russia’s Muslim provinces. Also, if the United States gain control of Iran’s oilfields, China could lose a major supplier of its energy. How long will Russia and China stand by and let Israel and the United States have their way in Iran?

Russia and China may have prevented this war if they had a public defense pact with Iran and had placed it under their nuclear umbrella. However, it is unlikely that this action would have stopped Israel, but it may have slowed, if not prevented, the United States’ entry into the war. Now, Russia and China may have to enter the war directly.

7– Some wonder why Putin signaled his approval of an Israeli attack on Iran by announcing that Russia’s treaty with Iran did not include military support. 

What happened to Iran’s air defense? Russia had provided Iran with antiaircraft missiles. Did Russia prevent Iran from using them? Were they faulty, or were they inadequate for the job?

Putin and Russia seem to be continuing the extinct Soviet Union’s policy of aiding Israel surreptitiously by undermining its ostensible Muslim allies when they warred against Israel. President Sadat of Egypt realized this betrayal when he expelled Soviet agents from his country in 1972, several months before the Yom Kippur War.

The Soviet Union, which Jews founded, aided Jews in Palestine before 1948 and in Israel afterward. During the Zionists’ struggle to drive the British and later the Palestinians from Palestine, the Soviet Union, through Czechoslovakia, was a major supplier of arms to the Jews in Palestine. 

Furthermore, it joined the United States in partitioning Palestine and giving a large portion of it to the Jews. With Soviet-supplied weapons and aircraft, Israel won its war for independence. Later, Ben Gurion would thank the Soviet Union for providing Israel with the arms that it needed to win independence and for its support of Zionism in the United Nations.

President Truman gave Israel de facto recognition on May 15, 1948, the day that Great Britain’s mandate in Palestine expired. However, the Soviet Union extended de jure recognition to Israel on May 17, 1948, and, thus, became the first state to recognize Israel fully and officially. 

To win favor and influence over Israel’s Arab neighbors, the Soviet government instituted a campaign to suppress some petty Jews in the Soviet bloc. Also, it openly denounced Israel and supplied weaponry to Israel’s Arab neighbors. Later, the Soviet Union would use its influence over Egypt, Syria, and other Arab countries to aid Israel.

8– Iran is one of the seven Muslim countries that Israel and the Zionists have identified for destruction. Five have been destroyed: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, and Sudan. Iran and Saudi Arabia remain. Israel’s updated list now includes Pakistan. Turkey may soon be added; a small part of it falls in Greater Israel. Destroying Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and possibly Turkey for Israel will be an extremely expensive chore for the United States. Additionally, Egypt must be included since all of Egypt east of the Nile belongs to Greater Israel. Likewise, Jordan will need to be destroyed because it is also part of Greater Israel. China will be the real winner of such an undertaking because America will be so exhausted from these wars that it will fall into China’s hands as easily as an overripe plum.

9– In “US State Department Spokeswoman Says Israel Is Greater Than America,” Caitlin Johnstone makes some interesting and informative remarks about the Israel-Iran War (https://caitlinjohnstone.com.au/2025/06/23/us-state-department-spokeswoman-says-israel-is-greater-than-america/):

Top Ten dumbest things we’re being asked to believe about Iran:

1. That the Iranians want to be bombed.

2. That the guy bombing Iran wants peace.

3. That regime change interventionism is a swell idea this time.

4. That anyone who doesn’t want war with Iran hates Jews.

5. That this time the government and the media are telling us the truth about an American war.

6. That this time the neocons are smart and correct.

7. That bombing Iran makes it LESS likely to try to obtain nukes.

8. That Iran is trying to assassinate the US president when all US presidents have the same foreign policy.

9. That Iran (a country that never starts wars) cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons, but Israel (a country that starts wars constantly) can.

10. That attacking Iran benefits Americans.

10– Paul Craig Roberts writes, “Iran has done nothing to America. It has not attacked us, sanctioned us, frozen our bank reserves, forbidden trade with us, assassinated any of our leaders. These are things that Washington has done to Iran. Why? Because Netanyahu told us to.” (https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2025/06/19/is-trumps-constituency-netanyahu-or-maga-america/)

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles. 

Unicorns and Satyrs

Unicorns and Satyrs

Thomas Allen

Two mythical creatures, the unicorn and satyr, are mentioned in the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. A unicorn is a mythical animal that has the body of a horse with one horn on its forehead. A satyr is a mythical animal that is half man and half goat.

In nine verses, the KJV translates the Hebrew word rah-ame’ as “unicorn.” According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, number 7214, rah-ame’ or rame means “a wild bull (from its conspicuousness) — unicorn.” According to Hebrew Word Study (Transliteration-Pronunciation Etymology & Grammar), the word probably means “the great aurochs or wild bulls which are now extinct. The exact meaning is not known.”  Fausset’s Bible Dictionary notes that “unicorn” was not intended to refer to the classic one-horned animal but to the wild oxen or urus, which is also known as the aurochs (Bos primigenius). (Since every edition of the KJV since 1611 has used “unicorn,” the common understanding of which is the classic one-horned horse-like animal, one must assume that the translators meant the classic one-horned animal, or else they would have changed it.) Because the Hebrew word referred to an animal with which the original translators were not familiar, they assumed that it was a unicorn.

Some translations, e.g., KJ21, follow the KJV and translate rah-ame’ as “unicorn.” Most, e.g., NIV, translate it as “wild oxen.” DARBY translates it as “buffaloes,” and YLT transliterates it as “reems.”

In two verses, the KJV translates the Hebrew word sa`iyr as satyrs or satyr. According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, number 8163, sa`iyr or sabir means “shaggy; as noun, a he-goat; by analogy, a faun:–devil, goat, hairy, kid, rough, satyr.” The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary notes that sa`iyr typically refers to a “he-goat,” but at times, it also signifies a “goat demon.” The Fausset’s Bible Dictionary states that sa`iyr is literally a shaggy goat and is sometimes used for a demon dwelling in the desert or an object of heathen worship. As with rah-ame’, the KJV translators did not know what the Hebrew word sa`iyr meant, so they used “satyrs.” 

Some translations, e.g., KJ21 and RSV, follow the KJV and translate sa`iyr as satyrs. Many, e.g., NIV, translate it as “wild goat.” The CEB, NRSVA, and TLV translate it as “goat demons” while TLB and OJB translate it as “demons.” The LSB, MEV, and NASB translate it as “shaggy goats” while RGT translates it as “hairy goat.” The DRA and ISV translate it as “hairy ones.” (For definitions of these Bible abbreviations, see https://www.biblegateway.com.)

Since King-James-only adherents believe that the KJV is 100 percent correct without error — inerrant (without error or misstatement in all matters), they must believe that unicorns and satyrs actually existed and must defend their existence. Any translation that translates rah-ame’ and sa`iyr as anything other than unicorn or satyr is an incorrect and deceptive translation. They are deliberately distorting the word of God. Therefore, they are satanic translations.

Furthermore, not only is the KJV 100 percent accurate in expounding doctrine on faith and morals, but it is also 100 percent accurate and without error on all scientific matters. Since the inerrant KJV presents unicorns and satyrs as real creatures that really existed, they must be real and actually physically existed. They are not merely mythical creatures.

Proponents of biblical infallibility (the Bible is trustworthy and incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith and morals, but not necessarily so on scientific or historical matters) do not have to argue that unicorns and satyrs were once real creatures roaming the earth. Although they believe that the Bible is without error on theological matters, they do not believe that it is without error on all scientific matters — unlike the adherents of inerrancy. Thus, they can accept including mythological creatures in the Bible without having to claim that they once existed.

(Interesting, almost no proponent of biblical inerrancy believes that the Earth is flat and the solar system is geocentric. With rare exceptions, they believe that the Earth is spherical and the solar system is heliocentric. Yet, the Bible clearly describes the Earth as flat and the solar system as geocentric. [See “A Response to ‘What’s Wrong with Progressive Creation?’” by Thomas Allen.] Thus, they are inconsistent in their belief in biblical inerrancy.)

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles. 

Rothbard on Lincoln

Rothbard on Lincoln

Thomas Allen

In “Just War,” which is based on a talk given in May 1994 and posted in March 2012 (https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/whats-a-just-war/), Murray Rothbard gives an excellent description of Abraham Lincoln (Rothbard [1926-1995] was a libertarian economist of the Austrian School, economic historian, and political theorist. He was a proponent of  anarcho-capitalism and part of the post-World War II Old Right.)

The War for Southern Independence (Lincoln’s War) gave Lincoln the opportunity to invoke statist tyranny of reform liberalism — and he fervently took advantage of the opportunity. He overthrew States’ rights, which was the foundation of the Constitution of 1789, and the ownership of slaves (by making all Americans slaves of the oligarchs, although only a few realize that they are slaves). 

Lincoln’s “major emphasis was on Whig economic statism: high tariffs, huge subsidies to railroads, [and] public works.” Being a leading lawyer for the big railroads, he was the candidate of the big railroads.

Granville Dodge, an Iowa railroad entrepreneur, delivered the Iowa delegation to Lincoln at the Republican convention. As a reward, “Lincoln appointed Dodge to army general.” Dodge’s job was to drive the Indians from the path of the Union Pacific, “the country’s first heavily subsidized federally chartered transcontinental railroad.” Thus, “conscripted Union troops and hapless taxpayers were coerced into socializing the costs on constructing and operating the Union Pacific.”

Nevertheless, Lincoln’s chief focus was raising taxes — especially tariffs. During his administration, tariff rates greatly increased (consequently, he embargoed the importation of iron and steel). At the beginning of his administration, he was placatory about not interfering with slavery. However, he insisted on collecting tariffs at Southern ports.

“Lincoln was a master politician, which means that he was a consummate conniver, manipulator, and liar.” He deceived the South and maneuvered it into firing the first shot.  Thus, he made the South appear to be the aggressor. (He who causes the first shot starts the war, which is often not the one who fires the first shot.)

The Lincoln administration and the Republican-controlled Congress enacted most of the Whig economic programs. At least 10 tariff bills were enacted. Alcohol and tobacco were heavily taxed — “sin” taxes. An “income tax was levied for the first time in American history.” Also,  transcontinental railroads received large land grants and monetary subsidies. Moreover, “the government went off the gold standard and virtually nationalized the banking system to establish a machine for printing new money and to provide cheap credit for the business elite.”

Furthermore, Lincoln conscripted a huge army, jailed dissenters and peace advocates, and abolished habeas corpus.

Although Lincoln was not religious, “he adopted all the attitudes and temperament of his evangelical allies.” Personally, he opposed using alcohol and tobacco. Also, he “opposed the private carrying of guns.”

Moreover, he abandoned his fiancee, who came from a humble family, to marry Mary Todd, who was wealthy and whose family was friends of Henry Clay (shades of Newt Gingrich, who divorced his first wife when she was dying of cancer, but who fortunately survived, and divorced his second wife because she objected to sharing him with his mistress, who became his third wife). Further, he “refused to attend his dying father or his father’s funeral.”

Rothbard concludes his discussion of Lincoln by stating:

Lincoln, too, was a typical example of a humanitarian with the guillotine in another dimension: a familiar modern “reform liberal” type whose heart bleeds for and yearns to “uplift” remote mankind, while he lies to and treats abominably actual people whom he knew. And so Abraham Lincoln, in a phrase prefiguring our own beloved Mario Cuomo, declared that the Union was really “a family, bound indissolubly together by the most intimate organic bonds.” Kick your own family, and then transmute familial spiritual feelings toward a hypostatized and mythical entity, “The Union,” which then must be kept intact regardless of concrete human cost or sacrifice.

How can any self-respecting conservative idolize such a despicable charlatan as Lincoln? Nevertheless, they do. It makes one wonder if these Lincoln idolizers are really conservatives. They certainly are not constitutionalists, i.e., advocates of the Constitution of 1789 that the founding fathers gave us.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More historical articles.

Rothbard on Lincoln’s War

Rothbard on Lincoln’s War

Thomas Allen

In “Just War,” which is based on a talk given in May 1994 and posted in March 2012 (https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/whats-a-just-war/), Murray Rothbard explains that the War for Southern Independence (Lincoln’s War) was a just war on the part of the South and an unjust war on the part of the North. (Rothbard [1926-1995] was a libertarian economist of the Austrian School, economic historian, and political theorist. He was a proponent of anarcho-capitalism and part of the post-World War II Old Right.)

Rothbard states that “a just war exists when a people tries to ward off the threat of coercive domination by another people, or to overthrow an already-existing domination. A war is unjust, on the other hand, when a people try to impose domination on another people, or try to retain an already existing coercive rule over them.” He identifies two just wars that Americans fought: the American Revolution and the War for Southern Independence.

The South was trying to free itself from the North’s oppressive domination — therefore, a just war on the part of the South. On the other hand, the North was trying to maintain its dominance over the South — therefore, an unjust war on the part of the North.

Before Lincoln’s War, a chief principle of war was not to target civilians. Sherman, Sheridan, and other Northern generals targeted civilians. The Union army often looted and deliberately destroyed civilian property that had no military value. When Lee’s army invaded the North, he ordered his troops not to molest civilians.

Like Americans during the American Revolution, Southerners believed that sovereignty resided in the people. They delegated certain sovereign powers to the governing authority, and their delegation was voluntary and contractual. As such, they could withdraw that sovereignty anytime that the governing authority had violated its trust. Thus, government was a contractual arrangement — “consent of the governed.” Some divine hand from above did not impose it. When the 13 States, whose governments had been created by the people thereof, ratified the Constitution of 1789, they did not bind themselves perpetually to it or the Union formed under it. Being sovereign republics, they reserved the right to withdraw from the Union if they found that the government created by the Constitution continuously violated it.

After years of the federal government threatening and assaulting Southern institutions, the Southern States “exercise their natural, contractual, and constitutional right to withdraw, to ‘secede’ from that Union.” Then, as sovereign republics, they contracted with other Southern States to form the Confederate States of America. Thus, just as the American Revolution was just, so was the War for Southern Independence. For the same reasons that the American colonies seceded from the British Empire, so did the Southern States secede from the Union formed under the Constitution of 1789.

Just as the American colonies rebelled against “the taxing power: the systematic plunder of their property by the British government,” so did the Southern States rebel against the systematic plunder of their property by the federal government. A principal grievance of the South was the protective tariffs that the North had imposed. These tariffs were used to protect inefficient Northern industries. Consequently, they forced Southerners to pay higher prices for manufactured goods. Also, these tariffs threaten to reduce Southern exports. Moreover, the South paid most of the tariffs, and the North received most of the appropriations and monopolistic Northern industries.

Not only did most Northerners want to continue plundering the South via tariffs, but others, the Yankees, also wanted to purge the South and remake it in the Yankee image. Yankees had a Puritan mentality and were driven by postmillennialism. (Before Christ returns, “man must set up a thousand-year Kingdom of God on Earth.”) Consequently, Yankees must cleanse society of sin and create a perfect society. “Moreover, if you didn’t try your darndest to stamp out sin by force you yourself would not be saved.” Further, the coercive power of government was an essential tool in cleansing the world of sin. For these Yankees, sin was anything “which might interfere with a person’s free will to embrace salvation.” They were abolitionists and prohibitionists and opposed Catholicism. Governments must stamp out the evils of slavery, alcohol and tobacco, gambling, most entertainment, and Catholicism.[1] Thus, they promoted paternalistic government at the federal, State, and local levels.

Like most Northerners, Yankees promoted governmental paternalism in economic affairs. They supported “the Whig program of statism and big government: protective tariffs, subsidies to big business, strong central government, large-scale public works, and cheap credit spurred by government.”

Also, Yankees opposed personal liberties, States’ rights, minimal government, free markets, and free trade — the basic principles of the Democratic Party at that time. Consequently, they supported the Republican Party, which was the “party of great moral ideas,” i.e., the stamping-out of sin.

To the delight of the Yankees, “The Northern war against slavery partook of fanatical millennialist fervor, of a cheerful willingness to uproot institutions, to commit mayhem and mass murder, to plunder and loot and destroy, all in the name of high moral principle and the birth of a perfect world.” Thus, the North fought “to maintain their coercive and unwanted rule over” the South.

Then, Rothbard compares the British during the American Revolution to the North during Lincoln’s War. “The British, at least, were fighting on behalf of a cause which, even if wrong and unjust, was coherent and intelligible: that is, the sovereignty of a hereditary monarch.” What was the North’s excuse? It had no allegiance to a real, actual person like a king. Its allegiance was “to a nonexistent, mystical, quasi-divine alleged entity, ‘the Union.’” Unlike a king, one cannot evaluate a Union’s deeds, and the Union is accountable to no one. Thus, Northerners replaced the Union formed under the Constitution of 1789, which was “a contractual institution that can either be cleaved to or scrapped,” with “a divinized entity, which must be worshipped, and which must be permanent, unquestioned, all-powerful.”

Using the cause of “human rights,” modern-day supporters of Lincoln’s War support and glorify his war. Lincoln “goes forth and rights the wrong of slavery, doing so through mass murder, the destruction of institutions and property, and the wreaking of havoc which has still not disappeared.” Yet, all other countries ended slavery without war.

Endnote

1. Most of the sins on which Yankees focused were vices. (Vice sins are sins that injure the sinner and his family but do not generally injure others.) For the most part, they not only ignored but also often supported sins that injured others, such as homicide (offensive wars), looting the public treasury (subsidies), and forcing the common people to pay higher prices (tariffs), often for lower quality goods. Many frequently supported business dealings where merchants took advantage of ignorant customers. Most did not object to debtors cheating creditors with depreciating fiat money — then the two largest debtors were banks and governments. As for slavery, they objected to the ownership of slaves. However, they had little issue with transporting and selling slaves, as many Yankees became rich trafficking slaves. Moreover, when the Northern States emancipated slaves, most Yankees sold their slaves instead of freeing them.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern issues articles.

The King James Only

The King James Only

Thomas Allen

The King-James-only adherents claim that the King James Version is the only true translation of the Bible. It is the inerrant word of God and is 100 percent accurate without error. A few adherents go as far as to suggest that God sat King James on His lap and dictated the Bible to him word for word. Some even imply that translations of the Bible to other languages need to be made from the King James Version instead of from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Moreover, they believe that any translation or version that is not identical to the King James Version is heresy and the work of Satan.

Which inerrant edition of the King James Version do these adherents use? There are many editions (revisions):  1613, 1616, 1617, 1618, 1629, 1630, 1633, 1634, 1637, 1638, 1640, 1642, 1653, 1659, 1675, 1679, 1833, 1896, and 1904. Do they use the:

– 1611 (“Judas” Bible) where Matthew 26:36 reads, “Then cometh Judas [instead of Jesus] with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder.”

– 1631 (“Wicked” Bible) where Exodus 20:14 reads, “Thou shalt [“not” is omitted] commit adultery.”

– 1653 (“Unrighteous” or “Field’s” Bible) where 1 Corinthians 6:9 reads, “Know ye not that the righteous [instead of unrighteous] shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,”

- 1711 (“Profit” Bible) where Isaiah 57:12 reads, “I will declare thy righteousness, and thy works; for they shall [“not” is omitted] profit thee.”

– 1716 (“Sin On” Bible) where John 5:14 reads, “Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin on [instead of “no”] more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.”

– 1792 (“Denial” Bible) where Luke 22:34 reads, “And he said, I tell thee, Philip [instead of “Peter”], the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.”

–  1801, (“Murderers” Bible) where Jude 1:16 reads, “These are murderers [instead of “murmurers”], complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.”

– 1802 (“Discharge” Bible) where 1 Timothy  5:21 reads, “I discharge [instead of “charge”] thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.”

– 1806 (“Standing Fishes” Bible) where Ezekiel  47:10 reads, “And it shall come to pass, that the fishes [instead of “fishers”] shall stand upon it from Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many.”

– 1810 (“Wife-Hater” Bible) where Luke 14:26 reads, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own wife [instead of life] also, he cannot be my disciple.”

– 1829 (“Large Family” Bible) where Isaiah 66:9 reads, “Shall I bring to the birth, and not cease [instead of “cause”] to bring forth? saith the Lord: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.”

– undated (“Fool” Bible) where Psalm 14:1 reads, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is a [“a” is substituted for “no”] God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.”

Thus, the translation of the Bible that King-James-only adherents believe is the only “inerrant” and unchangeable translation has undergone more changes and revisions than any English translation on today’s market.  Over the years, this inerrant Bible has contained many errors. Further, some of the best Greek manuscripts were not used.

If the King-James-only adherent’s Bible contains the letter “J,” it is not an original copy of the 1611 edition. “J” was not used in the Bible until the 1629 edition.

Reference

Amirault, Gary. “The King James Bible is ‘Inerrant?’”

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

A Nullification That Failed

A Nullification That Failed

Thomas Allen

From the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s, the Southern States failed in their attempt to nullify federal acts that forced desegregation and integration, following the recommendations of Madison, which the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) endorses. Not only did the Southern States dislike these acts,  but most of them were unconstitutional. 

In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the US Supreme Court based its desegregation ruling primarily on personal biases, sociology, and politics, with the US Constitution playing only an insignificant role. When Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment, it did not intend for it to apply to schools. Shortly after its ratification, Congress established a racially segregated school system for the District of Columbia.

According to TAC, Madison identified four appropriate methods that a State and “we the people” of that State could use to oppose and nullify an unconstitutional federal act or even a disliked federal act. A discussion of these four follows.

1. Popular protest by the people. “We the people” of a State may vigorously and vociferously protest against an unconstitutional or even disliked federal act. Southerners protested resolutely and vehemently against forced federal integration acts, but the federal government successfully suppressed their protest. Their protest did nothing more than bring more federal oppression and less liberty.

2. Refuse to cooperate with the federal government. Wholeheartedly, the Southern States not only refused to cooperate with the federal government, but they also interfered with its enforcement of federal integration acts. With great fervor, they opposed federal integration acts. Their disobedience and lack of cooperation did nothing except invigorate the federal government’s resolve to become more tyrannical and oppressive.

3. Formal protest by the governor. Few governors have ever protested unconstitutional acts of the federal government as did Governor Faubus of Arkansas and Governor Wallace of Alabama. All their protest did was cause the federal government to use military force against Arkansas and Alabama to quell their protest. Other governors protested, but to no avail. Their protest led to more subjection and despotism.

4. Legislative action. Legislative action includes resolutions formally protesting the federal government’s usurpation and unconstitutional acts. Legislatures may forbid agents of the State and its local governments from cooperating with the federal government in enforcing the federal act. It may even include interfering to prevent the federal government from enforcing an unconstitutional federal act. However, legislative action does not extend to preventing federal agents from enforcing unconstitutional federal acts with imprisonment or fines. State legislatures of the Southern States took actions to thwart the enforcement of federal integration acts, short of jailing federal agents. Again, the results were the same: more oppression, tyranny, and loss of liberty.

Madison believed that if adjoining States protested against a federal act and sought to nullify it with the aforementioned actions, their actions would cause the federal act to become void. Madison was wrong. The Southern States were unified in their protest of the federal government’s integration acts. Yet, their unity did nothing to stop the federal government’s tyranny.

The Southern States did not resort to jailing federal agents attempting to enforce school integration. However, this action would have also failed because the philosophy of "might makes right" dominated the country. (With the possible exceptions of the Cleveland, Harding, and Coolidge administrations, this philosophy has been the dominant governing principle of the federal government since 1861 — even superseding the Constitution.) Since the federal government used military force against Arkansas and Alabama in response to much milder forms of nullification, it would have used even greater force against a State that jailed its agents. (If a State had nullified these federal acts following Calhoun’s philosophy instead of Madison’s, these acts would not have applied in the nullifying States. Consequently, the federal government could not have lawfully used the military to enforce them because they did not exist in the nullifying States. However, since the federal government ceased following the Constitution in 1861, it would have used troops anyway.)

As a result of the Southern States’ failure to nullify the federal government’s integration acts, America’s education has deteriorated significantly. Worse, their defeat gave birth to racial quotas, political correctness, diversity-equity-inclusion, wokeism, and ultimately the death of the White race, Christianity, and Western Civilization. Such has been the goal of the Puritan Yankees since the mid-nineteenth century. Only the South stood in the way of this goal; that is why Lincoln and the Republicans had to destroy the South.

Madison may have wept over the utter defeat of the Southern States’ failure to nullify these unconstitutional federal acts. However, based on inferences from its writings, TAC has not.

However, the Southern States’ attempted nullification did lead to two of the three wars that the United States have won since World War II: Eisenhower’s war against Arkansas, Kennedy’s war against Alabama, and Reagan’s war against Grenada. Defeating these three world superpowers is the height of US military prowess in the post-World War II era.

Since Lincoln’s War, States have been highly successful at nullifying federal acts against vice, e.g., prohibition, which the Constitution authorized the federal government to prohibit the manufacturing, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors, and marijuana, which the federal government has no constitutional authority to outlaw or regulate. However, the nullification of most unconstitutional federal acts has been highly unsuccessful. The only nullifying acts that States are allowed are unenforceable protests and resolutions, and not participating with the federal government in enforcing federal laws (even this one seems to be fading under Trump).

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.