Beware of the Satanic Dream of Nimrod

Beware of the Satanic Dream of Nimrod

Thomas Allen

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

One of the greatest threats that faces the Caucasian-white (Aryan) Christian today is his ignorance of the dream of Nimrod. This ignorance has brought the South to the verge of destruction that it faces today.

The dream of Nimrod[1] is a universal brotherhood of man with its concomitant one-world government, economy, culture, religion, and race. The dream of Nimrod is the universal one-world state with its socialist economy and totalitarian government. (Whether this government is democratic, aristocratic, oligarchic, or autocratic in form matters little. By the nature of its objective, universal brotherhood, it would have to be totalitarian.) The society of Nimrod would have one culture, language, religion, and race. The difference among men could not be tolerated.

If you hear someone advocating or exalting a political system that consolidates and concentrates political power in the hands of the majority (democracy), which is often erroneously and euphemistically called the people, a particular class or faction (aristocracy), a small group (oligarchy), a particular religious order or sect (ecclesiarchy), or an individual (autocracy or monarchy), beware. You may be listening to someone possessed by the dream of Nimrod.

If you hear someone advocating or exalting communism, socialism, fascism, mercantilism, protectionism, welfare statism, or any other economic system where political power is used to transfer wealth from one group to another, beware. You may be listening to someone possessed by the dream of Nimrod.

If you hear someone advocating or exalting a social system that accepts racial integration, miscegenation, homosexualism, adultery, fornication, licentiousness, debauchery, governmental indoctrination of children (public education), human sacrifice (abortion and euthanasia), and other forms of moral degeneracy, beware. You may be listening to someone possessed by the dream of Nimrod.

If you hear someone advocating or exalting humanity while belittling the spiritual or advocating or exalting atheism, agnosticism, Gnosticism, animism, naturalism, Marxism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Calvinism, Unitarian Universalism, Quakerism, and other forms of secular humanism, paganism, pseudo-religion, or universal religion, beware. You may be listening to someone possessed by the dream of Nimrod.

That a person advocates one or more of the aforementioned positions does not necessarily mean that he is possessed by the dream of Nimrod. Nevertheless, the more consistent a person is in advocating these positions, the more likely that he is possessed. If a person advocates a political, economic, social, or religious system that resembles Nimrod’s, i.e., systems that concentrate and consolidate power and create uniformity, he is most likely possessed by the dream of Nimrod.

Most of today’s political, business, labor, social, and religious leaders, however, are possessed by the dream of Nimrod. They seek a satanic universal state with its one-world socialistic economy and government and its satanic society and culture of debauchery and licentiousness. They seek to destroy the Heavenly Father and His Christ.

The South is one of the few strongholds[2] of Caucasian-white [Aryan] Christians remaining in the world today. For this reason, those possessed by the satanic dream of Nimrod are diligently working to destroy the South. Only a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States can, with God’s help, save the South from the demonic dream of Nimrod. Only then will the Southern States be able to drive these modern-day Nimrods from among them. Only then will the Southern States be able to defend themselves from the dream of Nimrod and those possessed by his dream. Only then will the people of the South be able to live free and enjoy the liberties that God intended them to have. They would then become a beacon guiding their Caucasian-white [Aryan] brethren in Europe, the Soviet Empire, and the remainder of the Americas to throw off their oppressors.

Endnotes

1. Nimrod was the architect of the Tower of Babel. His goal was to rule the world and all mankind. Before God intervened, Nimrod was well on his way to establishing a universal state with one government, religion, culture, language, and race.

2. South Africa, especially the Afrikaner, is perhaps the only other stronghold of any significance remaining. This is why the world powers are trying to destroy South Africa with a race war and turn it into a Soviet colony. Unfortunately for the South African Whites, their “leaders” betrayed them. Now, the Afrikaner faces genocide as thorough as the genocide of the Indian tribes in the Americas, many of whom are now extinct. [Note: This article was written before the Afrikaners and other White South Africans were betrayed by their "leaders," who surrendered almost unconditionally to African Negroes.]

Copyright © 1988, 2025 by Thomas C. Allen.

More political articles.

Antisouthernism

Antisouthernism

Thomas Allen

“Our” political leaders are falling all over themselves to kowtow to Jews — especially Zionist Jews. They are pushing laws that punish people for antisemitism, which includes making negative remarks about Jews, Israel, or Zionism. 

Yet, none of “our” political leaders oppose antisouthernism. On the contrary, most are antisoutherners and seek to destroy Southerners and Southern heritage and culture.

Merriam-Webster defines “Southernism” as “an attitude or trait characteristic of the South or Southerners especially in the U.S.”  American Heritage Dictionary defines it as “a trait, attitude, or practice characteristic of the South or southerners, especially in the United States.” Thus, Southernism is the attitudes, traits, or characteristics of Southerners or the South; i.e., Southernism is Southern heritage and culture. “Anti” means “against, opposed to, [or] prejudicial to” (Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary). Therefore, antisouthernism is being against, opposed to, or prejudicial to the South, Southern culture and heritage, and Southerners. Antisoutherners are Dixiephobes; that is, they have an intolerance for, an aversion toward, a dislike of, and a disrespect for the South, Southern culture and heritage, and Southerners.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism “is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” (https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism, accessed May 9, 2024.)

A good description of antisouthernism can be obtained by applying IHRA’s definition of antisemitism and the examples that it gives. Thus, antisouthernism is a certain perception of Southerners that may be expressed as hatred toward Southerners (we see this frequently in movies and the news). Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisouthernism are directed toward Southerners or their property, toward Southern communities and institutions (we saw a great deal during the Martin-Luther-King era of the civil rights movement and during and following the Black Lives Matter riots and in between these two).

Using IHRA illustrative examples as a guide, we find the following:

– Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing (presently a minor issue) or harming Southerners (a persistent problem) in the name of a radical ideology or political views. (The destruction of the South and its culture and heritage and the genocide of Southerners have been occurring since the beginning of Lincoln’s War.)

– Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Southerners. (This is easily seen in movies, television shows, books, and articles. Most of the time, Southerners are presented derogatorily.)

– Accusing Southerners as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoings committed by a single Southerner or group, or even for acts committed by non-Southerners. (An example is that Southerners are solely responsible for slavery, which, according to many antisoutherners, did not exist before Southerners created the institution.)

–Identifying the facts, scope, mechanisms, or intentionality of the genocide of Southerners and the deliberate destruction of the South and its heritage and culture during Lincoln’s War, the First Reconstruction, and the Second Reconstruction, especially during the Civil Rights Era. 

–Denying Southerners their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of the Confederate States of America was and is a racist endeavor. (Denying Southerners the right of self-determination was the primary objective of Lincoln’s War despite Lincoln and most Northerners being more racist than most Southerners.)

–Applying double standards by requiring of Southerners a behavior not expected or demanded of any other people, especially Yankees and nonwhites.

–Associating the South with Nazi Germany and Southerners with Nazis (national socialists).

Far too many Southerners are antisoutherners. Most political leaders in the South are either scalawags (i.e., traitors) or carpetbaggers (those who move to the South to plunder it or, worse, those who want to remake Southerners in their own Yankee image). Unfortunately, many Southerners who are not scalawags are antisoutherners. They offer no resistance to antisouthernism and usually go along with the destruction of Southern heritage and culture.

An example of antisouthernism is the treatment of Silent Sam on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC). It was a monument erected to honor students of UNC who defended their country and State from an invading horde. Antisouthern protestors tore down the statue. Instead of sending these vandals to prison for the destruction of property, most political leaders supported the destruction of the statue and, therefore, offered no opposition. An antisouthern judge defeated the few who tried to save the statue.

Another example is Governor Cooper of North Carolina, who supported the removal of Silent Sam. To the disgrace of his ancestors, Cooper showed his hatred of the South by removing the Confederate monuments from the State Capitol grounds. Also, he violated his COVID-19 ukases by marching with Black Lives Matter to demonstrate his antisouthernism — his loathing of the South, its culture and heritage, and his hatred of his ancestors. Cooper is an excellent example of a scalawag, i.e., a traitor.

Cooper is just one of the many scalawags that North Carolina has produced during the Second Reconstruction, which began in 1954. Among the few political leaders in North Carolina who are not scalawags and are true Southerners are I. Beverly Lake Sr. and Jr.

Nikki Haley is another example of an antisoutherner, a Confederaphobe, and a Dixiephobe. As governor of South Carolina, she supported removing the Confederate flag from the State Capitol grounds and succeeded in getting it removed. At least, she initially and correctly said that Lincoln’s War was not about slavery.  However, she soon repented of her heresy and claimed that war was about slavery.

Not to be outdone, Georgia produced three consecutive antisouthern Confederaphobic governors. Governor Zell Miller announced his intention to replace the Georgia State flag because it contained the Confederate battle flag; however, he failed. Then, his successor Governor Roy Barnes managed to replace the flag with a flag that had only a minor reference to the Confederacy. Next, Sonny Perdue was elected governor of Georgia, partially on a platform of allowing Georgians to choose their own flag in a State referendum. Yet, he did not allow them to choose the flag that Barnes had replaced, which would probably have been the flag chosen if the voters had been allowed to choose it. These three governors showed their Confederaphobia, which is antisouthernism.

Like Cooper, Haley, and the governors of Georgia, most political, academic, business, and religious leaders in the South are antisouthern. They have supported the removal and destruction of Confederate monuments and have removed or destroyed them. They have renamed buildings named after prominent Southerners. Even the federal government shows its antisouthernism by renaming military installations named after Confederate officers. Memorials to the Confederacy and prominent Southerners, such as Washington and Jefferson, are razed throughout the South and in the rest of the country.

Antisouthernism prevails throughout America, especially in the South. Jews are treated much better in America than are Southerners. Far more Southerners are victims of antisouthernism than are Jews of antisemitism. 

When protesters demonstrate against Jews, Israel, or Zionism, most political leaders rush to the aid of the Jews. However, when protestors demonstrate against Southerners or the South, most political leaders rush to join the protestors.

A Jew may display Jewish symbols and show pride in his Jewish heritage and ancestry without fear of reprisal from school administrators. However, a Southern cannot display Southern symbols or show pride in his Southern heritage and ancestry without fear of reprisal. If he does, most likely the school administrator will censor him and may even expel him. The same is true of many businesses and governmental establishments; they support Jewish symbols, etc. but are intolerant of Southern symbols, etc. 

Antisouthernism reveals the hypocrisy of the diversity and inclusion ideologues. If diversity and inclusion ideologues believed what they promote, they would not be antisouthern, yet nearly all of them are. They go out of their way to exclude true Southerners although they may occasionally accept traitorous scalawags. To these ideologues, Southern heritage and culture and even Southerners themselves are only worthy of annihilation.

The population of Southerners far exceeds that of Jews, both in the United States and worldwide. Yet, the political, economic, and social influence and power of Southerners are insignificant compared to that of Jews. Perhaps that is why Southerners, like Afrikaans, are personal non grata. Like Afrikaans, Southerners are slated for extinction. Genocide is their destination.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

A Letter: South Africa

A Letter: South Africa

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1986 responding to an article by Ms. Frances Kendall in Reason magazine.]

    The solution to South Africa's problem offered by Frances Kendall is interesting. If implemented, I would be surprised that her solution would work without some significant changes. Based on the information in her article, her solution contains several major flaws.
    First, she recommends drawing cantonal boundaries without regard to tribal or racial boundaries. Thus, she proposes to commit the same error that has been committed in the rest of Africa. The colonial powers drew political boundaries with little regard to tribal or ethnic boundaries. When they withdrew, the colonial boundaries remained. The result of this disregard for tribal and ethnic boundaries has led to oppression and bloodshed all over Africa. This has happened in spite of the constitutions that most of these countries have which guarantee all sorts of rights for the people. There is no reason to believe that South Africa would be any different. Besides, most Swiss cantons are racially, ethnically, and culturally homogeneous. The German-Swiss and French-Swiss have much more in common than do the Zulu and Xhosa, who are traditional enemies. They certainly have much more in common than these two tribes have with the Afrikaner.
    Another flaw is the erroneous belief that a bill of rights is compatible with democracy. A bill of rights is as antidemocratic as a true monarchy. In a democracy the majority rules. The will of the majority must prevail if democracy is to live. The purpose of a bill of rights is to limit the political power of the rulers, which in a democracy is the majority. But if the power of the majority is limited, i.e., the majority cannot change the bill of rights at its whim, then some sort of minority rule exists. Where a minority rules, a democracy cannot exist.
    Another flaw is the absurd idea that the antidiscrimination provisions of the constitution would be used only against the central and cantonal governments, but not against private companies, associations, and individuals. One needs only to look at the Second Reconstruction of the South in the United States to see how ridiculous this concept is. During the Second Reconstruction of the South, antidiscrimination laws have been aimed as much at, or perhaps even more so, the private sector as they have been aimed at the State and local governments. There is no reason to believe that the Black rulers of South Africa would allow Whites even in a totally White canton to refuse to sell, rent, or provide services to a Black who enters or tries to enter that canton.
    She also proposes to allow communists and other terrorists to participate in formulating a new government for South Africa. Unless she desires despotic socialism, which she seems to abhor, allowing communists to participate is highly questionable. Although there may be one, I know of no instance in the third world where communists have been allowed to participate in formulating a government without the communists or at least despotic socialists eventually ruling.
    In her article, she offers no method to keep the central government from becoming more powerful by usurping the rights and powers of the cantonal governments and the people as the central government has done in the United States and, to a lesser degree perhaps, in Switzerland. Most likely, the usurpation would occur more quickly and more completely in South Africa for at least two reasons. First, there is no tradition of independent cantonal government. Second, her solution seems to require the central government to antedate or be created simultaneously with the cantonal governments; thus, the cantonal governments will appear to be creations of the central government.
    The only difference between her solution and the predictions of the prophets of doom is the method by which the Afrikaner will perish and the amount of time involved. If war comes as the prophets of doom predict, the Afrikaner may perish. But he will die like a man fighting for his race, culture, and homeland. (Oh, if only the rest of the West had this courage!) If her solution is implemented, the Afrikaner will surely perish. But he will die like a wimp as he is bred out of existence. (To die like wimps seems to be the insatiable desire of the West, not only for the Afrikaner, but for all that is European in race and culture.)
    There is, I believe, a better solution to the South Africa problem than the cantonal solution offered by Kendall, and that is, what I would term, the States’ rights’ solution, which, unlike her cantonal solution, requires true decentralization and dispersal of political power.
    First, the boundaries of the cantons should be drawn along tribal, ethnic, racial, cultural lines. This would ensure that the inhabitants of a given canton would have a common language, tradition, culture, heritage, etc. It would greatly reduce internal conflict within a canton.
    Next, instead of adopting a democratic form of government for the central and cantonal governments where rule is by the will of the majority, a republican form of government where rule is by law and where each important political faction and segment of society can be guaranteed some degree of representation should be adopted. The principle of “one man, one vote” should be abandoned. Representation should be proportioned primarily on the basis of the tax base and not on the basis of population. Voting should be weighted in accordance with the amount of taxes paid. The more taxes a person pays, the more votes he should have. This is the market concept of the more wealth a person has, the more “votes” he has in the market, applied to the political process.
    Perhaps the reason that Switzerland is among the freest of countries is that it was one of the last (maybe the last) in the non-Islamic world to grant suffrage to women. In the United States, the rapid acceleration in the growth of government and the decline of liberty began within a decade after women gained the “right” to vote. With few, if any, exceptions, as the franchise has expanded, the government has grown and liberty has declined. With political equality, democracy, has come economic equality, socialism. If liberty is one of Kendall’s objectives, democracy is not the panacea that she believes it to be. As John Randolph of Roanoke proclaimed “I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality.” In other words, one can have liberty; one can have equality; one can have neither; but one can never have both.
    Perhaps the most important principle that needs adopting is Calhoun’s doctrine of concurrent majority. Under this principle, each canton would have the right and power to veto acts of the central government, as far as that canton is concerned, that are, in the opinion of the canton, unconstitutional or unduly infringe upon the rights of the canton and its citizens. This principle could be applied at the cantonal level where important segments of society could have the power to veto acts of the canton as far as the acts apply to that segment. Likewise, each canton should possess the ultimate veto and have the right to secede without molestation or armed conflict.
    To protect the cantons from the central government and to preserve their rights and the rights of their citizens, the cantonal governments should have control of a significant part of the armed forces.
    The plan proposed by Kendall probably will not solve South Africa’s problems. It will surely not save the Afrikaner. The plan that I have briefly outlined above may not solve South Africa’s problems either. However, it does offer the Afrikaner a much better chance of surviving. (I am convinced that the West will accept no solution short of turning South Africa into a Soviet colony with a Black-led puppet government.)
    As an unreconstructed Southerner, my sympathy and empathy are with the Afrikaner. I believe that Western civilization may well live or die with him. Just as the South stood against the world and fought and died for all the nobleness of Western civilization 125 years ago, so today does the Afrikaner. I wish him victory.

Copyright © 1986 by Thomas C. Allen.

More political articles.

A Letter: Communist Democracy, Genocide, Fascism

A Letter: Communist Democracy, Genocide, Fascism

Thomas Allen

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

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

Copyright © 1990, 2019 by Thomas C. Allen.

More political articles.