Ulysses S. Grant

Ulysses S. Grant 

Thomas Allen, editor

In The United States Unmasked: A Search into the Causes of the Rise and Progress of These States, and an Exposure Of Their Present Material and Moral Condition (London, Ontario: J. H. Vivian, 1878), pages 58–60, G. Manigault gives a candid description of General Ulysses S. Grant.

We know little of the earlier part of that [Grant's] career. He [Grant] was educated at West Point, and held a commission in the army for several years, but had to leave it for causes, of which intemperance was the chief. He was afterwards engaged in some manufacturing or commercial enterprises, but failed in them. 1860 found him a broken man, of dissipated habits and desperate fortunes. But he was known to be a man of great resolution. It has been said that he offred his services to the Confederates; but this may be false. The same thing has been asserted as to another noted Northern General of better character than Grant. He was, we believe, first employed by the U. S. government in crushing a movement of the secessionists near St. Louis in Missouri, where they were greatly in the minority — and afterwards attracted attention by his success in subordinate positions. But his good fortune sprang from a peculiar conjunction of events. The Northern government and people began their efforts to put down the “rebellion” as they called it, with inadequate forces. Every time they made a failure, they changed their general, and greatly increased their levies. Luckily for Grant it was not until a number of commanders in chief had been shelved — and the insufficient strength of successive armies had been acknowledged, that the government put forth all its remaining strength and credit, raised an army of a million of men, more than half of whom were foreigners — and put Grant in command. He certainly succeeded at last in performing the task entrusted to him. But we do not just now remember, in all history, any successful general who had so many of his men slaughtered by an enemy greatly inferior in numbers. But he had been furnished with plenty of men and plenty of ammunition, and seems to have valued the one about as much as the other. We are not well informed as to the details of his campaigns. But we know of no one instance in which he displayed stategetic [sic] ability of a high order — and would be surprised if any military critic could point it out. Wielding an overwhelming force against enemies very inferior in numbers, he showed the most dogged resolution, and disregard for the lives of his men; and failure at one point only stimulated him to try his luck at another. This explains his more than semi-circular campaign around Richmond in 1864–5. One feature in General Grant’s success has been little commented on, for the steps that led to it are wrapped in obscurity. It is known that he went into the war desperately poor, but seems to have come out very rich. But the process has never been explained by which he acquired his wealth.

More historical articles.

Some Observations

Some Observations

Thomas Allen

The following describes the ideal state and its government and comments on Europe’s lust for war with Russia.

The Ideal State and Its Ideal Government

What follows is a description of the ideal state and its ideal government according to most left-wingers, especially progressives, socialists, fascists, and many nationalists.

In an ideal state, bureaucrats rule. Bureaucrats are isolated from special interests — so they believe. However, as COVID-19 and the Black Lives Matter riots illustrate, special interests have as much control over bureaucrats as they have over politicians. Nevertheless, statists are correct that bureaucrats are more difficult to replace than elected politicians. For statist, difficulty in replacing bureaucrats is a good thing and, therefore, bureaucratic rule is the ideal government for the ideal state.

Bureaucrats are supposed to be guided by the common good, which is what is best for the community. Yet, the concept of the common good is highly subjective. For example, some believe that a disarmed citizenry is for the common good, while others believe that a heavily armed citizenry is for the common good. In the end, personal prejudices and biases, the lust for power and wealth, and ideology guide most bureaucrats, especially those at the higher levels, in deciding what is the public good. Many lower-level bureaucrats are guided by the notion of doing their jobs.

The state is an abstraction that cannot exist without people. What is the state? The people who control the government. (See “The State” by Thomas Allen.) When bureaucrats rule, the state is the high-ranking bureaucrats and the people who own or control them, i.e., the oligarchs, who are ultimately the state.

Of course, people who promote the bureaucratic-ruled state are convinced that the bureaucrats who control the government think like they do. The bureaucrats will promote policies and agendas with which these promoters agree and suppress those with which they disagree. While progressives, socialists, fascists, and other statists find the bureaucratic-ruled state desirable, traditional conservatives, constitutionalists, libertarians, and other libertists find it deplorable.

Unfortunately, the United States are close to achieving the ideal state and its ideal government.  As the statists rejoice over their coming victory, the libertists are mourning the death of their country and its Constitution. (For the differences between a statist and a libertist, see “Statists Versus Libertists” by Thomas Allen.)

Europe’s Lust for War with Russia

Many of the European political leaders are working diligently to start a war with Russia. Following the example of most modern belligerents, they are trying to provoke Russia to fire the first shot so that they can blame Russia for starting the war and, thus, draw the United States into another useless European war. (The leadership of the United States either is stupid enough or controlled enough to carry the United States into another no-win war, but this war will totally destroy the United States.)

These European leaders are beginning to prepare their countries for war with Russia. Several countries are increasing their production of war materials and increasing the size of their armies. Moreover, they are telling their citizens to prepare for war. Some are considering reinstituting the draft.

With whom or what do they plan to fight such a war? They have completely demobilized their native White ethnicities. Whites have been taught that they are the cancer of the universe and do not deserve to exist. Their political leaders have relegated them to second-class citizens in their own countries. Such a demoralized people make a poor army that can be easily defeated.

Do these European leaders plan to use the immigrants from the Middle East, South Asia, and Northern Africa who have flooded Europe over recent decades? These immigrants owe Europe no allegiance. Most came to plunder and conquer. Why should they risk their lives to defend Europe?

Consequently, Europe cannot rely on these immigrants or the demoralized native Whites to fight Russia. Additionally, Europe has depleted much of its war materials by sending them to Ukraine.

Apparently, using Russia’s war with Ukraine as their model, some of these European leaders act as though they will fight Russia for months, if not for years. If the war goes nuclear, which it most likely will, Russia could utterly destroy all major cities in Europe in less than 10 minutes. (If Russia thought that the United States would retaliate, it could destroy the US missile silos before they could fire and take out most of the bombers on the ground. Moreover, it could destroy many major cities, airports, and military and naval bases in less than 30 minutes. Its hypersonic missiles can travel from New York to Los Angeles in less than half an hour. Neither Europe nor the United States have any defense against Russia’s hypersonic missiles. Moreover, Russia also has nuclear torpedoes that can flood much of coastal Europe.)

Do these European leaders believe that they can defeat Russia? Probably not. However, defeating Russia is not the objective. It will not be fought to defeat Russia but to annihilate the Whites of Europe.

Being possessed by Satan’s demons, these European leaders seek to obliterate the White race from the planet because the White race (species) is the race created in God’s image. (See “What Race Was Adam?” by Thomas Allen.) Eradicating the White race with massive nonwhite immigration is taking too long. What better way to achieve their goal than a nuclear war?

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

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.