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.

Trump, Israel, and Iran

Trump, Israel, and Iran

Thomas Allen

The following are some observations on the Israel-Iran War and Trump’s response. Also, some comments on Christian Zionists are presented.

1 – Hal Turner, a radio commentator, gives a good analogy of the Israel-United States-Middle East relationship. Israel is a little bully. Because it does not like the kid next door, it punches the kid in the nose. In response, the kid hits Israel back. Then Israel runs to its big brother, crying, “He hit me! He hit me!” As a result of Israel’s crying, its subservient, compliant big brother, the United States, beats up the kid next door.

How much of the terrorism associated with Middle Eastern Muslim countries is merely a reaction to Israel bullying its neighbors and the US protecting the bully and meddling in the affairs of these countries, even to the extent of regime change, as with Iraq, Syria, and Libya?

2 – With his war against Iran, Trump has betrayed a large number of his MAGA base. Because Trump promised to end the Ukraine-Russia War and the Israel-Gaza War, many people voted for him. Not only has he failed to end those wars, but he has also started another one — or at least allied himself with Israel after Israel started another one.

One group of the MAGA base supports Trump in his war against Iran. They are mostly Christian Zionists. They want a global nuclear war because they believe such a war is necessary for Christ’s return. Since most Christian Zionists are premillennialists who believe in the pretribulation rapture, they believe that they will not have to endure the global nuclear war. They believe that they will enjoy the holocaust from a safe distance. Although this war will cause a massive slaughter of “God’s Chosen People,” whom most of the Christian Zionists worship, they look forward to this holocaust of the Jews. So much for their Christian compassion.

3– Trump ran as an antiestablishment candidate. Most of his MAGA base believed him and voted for him because they thought that he was an enemy of the establishment: neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, progressives, liberals, and most federal bureaucrats and politicians. Now, he has betrayed them. He appears to have sold out to the establishment, the military-security-industrial complex, and neoconservatives (many of whom are Jews, “God’s Chosen People,” and all of whom are Zionists). They wanted Trump to attack Iran for Israel, and he delivered. Thus, Trump again betrays his MAGA base, except for the Christian Zionists.

Christian Zionists believe that the primary, if not the sole, purpose of the United States is to serve and protect Israel and “God’s Chosen People.” To be sacrificed on the altar of Zionism is the United States' raison d'être. Such a sacrifice is the greatest of all honors. America has no higher purpose.

4– Trump seems to have become a neoconservative, who are Zionist frontmen, and an establishment conservative, who take care of the military-security-industrial complex. (Turning to the Democrats offers no escape. Not only are most Democrat leaders Zionists and protect the military-security-industrial complex, but they are also much more fascistic, promote queerdom, seek to destroy America with nonwhite aliens, and want to genocide the White race.)

5– Occasionally, Trump gives the illusion that he is not Israel’s lapdog by vigorously objecting to Israel’s actions. He has done so recently when Israel and Iran temporarily ignored his order for a ceasefire. (Does Trump really believe that he can give Israel orders? If so, he does not understand the world’s power structure: “God’s Chosen People” are in charge.) However, he never follows through with any sanctions on Israel. Is he like all Presidents since Kennedy and trembles in fear before Israel? If any US president becomes unruly, Israel will beat them into submission as it did with Kennedy.

(Apparently, such punishment was in President Johnson’s mind when he let Israel get away with trying to sink the USS Liberty during the Six-Day War. Instead of penalizing Israel for its sneak attack on the USS Liberty, he threatened the surviving crew with severe penalties if they mentioned the attack.)

6– Did Trump call for a ceasefire at the behest of Israel? Israel had expended most of its antimissile missiles and needed to replenish its stock and repair its missile defense system. It needed a ceasefire to restock its antimissiles and rebuild its missile defenses and armed forces. After that, it plans to continue its war with Iran. In the past, it has used ceasefires to rebuild its armed forces to continue fighting.

Furthermore, Iran had severely damaged Israeli infrastructure. Israel needed Trump to stop the war to save Israel from having to sue for peace before Iran destroyed it. Trump seems to be delivering. Will he use the ceasefire to bring about a peace that forces Israel to abandon its dream of Greater Israel? Or will he use it to give Israel time to repair its damage and rebuild its armed forces so that it can continue its quest for Greater Israel?

Some pro-Israel-anti-Iran folks believe that Iran agreed to the ceasefire so that it could rebuild its defenses and military. After which, it plans to attack Israel. They seem to discount Israel being the aggressor who initiated the war with its sneak attack on Iran. Also, they seem to discount the damage that Iran has inflicted on Israel, which seems greater than what Israel has inflicted on it.

7– Even if Trump wants to free himself from being an Israeli lackey, he may find such an effort impossible. He has surrounded himself with Zionists, many of whom are fervent Christian Zionists. They believe that the purpose of America and Christians is to sacrifice themselves for Israel and “God’s Chosen People,” the Jews.

8– Trump says that he does not want regime change in Iran because the change would lead to chaos. At least, he has learned one important lesson from Bush’s overthrow of Iraq; Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden’s overthrow of Afghanistan; Obama’s overthrow of Libya; and Obama, Trump, and Biden’s overthrow of Syria.

Nevertheless, Israel wants an Iranian regime change. It wants a compliant government that it can control — like the governments of the United States, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Will Trump prevail, or will Israel prevail?

9– Even if Trump successfully destroyed Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities, he has only eliminated Israel’s ostensible excuse for war against Iran. What Trump is overlooking is that Iran’s nuclear weapons program is just an excuse that Israel is using for its war. Israel wants to subordinate Iran to its will, and the nuclear weapons program is just an excuse for the war to achieve that goal.

If Trump has been successful in destroying Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Israel will find another reason for its war against Iran. A possible reason is that Trump failed to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons program. This excuse is one that the Zionist and Jewish-controlled media are currently promoting. Another is that Israel has to continue the war to prevent Iran from rebuilding its nuclear weapons program. Or Israel could come up with an excuse that is not related to nuclear weapons. Israel is not yet through with Iran.

As the old saying goes, “Israel has played Trump like a two-bit fiddle.” Perhaps Trump is realizing that Israel has used him, and that is why he is angry. Even if the United States destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities, Israel will find another excuse for war against Iran.

10– The reason that no signs of radiation have been detected at the three sites that Trump bombed is that they were empty — thus, the explanation that Iran had removed any uranium stored there before the bombing. Also, according to Scott Ritter, plans for these bombings were initiated during the Biden administration. Since any nuclear material at these sites had been removed long before the bombing, what was the purpose of the bombing? The United States and Israel must have known that they were empty. (If not, their intelligence agencies are the worst in the world and should be abolished.) Thus, the purpose of the bombing was for a political theatrical show; consequently, Trump risked American lives for a show. (See “Donald Trump Has Joined Joe Biden In The Ranks Of War Criminals” by Chuck Baldwin.)

11– Since Israel and Iran have an uncontrollable urge to fight each other, perhaps Trump should let them. If he does, he should take the divine approach of showing no partiality. Therefore, he would cease all support of Israel and remove all sanctions on Iran.

Alternatively, Netanyahu and Ali Khamenei fight each other in a no-rules bare-knuckles boxing match. The one who beats the other to death wins. As a result, the loser pays the victor a token prize of a thousand ounces of gold. Then, the people of both countries return to living their lives without molestation or threat of war from the other country. (It would also be helpful if warmongering propaganda were forbidden.) Using this approach saves many lives and prevents much destruction of bodies and property. Moreover, the two principal warmongers put their lives on the line instead of sending others to die for their vanity.

12– Trump carrying the United States to war for Israel again shows the American electorate that elections for federal offices mean nothing, especially in the realm of foreign policy. As long as the Establishment controls the Democratic and Republican parties, America can never be made great again.

It matters not whom Americans elect as President, be he a Democrat or a Republican, the Prime Minister of Israel is always the de facto President of the United States. Consequently, the foreign policy of the United States remains the same, especially in the Middle East and concerning Israel.

13– Democrats who criticize Trump for bombing Iran are hypocrites. When Obama bombed Libya to initiate regime change without notifying Congress, they did not object because he failed to notify them before the bombing. Their objection to Trump’s bombing is based on politics and not principle.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

The 1860 Presidential Election Caused the South to Seceded

The 1860 Presidential Election Caused the South to Secede

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 92–94, G. Manigault explains how the 1860 presidential election led to the South seceding. He writes:

An election of President of the United States was to come on late in 1860, and the whole Union was greatly agitated by the canvass. The anti-slavery party chose for their candidate [Abraham Lincoln] an until lately obscure man — of little capacity or attainments, except as what is called a stump orator. He had a genius for diverting a rude Western crowd with funny stories and coarse witticisms. Some able speeches were delivered by him, but they were prepared by another man. His own serious efforts only proved his ignorance and shallowness. But he was popular in the great North-west, and was a man whom the party knew how to use for their purposes. Another party which expressly disclaimed for the Federal government any right to interfere with slavery in the States, but claimed for it the right to prohibit it in the common territories, nominated for their candidate an eminent Northwestern politician [Stephen A. Douglas], the zealous expounder of “Squatter Sovereignty.” A third party of no definite views, except peace at any price, brought out their candidate [John Bell]. And a fourth, consisting of the people of the Southern States and such people in the North as maintained the permanence and sanctity of the terms, on which the Union had been formed, and the limitations on the powers of the Federal government, nominated their candidate [John C. Breckinridge]. The result was that the anti-slavery party carried every Northern State, and the election — the fourth party carried every Southern State, and the other parties were nowhere.  

The people of the Southern States now found that they were living under a government completely in the hands of their enemies, utterly hostile to their rights and interests, and claiming a right not only to surround and hedge them out from all right in the common territories, and reduce them to complete and hopeless subjection, but to revolutionize their internal political and social organization. This was not the confederation into which they had entered; this was not the government which they had joined in creating. Unless they could submit to be revolutionized by external enemies, and become mere tributary provinces to them, it was high time to break off all connection with utterly faithless confederates, whom the most solemn treaty could not bind. The Southern States began to secede from the Union in rapid succession, and war was made upon the South to force them back into it.

More Southern articles.