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.

Why I am not a White Nationalist — Where They Are Right

Why I am not a White Nationalist — 

Where They Are Right

Thomas Allen

The following is based primarily on the works of Greg Johnson, who presents himself as a spokesman for White Nationalists and White Nationalism. First, I note where I agree with the White Nationalists. Then, I will comment on issues with which I disagree with them.

Not all White Nationalists agree with the political and economic policies and programs discussed below, but many, perhaps most, do. Nevertheless, all believe that countries should be monoracial. Also, being White separatists, White Nationalists should not be confused with White supremacists. (For the differences between the two, see “Views on Race” by Thomas Allen.)

Where White Nationalists Are Right

Correctly, White Nationalists support and advocate:

– encouraging truth and justice;

– limiting immigration to Whites;

– repatriating all illegal immigrants and all nonwhites who are not citizens;

– developing a program to encourage the repatriation of citizens who are nonwhite.

– following the example of the first naturalization law, which granted citizenship only to Whites;

– promoting ethnonationalism;

– promoting monoracial countries, i.e., every race should have its own independent countries, which means that one race should not rule over other races — consequently, imperialism is abhorred; (This follows Biblical teachings.)

– preserving the diversity of the races by giving them their own countries;

– accepting that democracy does not work in a multiracial society;

– recognizing that races are real and differ biologically and, therefore, are not social constructs, i.e., biological differences exist between the human races, and these differences are more than a few physical features that no sane person can deny (see “Nonphysical Racial Differences,” “Of One Blood,” and “Skeleton Differences of Human Races” by Thomas Allen) — these differences lead to different outcomes; consequently, unlike all left-wingers (liberals, progressives, socialists, and communists) and libertarians and most conservatives, White Nationalists are racial realists;

– acknowledging that the current system creates hatred between the races; 

– recognizing that unconditional surrender to Black Lives Matter has caused a significant increase in crimes by Blacks and more Black victims of Black criminals;

– encouraging Whites to breed to reverse the White demographic decline;

– strictly prohibiting miscegenation and interracial mating (this agrees with Biblical teachings — see “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” and “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” by Thomas Allen);

– recognizing collective property of race and Western Civilization, and believing that such collective properties are worth protecting (so did the founding fathers) — unlike most libertarians, left-wingers, and neoconservatives, who do not recognize them as collective property worth protecting;

– acknowledging that Neo-Nazism is not a solution, although White Nationalists propose some of the same economic and welfare programs that the Neo-Nazis propose; both are statists;

– adopting an American-first foreign policy and ending foreign interventionism;

– acknowledging that Whites built and made America unlike left-wingers, nearly all libertarians, and many conservatives, who do not think that they did;

– accepting that both the Democratic Party and Republican Party serve the oligarchs; and

– possessing a more realistic view of America than does the typical conservative (the America that conservatives venerate died decades ago).

Further, White Nationalists correctly oppose:

– racial hatred;

– violent acts done in the name of White Nationalism or by White Nationalists;

– the oligarchs, who are disproportionately Jews, who rule the country primarily through frontmen in the federal government;

– the government serving the ruling elite, i.e., the oligarchs, at the expense of the rest of society;

– elitism;

– the acceleration of the decline of the present system;

– globalization;

– so-called “free trade” agreements but for the wrong reasons; they believe that these “free trade” agreements promote free trade, which they do not; (These so-called “free trade” agreements have little to do with free trade. Their objective is to manage trade for the benefit of multinational companies.)

– the parasites who are killing America, e.g., Zionists, but apparently not welfare recipients since they support the welfare state;

– immigration of nonwhites being used to replace Whites (see “Black Replacement” by Thomas Allen);

– the genocide of Whites (see “The Genocidal War Against the White Race” by Thomas Allen);

– DIE (diversity, inclusion, equity), political correctness, and wokeism;

– multiracial societies (Unlike most libertarians and many conservatives, White Nationalists know that multiracial societies cause alienation, hatred, conflict, and violence, which is why God ordained monoracial societies. However, left-wingers know that multiracial societies cause these problems and, therefore, promote multiracial societies. They want to destroy the existing society so that they can build a new society in their image on the ruins — just as the Yankees did following Lincoln’s War.);

– misogyny and misandry;

– political universalism, which is the fundamental cause of multiracialism, multiculturalism, cultural assimilation, and miscegenation;

– neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, and most other conservatives because they suffer from the same principles of egalitarianism and universalism as the left, which gives the left a great advantage over the right;

– Antifa and its tactics;

– the Democratic Party ardently working to destroy America and genocide the White race;

– voter fraud and corrupt election;

– the faux morality of racism being the greatest sin of all (with at least 800 definitions, “racism” is a meaningless term; see “Are You a Racist?” by Thomas Allen.); however, it is a sin that only Whites can commit; racism by nonwhites is not racism; and

– a false morality that blames Whites for all of the world’s problems even when Whites are innocent.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 Part 2

More political articles.

King on Pilgrimage to Nonviolence

King on Pilgrimage to Nonviolence

Thomas Allen

In “Pilgrimage to Nonviolence,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 155–164, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses liberal theology, neo-orthodoxy, existentialism, social gospel, Gandhi’s nonviolent tactics, and the influence that they had on him. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King remarks that he was raised in a strict fundamental tradition. However, the theological seminary changed him. He states, “Liberalism provided me with an intellectual satisfaction that I had never found in fundamentalism.” (P. 155.) Thus, he fell in love with liberalism. He writes, “I was absolutely convinced of the natural goodness of man and the natural power of human reason.” (P. 155.)

Later, however, he began to question some theories associated with liberal theology. Nevertheless, the “contribution of liberalism to the philological-historical criticism of biblical literature has been of immeasurable value and should be defended with religious and scientific passion.” (P. 156.)

King “began to question the liberal doctrine of man.” (P. 156.) He “came to recognize the complexity of man’s social involvement and the glaring reality of collective evil.” (P. 156.) (Collective evil rises from the sinful nature of individuals.)

Another problem that King found with liberal theology was that it “overlooked the fact that reason is darkened by sin.” (P. 156.) He discovered that “sin encourages us to rationalize our actions.” (P. 156.) “Reason, devoid of the purifying power of faith, can never free itself from distortions and rationalizations.” (P. 156.) (Thus, King understood the flaws of liberal theology concerning human nature and its underrating sin.)

Although King “rejected some aspects of liberalism, . . . [he] never came to an all-out acceptance of neo-orthodoxy.” (P. 156.) He found liberalism to be too optimistic about human nature and neo-orthodoxy to be too pessimistic. A major problem with neo-orthodoxy is that it “went to the extreme of stressing a God who was hidden, unknown, and ‘wholly other.’” (P. 157.) Moreover, it “fell into a mood of antirationalism and semi-fundamentalism, stressing a narrow uncritical Biblicism.” (P. 157.)

For King, neither liberal theology nor neo-orthodoxy satisfactorily described the nature of man. “A large segment of Protestant liberalism defined man only in terms of his essential nature, his capacity for good; neo-orthodoxy tended to define man only in terms of his existential nature, his capacity for evil.” (P. 157.) King found the truth in a synthesis of the two “that reconciles the truths of both.” (P. 157.)

Then, King discusses his “appreciation for the philosophy of existentialism.” (P. 157.) He was “convinced that existentialism . . . had grasped certain basic truths about man and his condition. . . .” (P. 157.) Existentialism gave King an “understanding of the ‘finite freedom’ of man.” (P. 157.) Also, it gave him an understanding “of the anxiety and conflict produced in man’s personal and social life by the perilous and ambiguous structure of existence.” (P. 157.)

Continuing, King remarks that after entering the theological seminary, he began  “a serious intellectual quest for a method that would eliminate social evil.” (P. 158.) (That is, granting Negroes special privileges and benefits and discriminating against Whites.) He “was immediately influenced by the social gospel.” (P. 158.) (That is preaching socialism and communism instead of the gospel of Jesus and worshiping the state instead of the Father of Jesus.)

Then, King writes, “The gospel at its best deals with the whole man, not only his soul but also his body, not only his spiritual well-being but also his material well-being.” (P. 159.) He chastises religions that express concern for the soul but little concern “about the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them, and the social conditions that cripple them.” (P. 159.) These religions are spiritually moribund. (Today, most denominations have followed King’s advice and have focused on man’s economic and social conditions at the expense of focusing on the salvation of his soul and morality. As a result, they have become spiritually moribund.)

Next, King discusses his encounter with the teachings of Gandhi, which taught him about nonviolent resistance. (King was a poor student because nearly everywhere he went, he left a trail of blood and destruction. Basically, his nonviolent tactic was to create a situation that would cause a violent reaction from his opponent. Despite his denial, such a tactic is not nonviolent.) He concludes “that the Christian doctrine of love, operating through the Gandhian method of nonviolence, is one of the most potent weapons available to an oppressed people in their struggle for freedom.” (P. 159.) (Contrary to his assertions, King failed at merging love with nonviolence. Never did he show any love for segregationists and seldom for Southerners. Moreover, many of his protests were filled with violence. Most of the others threatened violence if Whites did not surrender unconditionally to King’s demands.)

Although the Montgomery protest was violent, King claimed that it convinced him of the power of nonviolence. (As most of his later protests were violent or threatened violence, he must have been convinced that nonviolence would not achieve his goals. His preaching of nonviolence was for propaganda purposes.) He declares, “Nonviolence became more than a method to which I gave intellectual assent; it became a commitment to a way of life.” (P. 160.) (Based on his action, King gave nonviolence only intellectual assent, but he never committed to it as a way of life — except in words.)

Next, King comments on his pilgrimage to India. He witnessed “the amazing results of a nonviolent struggle to achieve independence. The aftermath of hatred and bitterness that usually follows a violent campaign was found nowhere in India.” (P. 160.) Great Britain and India remained friendly within the British Commonwealth. (First, politically, the British left India. Although King may have wanted many Whites to have no political voice in the United States, he wanted to increase the political voice of Negroes. If India is an analogy for the United States, the Whites, who are the majority, would be the Indians, and the minority Negroes would be the British and, therefore, leave the country or at least eliminate their political influence. Second, King proved that his protests were violent because their aftermath left hatred and bitterness. Only the victors hated and were bitter. Even decades after the Negroes won everything that King fought for and more, the destructiveness of the “peaceful” demonstrations of Black Lives Matter revealed the hatred and bitterness that the victors had for the defeated.)

Then, King notes that following the Montgomery protest, many Southerners were bitter toward the Negro leaders “even though these leaders have sought to follow a way of love and nonviolence.” (P. 161.) (First, the Montgomery protest was violent. King and his followers had created a situation that they knew would result in violence. Second, many Southerners correctly saw that King had initiated a war to destroy the South and its society and culture and eventually to genocide Southerners. Love does not cause people to seek the destruction and genocide of an ethnicity. Since King sought to destroy the South, love did not guide him.)

Continuing, King asserts that the nonviolent approach gives people who are committed to it “new self-respect. It calls up resources of strength and courage that they did not know they had.” (P. 161.) Moreover, “it so stirs the conscience of the opponent that reconciliation becomes a reality.” (P. 161.) (Reconciliation never became a reality. King and other civil rights leaders forced Southerners and later the remainder of American Whites to surrender unconditionally.)

Next, King discusses using “the method of nonviolence in international relations.” (P. 161.) Once, he believed that war “might be preferable to surrender to a totalitarian system.” (P. 161.) However, he later changed his mind because of “the potential destructiveness of modern weapons.” (P. 161.) (How much did his Communist advisors have to do with King changing his mind? Further, when his association with Communists and his Communist training are considered, one must wonder if his definition of peace was a lack of violence or a lack of resisting Communism. Judging from his actions, one must conclude that he meant the latter.) Correctly, he asserts that “we must find an alternative to war and destruction.” (P. 161.) (Unfortunately, King did not find an alternative to war. He and his followers warred against the South and then the rest of the country. Moreover, King’s followers have continued to war against Whites long after Whites had surrendered unconditionally to the Negroes — as Black Lives Matter protests and riots illustrate.)

Correctly, King states that he is no doctrinarian pacifist. (He proved that he was not with his war against the South.) He contends that the church “must call for an end to the arms race.” (P. 161.)

Then, King discusses his sufferings and the lessons that they taught him. Instead of reacting with bitterness, he sought “to transform the suffering into a creative force.” (P. 162.) His suffering drew him closer to God. (Whether his God is Yahweh, the Father of Jesus, is debatable.) 

In closing, King rejoices in his coming victory. However, he errs when he writes, “Old systems of exploitation and oppression are passing away; new systems of justice and equality are being born.” (P. 163.) (Unfortunately, the old system of exploitation and oppression was replaced by a new system of exploitation and oppression. Nevertheless, more equality exists today than when he wrote. However, since equality requires exploitation and oppression, more exploitation and oppression exist today than then. As a result, less justice exists today — for example, sending innocent Whites, such as  Derek Chauvin, to prison. Nevertheless, King would have little objection to today’s exploitation and oppression because Negroes are exploiting and oppressing Whites.)

King has a good understanding of some of the flaws of liberal theology. With a good degree of accuracy, he discusses flaws of both liberal theology and neo-orthodoxy and how each fails to describe correctly the nature of man. Further, he discusses how existentialism influenced him and his journey down the road of the social gospel. Also, he discusses his use of Gandhi’s technique. However, he fails to discuss his Communist training, such as the training that he received at the Highlander Folk School run by Marxist Myles Horton.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

King on Antidotes for Fear

King on Antidotes for Fear

Thomas Allen

In "Antidotes for Fear," Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 119–132, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses fear, courage, love, faith, and social justice. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King begins with a discussion of fear crippling people, which for the most part is accurate. Overcoming fear is the theme of this essay. “Everywhere men and women are confronted by fears that often appear in strange disguises and a variety of wardrobes.” (P. 119.) Such fears include bad health, aging, insecurity, inferiority complex, and failure. Then, he comments, “A fear of what life may bring encourages some persons to wander aimlessly along the frittering road of excessive drink and sexual promiscuity.” (P. 120.) (King must have been a frightened man because he wondered the road of sexual promiscuity.) He remarks that “many people have permitted fear to transform the sunrise of love and peace into a sunset of inner depression.” (P. 120.) 

Continuing, King notes that economic fears are common. Business owners fear failure, and employees fear unemployment. 

  Other fears are the fear of death and the fear of racial annihilation. (Since King promoted miscegenation, which leads to racial annihilation, that he would mention it as a fear is strange. Today, the only race facing annihilation is the White race. Yet, most do not fear their annihilation — probably because they are living in denial. Further, many Whites are so Albusphobic that they look forward to their annihilation.)

Then, King comments on the fear of nuclear war. It has terrorized people to build fallout shelters while urging the government to increase the stockpile of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, the quest to maintain “a balance of terror” only increases fear.

Although “fear drains a man’s energy and depletes his resources,” (p. 120) man should not seek to eliminate fear completely. King notes that fear warns of approaching danger and is, therefore, necessary for survival. Moreover, it is a powerful force. “If man were to lose his capacity to fear, he would be deprived of his capacity to grow, invent, and create.” (P. 121.) However, “abnormal fears are emotionally ruinous and psychologically destructive.” (P. 121.) Continuing, he remarks, “Normal fear protects us; abnormal fear paralyzes us.” (P. 121.)

To overcome abnormal fear, a person must seek its cause. Once the cause is discovered, then he may overcome his fear with courage. Then, King discusses courage, which “is the power of the mind to overcome fear.” (P. 123.)

Next, King contrasts courage and cowardice. “Courage breeds creative self-affirmation; cowardice produces destructive self-abnegation. Courage faces fear and thereby masters it; cowardice represses fear and is thereby mastered by it.” (P. 124.)

Continuing, King states that “fear is mastered through love.” (P. 124.) Then, he claims, “Hate is rooted in fear, and the only cure for fear-hate is love.” (P. 124.)

Next, King notes that fear is a major cause of war. This fear leads to hate, which in turn leads to war, which leads to greater hate. (The hostility between the Jews and Palestinians is an excellent example of King’s observation. Moreover, what he writes here can also be applied to personal relationships.) To King, the solution to war is love. “Only disarmament, based on good faith, will make mutual trust a living reality.” (P. 125.)

Furthermore, fear-hate leads to hostility between the races. King asserts that love is the solution to ending racial hostility. (Although King preached a great deal about love and its virtues and seemed to have a good understanding of love, he was a failure at practicing it. If he truly loved, he would not have destroyed the South and later the United States to achieve his vain ambition.)

Continuing, King discusses what he calls social justice. Love is the solution to social justice. Then, he declares, “Racial segregation is buttressed by such irrational fears as loss of preferred economic privilege, altered social status, intermarriage, and adjustment to new situations.” (P. 125.) (These fears have all come to pass. Whatever preferred economic privileges that Whites had have long vanished. Now, with quotas and affirmative action, Negroes have more preferred economic privileges than Whites ever had. Today, unqualified Negroes are hired instead of qualified Whites. Now, Negroes have a higher social status than Whites. Proof: Negroes used to try to pass as Whites. Today, Whites try to pass as Negroes. Since the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional ruling in Loving v. Virginia (1967), which nullified miscegenation laws, interracial marriages have increased significantly. [See "Interracial Marriages" by Thomas Allen.] Consequently, Negroes and Whites are genociding each other via miscegenation.) 

Then, King discusses some of the techniques that Whites used to avoid his program of forced integration. “[S]ome seek to ignore the question of race relations and to close their mind to the issues involved.” (P. 125.) Others, using “such legal maneuvers as interposition and nullification, counsel massive resistance.” (P. 125.) (King counseled illegal massive resistance against segregation. Thus, the segregationists were merely following King, except they were using legal tactics. He should have been proud of them. Instead, he despised them.) Still, others resorted to violence against Negroes. (These segregationists were merely following the tactics of civil rights leaders who resorted to violence against Whites. King seldom objected to violence against segregationists.)

King blames the country’s racial problems on the fear of Whites. If Whites “are to master fear, they must depend not only on their commitment to Christian love but also on the Christlike love that the Negro generates toward them.” (Pp. 125-126.) (I do not know whether King is deceiving himself or is lying to deceive Whites. Most likely, it is the latter. One thing that the Negroes who follow King have not done is to show Christlike love toward Whites. Christlike love does not lead to riots, the destruction of property, and the deaths of innocent people — acts that Negroes have been notorious for committing against Whites since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Christlike love does not promote the genocide of Whites. That King would have actively opposed these acts of violence against Whites is highly unlikely since he supported violent acts — contrary to his assertions of being a man of peace. Most likely, he would have endorsed and promoted them. Other than King-idolizing conservatives, who lack any functioning brain cells when it comes to race, does anyone with a functioning brain cell believe that King would have opposed Black Lives Matter protestors? No, he would have supported them and their violence as did all liberals and many conservatives.)

Then, King writes, “A guilt-ridden white minority fears that if the Negro attains power, he will without restraint or pity act to revenge the accumulated injustices and brutality of the years.” (P. 126.) (When the Negro attained power, revenge is what he sought. Negroes have used their power against Whites since the beginning of the Civil Rights Era. Much of this revenge is concealed in crime. [See “The Dirty War: America’s Race War” by Thomas Allen.] Some of it is open like the Black Lives Matter riots and the destruction of statues. Moreover, many Whites have joined the Negro in his revenge against their White brothers. These acts of violence prove that Whites who fear that Negroes would use their power for revenge were correct.)

Next, King writes, “The Negro must show them that they have nothing to fear, for the Negro forgives and is willing to forget the past. The Negro must convince the white man that he seeks justice for both himself and the white man.” (P. 126.) (The Negro has failed. Most Negroes have shown no forgiveness or willingness to forget the past as the wanton destruction of statues and memorials and the renaming of buildings in the South proves. Moreover, Negroes have not sought justice for Whites as the conviction of Derek Chauvin and other innocent Whites prove.)

King declares that he knows the cure for the fear of integration: love. Moreover, he claims that God is on his side (although the Bible endorses segregation and denounces integration and amalgamation). 

Continuing, King states that “fear is mastered through faith.” (P. 127.) Deficiency of resources and inadequacy of life lead to fear. Then, he discusses the importance of positive religious faith and what it offers and does not offer. Also, he discusses the inadequacy of irreligion. He notes that a positive religious faith overcomes the fear of death.

In closing, King comments briefly on the Montgomery bus protest and Mother Pollard.

In this essay, King discusses four essential components in conquering fear: (1) discovering the cause of the fear, (2) having the courage to overcome the fear, (3) mastering the fear through love, and (4) mastering the fear through faith. However, he errs greatly when discussing the fear that segregationists had (their fears prove valid) and the loving, forgiving attitude of Negroes (most of whom lack a loving, forgiving attitude).

Although King could preach a good sermon, he drew the wrong conclusion concerning what he called social justice. Southerners and segregationists are not as evil as he presents them. His erroneous conclusion derives from his erroneous understanding of the Bible. Contrary to what he claims, the Bible does not support integration; it supports segregation.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

King on Loving Your Enemy

King on Loving Your Enemy

Thomas Allen

In “Loving Your Enemy,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 45–52, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses loving one’s neighbor and its necessity, meaning, and importance. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

Beginning, King writes, “Probably no admonition of Jesus has been more difficult to follow than the command to ‘love your enemies.’”  (P. 43.) (King failed to obey this commandment. He showed little love for Southerners and none for segregationists. If he truly loved Southerners, he would not have deliberately created situations that he knew would injure them and destroy their property. Moreover, he would not have advocated their cultural genocide.)

Continuing, King writes, “Upheaval after upheaval has reminded us that modern man is traveling along a road called hate, in a journey that will bring us to destruction and damnation.” (P. 44.) Then, he comments that Jesus’s commandment is not that of a utopian dreamer; it “is an absolute necessity for our survival.” (P. 44.) Moreover, it “is the key to the solution of the problems of our world.” (P. 44.) (Today, most Negroes reject King’s advice as the riots, other acts, and the protests of Black Lives Matter prove. Pure hatred motivated their removal and destruction of monuments of Southern heroes — and one with which King probably would have agreed.)

Next, King discusses the practical application of Jesus’s command. He asks, “How do we love our enemies?” (P. 44.) First, people must be able to forgive. Without forgiveness, loving one’s enemy is impossible. Forgiveness “must always be initiated by the person who has been wronged.” (P. 44.) (In King’s mind, Negroes had been wronged because of segregation and discrimination. King never forgave segregationists. Today, many Negroes cannot forgive Whites because Whites have wronged them by not giving them every privilege and benefit that they demand. Now, the great wrong is not paying them reparations for acts that today’s Whites never did.)

King writes, “Forgiveness does not mean ignoring what has been done or putting a false label on an evil act. It means, rather, that the evil act no longer remains as a barrier to the relationship.” (P. 45.) Then, he says, “But when we forgive, we forget in the sense that the evil deed is no longer a mental block impeding a relationship. . . . Forgiveness means reconciliation, a coming together again. Without this, no man can love his enemies.” (P. 44.) (Thus, King showed that he never forgave segregationists. He could never reconcile himself to segregation. As long as segregationists remained segregationists, they created a mental block for him that impeded his relationship with them. Only if segregationists converted to integrationists could King forgive them.)

Then, King notes that if a person finds some good in his enemy, he is less prone to hate his enemy. (King seems never to find any good in a segregationist.) He writes, “We recognize that his [i.e., the segregationist] hate grows out of fear, pride, ignorance, prejudice, and misunderstanding.” (P. 44.) (His comment may be true of Northern segregationists, but it is not true of most Southern segregationists. Southerners did not base their attitude toward Negroes on ignorance, prejudice, or misunderstanding. The attitude of Southerners toward Blacks was based on 400 years of observation, knowledge, thought, reason, and facts. Consequently, they were not prejudiced against Negroes; they were not prejudging Negroes. Likewise, with 400 years of observation and knowledge, ignorance did not guide them. If they feared Negroes, it was because Negroes are more prone to violent acts than are Whites.)

Next, King writes that “we must not seek to defeat or humiliate the enemy but to win his friendship and understanding.” (P. 45.) (Whenever King failed to win the friendship and understanding of a segregationist, he sought to defeat him. That is why his “nonviolent” movement was so violent. Moreover, friendship depends on more than understanding. Understanding often leads to hostility.)

Continuing, King discusses why people should love their enemy. Returning hate for hate leads to more hate. (Returning hate for hate, whether real or perceived, has been the modus operandi for much of the civil rights movement. It has been so successful that it has gotten Whites to hate Whites in the name of loving Negroes.) “Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” (P. 47.) (Thus, King shows that the civil rights movement rests on hatred and not on love. After all the benefits and privileges that Whites have given them, most Negroes still believe that Whites hate them. Further, more racial hatred and division exists today than during the Jim Crow Era. However, most of this hatred is directed toward the White race. Even many Whites hate their own race.)

Correctly, King writes, “The chain reaction of evil — hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars — must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.” (P. 47.) (Most policies and programs promoted by King plus Zionism and Communism, both are a Jewish creation, prevent the chains of evil from being broken.)

Again, King correctly notes that “hate scars the soul and distorts the personality. . . . [H]ate is an evil and dangerous force.” (P. 47.) He comments on the bloodthirsty mobs inflicting unspeakable violence on Negroes. (In the years following the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, bloodthirsty mobs of Negroes have inflicted unspeakable violence on Whites and other races. Thus, the civil rights movement has been successful in flipping victims and perpetrators.)

Once more, King correctly remarks, “Hate is just as injurious to the person who hates. . . . Hate destroys a man’s sense of values and his objectivity. . . .  It causes him . . . to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.” (P. 48.) (The deleterious effects of hate are seen in the Antifa and Black Lives Matter riots and other race riots of recent decades. Hate has destroyed the sense of values and objectivity of many Negroes and Whites. It has caused them to replace the truth with falsehood and beauty with ugliness.)

Then, King writes, “There will be no permanent solution to the race problem until oppressed men [i.e., Negroes] develop the capacity to love their enemies.” (P. 50.) (For once, King places some responsibility for improving racial relations on Negroes. Usually, he places all the responsibility on Whites. Nevertheless, love did not overcome the race problem. Force did this by shifting the oppressed from Negroes to Whites. That is, Whites are now the oppressed and Negroes are the oppressors. [In reality, the oligarchs are the oppressors. They have merely switched the oppressed race and the oppressing race.]) Although the Negro has suffered racial injustice, either real or perceived, he should not abandon the obligation to love. Negroes should overcome their opponents’ capacity to inflict suffering by enduring suffering. “We shall meet your physical force with soul force.” (P. 50.) (Most Negroes, including King, rejected this advice. They overcame suffering with force and violence and not with endurance. They meet physical force with physical force. Often, they meet passivism with physical force.)

Continuing, King states, “Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws [i.e., segregational laws], because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.” (P. 51.) (Many Negroes failed to continue to love their enemies because they did not love them to begin with. Although King does not define an unjust law here, he does elsewhere. An unjust law is a law that affects people who are denied the right to vote; these people are not obliged to obey that law. See “The Real King” by Thomas Allen.)

King concludes, “Love is the most durable power in the world.” (P. 51.) He condemns the use of force. (If King condemned using force, why was his civil rights movement based and built on force? Force, not love, overthrew the South and segregation in both the South and North. As King remarks, empires built on force crumble. Since the civil rights movement was built on force, it is now crumbling. It is tearing the country apart.)

Like nearly all humans, King failed to live up to Jesus’s commandment to “love your enemy.” Most of the programs and policies that King promoted prevented people from loving their enemy, even in the sense that Jesus meant. 

King always considered segregationists as his enemy. He may or may not have loved them; he probably convinced himself that he did. However, if he is judged by his fruit, that he loved them is highly questionable because he always displayed ill will toward them.

King fails to discuss indifference. Most people neither hate nor love people about whom they know nothing. They are indifferent; they give them no thought. Before people love or hate someone, they have to think about him. No one thinks about everyone all the time. No one thinks about people whom he does not know exist.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social articles.

Losing Control

Losing Control

Thomas Allen

White liberals, progressives, and conservatives are losing control of the Black mobs that they have created. Blacks are now destroying icons of White liberals, progressives, neoconservatives, and establishment conservatives: Lincoln, Grant, and abolitionists. They are attacking anything that memorializes Whites — and self-loathing Whites join them in destroying White heritage.

To most of these White albusphobes, Blacks are identical to Whites except for some external physical features. Thus, Blacks are Whites with more melanin, platyrrhine noses, and woolly hair. They are not. Blacks differ significantly from Whites and other races in many nonphysical attributes (see “Nonphysical Racial Differences” by Thomas Allen).

Unlike most Whites, most Blacks lack the ability to think abstractly. Consequently, Blacks have difficulty thinking about the future, thinking counterfactually (how would I feel if  . . . ?), and working with numbers and mathematics. Lacking the ability to think abstractly leads to moral problems. For most Whites, morality is internalized, i.e., most Whites resist stealing even if no one is around to stop them. Lacking the ability to think abstractly, most Blacks are deficient in internal morality. Their morality is enforced by external forces, such as the police or a strong authoritarian leader. (This lack of internal morality is seen in the explosion of crime by Blacks in places where the police have been significantly reduced.) (For more information about the nonphysical differences between Blacks and Whites, see Racism, Guilt, Self-hatred and Self-deceit by Gedaliah Braun [2008], who taught philosophy in Africa for many years and derived his conclusions from observation and frank discussions with Blacks. Not only is he not a Negrophobe, but he also approaches being a Negrophile. Unlike most Whites, who are racial nihilists, he is a racial realist.)

In “Curse of the Ghetto Golems” (July 26, 2022), David Cole gives two examples of left-wingers trying to use Blacks to implement their communist and progressive agendas. They are Herbert Aptheker, an atheistic Jew who was a prominent American communist, and George Soros, an atheistic Jew who considers the White race and Western traditions akin to Nazism and, therefore, have to be destroyed.

Herbert Aptheker. Aptheker was a prominent communist during the middle of the twentieth century. He and his comrades organized the civil rights movement. Urging Blacks to destroy America, he encouraged Black militancy and radicalism. Although Aptheker idealized Blacks, they were still just instruments to achieve his goal of communism. Not only were Blacks to destroy America, but they were also to build a Marxist utopia on the rubble. 

Unfortunately, for Aptheker, he lost control of his Blacks. They excelled in the violent part of the communist revolution. However, they replaced the ideological violence of communism with common thuggery.

George Soros. Soros is an unusual atheistic Jew in that he is neither a Zionist nor a communist. Yet, like a good communist, he seeks to destroy Western Civilization and the White race that founded it. To him, Western Civilization is Nazism, and Whites are Nazis.

To destroy his imaginary Nazis, Soros has spent billions of dollars to prevent the prosecution and incarceration of Black criminals. Consequently, crimes by Blacks have soared. To Soros, Blacks are merely tools used to achieve his dastard objectives.

Unlike Aptheker, Soros expected only common thuggery from Blacks. He does not seek to convert them to communism. He just wants to unleash their innate urge for violence and thuggery and to protect them from the consequence of their criminal actions.

Unfortunately, for Soros, his Black leaders have embarrassed him by using the money that Soros gave them for rioting for their own pleasures. Soros discovered that his Black leaders were using his money for their benefits and not for riots.

Moreover, Soros heavily financed Black Lives Matter (BLM). In return, he did get some riots, but BLM used much of the money to buy mansions.

Both Aptheker and Soros started off using Blacks to advance their agendas. However, Blacks ended up using Aptheker and Soros to advance their causes, which is usually enriching themselves.

The global elites are trying to create a civil war in the United States. When the war comes, what will White and antigun liberals, progressives, wokespersons, and social justice people do? Their albusphobia and Negrophilia prevent them from allying with Whites albusphiles, who have little use for these traitors, whose continuous unconditional surrendering to Blacks is a leading cause of the war. Moreover, except as a source of wealth, Blacks have no use for these wimps. Most likely, Blacks will go after the lightly-armed White albusphobes long before they will go after the heavily armed White albusphiles.

Unfortunately for Blacks, most Asians, Latinos, and other nonwhites may ally with the White albusphiles because most of them have a lower opinion of Blacks than do most White supremacists. If a real shooting war comes between Blacks and the rest of the country, Blacks will lose.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

January 6

January 6

Thomas Allen

The so-called January 6 insurrectionists stormed the Capitol Building because they knew that the Democrats had stolen the 2020 presidential election and almost no Republican was objecting to the theft. Consequently, Nancy Pelosi established a committee to prove that President Trump organized, incited, and supported this so-call insurrection. Following are some observations on the 2020 presidential election and the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol Hill insurrection.

– If the Democrats did not steal the 2020 presidential election, then that means that 81 million Americans hate America so much that they voted for its destruction by electing the great destroyer, who has done an excellent job of destroying America.

– I do not understand why many of the 81 million people who voted for Biden disapprove of him. He promised to implement policies to destroy America. Eighty-one million people voted for him to carry out his promises. So far, he has been highly effective in fulfilling his promises. Yet, many people who voted for him to do what he promised to do and is doing disapprove of him. The only thing that I can figure out is that he is not destroying America fast enough to satisfy them. Perhaps, if he can provoke Russia into a nuclear war, which he is working eagerly to do, they will be satisfied.

– As braindead as Biden is, he still has more functioning brain cells than most Democrats and many Republicans. He knows that he is not the real president and admits it. Most Democrats and many Republicans refuse to admit that Biden is not the real president.

– If Trump were planning a coup, why did he authorize 20,000 national guard troops to protect the Capitol? Certainly, they would have thwarted his coup. Why did the Democratic mayor of Washington fail to order the deployment of these troops? Surely, if the Democrats suspected that Trump was planning a coup, they would have ordered the deployment of troops that Trump had authorized. Did the Democrats want to blame Trump for attempting a coup, which he never attempted or planned to attempt? Since the Democrats refused Trump’s offer of troops to protect the Capitol, they knew that he was not planning a coup. They wanted to give the appearance of a coup to use as propaganda against Trump and if possible to imprison him. However, if they knew of a planned coup and rejected the offer of troops, then they are accomplices in the coup.

– Democrats are notorious for accusing others of doing what they (the Democrats) are guilty of doing. The Democrats stole the election from Trump. Thus, to deflect attention from their theft, they accuse Trump of trying to steal the election from Biden.

– If our Representatives and Senators thought that a disorganized unarmed mob was trying to overthrow the federal government, why did they flee? Since they heavily outgunned the insurrectionists, why did they not stand and fight to save the government?  Were they cowards? Did they believe that the federal government was not worth defending? Or, did they know that this was no instruction and, therefore, lied about it being one? At least one of these three choices has to be true. If they are cowards, they should not be in Congress. If they believe that the government is not worth defending, they should not be in Congress. If they have lied, they should not be in Congress. Consequently, none of these Representatives or Senators should be in Congress.

– If anyone wants to see a Soviet show trial kangaroo court in action, he can watch the January 6 hearings. The conclusion of the committee holding the hearings was determined before the hearings started. Like the Kennedy assassination commission and the 9-11 commission, the purpose of these January 6 committee hearings is to conceal the truth and to keep the truth from being revealed.

– The House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, incident reveals America’s two-standard, two-tier justice system, which is no justice system at all. On January 6, 2021, guards at the Capitol Building opened the doors and let the people inside. Some vandalized and should be punished. Yet, many of those who entered the Capitol Building who did no damage and even people who did not enter have been arrested. They have been imprisoned without due process. Many are held in solitary confinement, and some have not even been charged with a crime. Most are denied bail. Some have spent more time in jail than the length of their sentence if found guilty, and for many, their punishment far exceeds their crime. Moreover, many of those arrested committed no crime on January 6.

On the other hand, BLM and Antifa rioted, burned buildings, destroyed property, and injured numerous people. However, almost none of these rioters were arrested. Most of the few who were arrested had their charges dropped or were released with no charges. Almost none were fined or served a prison sentence. Yet, the BLM and Antifa rioters did much more damage and were a much greater threat to the country than the so-called insurrectionists on January 6.

– One purpose of the  House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, incident is to provide cover for a stolen election. It is an attempt to convince people that the Democrats did not steal the 2020 presidential election by persuading people that Trump was the one trying to steal the election. Another purpose is to provide anti-Trumpers propaganda for the upcoming 2022 and 2024 elections. Also, the Democrats and other anti-Trumpers are using the January 6 investigation to justify lynching Trump. (If they could literally lynch Trump, they would. They know that they can get away with it because the US Department of [In]justices would do nothing but protect them from local law enforcement. They need only do the lynching in a Blue State.)

– Nancy Pelosi’s closing remarks to the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol Hill insurrection:

This Committee has proven beyond any doubt what it set out to prove. We have shown that Donald Trump while dressed in a military battle uniform led a heavily armed million-man army to the Capitol Building with the intent to overthrow the government. If it were not for the courageous Democratic members of the House and Senate, who, although unarmed and standing alone, fearlessly fought Trump’s army for hours in hand-to-hand combat and finally drove Trump and his army away from the Capitol Building, the government would have fallen, and Trump would be a dictator. These brave Democrats saved democracy. We have proven this with bias, prejudicial, and at times fabricated testimony while suppressing all testimony that refutes the guilt of Trump and the goals of this inquiry.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Some Observations

Some Observations

Thomas Allen

The following are some observations on Deplorables and Bidenites and their behavior and attributes. (Bidenites are the supporters, promoters, and owners of Biden and include left-wingers, most Democrats, RINOs, many neoconservatives, presstitutes, the Deep State, big business, and Chinese Communists.) 

Upside Down America

According to Marxist theory, the plutocrats, aristocrats, cryptocracts, and corporatocracts use the government to suppress the proletarians, peasants, workers, and common people. The plutocrats, etc. are identified with right-wingers, and the proletarians, etc. are identified with left-wingers. However, in today’s America, this notion has been turned upside down. The right-wing, the Deplorables, are the proletarians, peasants, workers, and common people. Bidenites, the left-wing, identify with the plutocrats, aristocrats, cryptocracts, and corporatocracts; these are the people who own the Democratic party and the Bidenite political leaders.

The Capitol Vandalism Verses the White House Siege

Antifa agitators and some stupid Trump protesters are let into the Capitol building. Unfortunately, some of them, most likely Antifa operatives, vandalized the building. This act is called a siege, insurrection, and storming the Capitol — an attempt to overthrow the federal government. Consequently, the Bidenites now consider all Deplorables to be traitors and terrorists and are moving forward to codify this accusation in law.

On the other hand, with the election of Trump, Black Lives Matter sieged the White House resulting in the injury of more than 60 secret service agents. This siege lasted three days and caused numerous injuries and the burning of buildings. Yet, this act is called a justifiable, peaceful protest.

When people protested Trump’s election in 2016, the protest was called a justifiable, peaceful protest and was encouraged. Yet, when people protested Biden’s election in 2020, the protest was called an insurrection and sedition and was condemned.

Who Is the Real Nazi

Bidenites accuse Trump and Deplorables of being Nazis (national socialists) or fascists. Who is the real Nazi or fascist: Trump and the people whom he represents, the Deplorables, or Biden and the people whom he represents, the Bidenites? (Nazis and fascists are brothers and are closely related to communists, democratic socialists, state capitalists, and other types of socialists.)

Nazis are known for using violence to intimidate their opponents and to terrorize the general population. Who has used such intimidation: the Bidenites or the Deplorables? The answer is the Bidenites with their Black-Lives-Matter and Antifa riots. They even incited the assault on the Capitol building to terrorize those larcenous, sniveling, cowardly recreants called Senators and Representatives. Except for the stupid Deplorables who were beguiled into joining Antifa to vandalize the Capitol, Deplorables have not been involved in large-scale violence unlike the Bidenites, who have. Trump’s MAGA rallies have always been peaceful — at least on the part of the Deplorables. Unlike Bidenites, Deplorables have not rioted, looted stores, burned buildings, attacked the police, or injured innocent bystanders. Thus, Biden and the Bidenites have behaved much more like Nazis than have Trump or the Deplorables when it comes to using violence to advance their agenda.

Nazis are known for controlling the media and suppressing the opposition’s ability to inform the public. Who controls the media and who is trying to suppress their opposition’s ability to communicate with the public: the Bidenites or the Deplorables? During the time of Trump’s campaign and his presidency, Bidenites have controlled the media. All that is available to the Deplorables are some minor media outlets. Whereas Bidenites have deplatformed, canceled, and silenced Deplorables, Deplorables have not deplatformed, canceled, or silenced Bidenites. Thus, Biden and the Bidenites have behaved much more like Nazis than Trump or the Deplorables when it comes to controlling the media and suppressing the opposition’s ability to inform the public.

Nazis are known for wanting to disarm the people by prohibiting or highly restricting the private ownership of firearms. Who wants to disarm the people and, by that, make it more difficult for the people to defend themselves from a despotic government: the Bidenites or the Deplorables? The answer is the Bidenites. Deplorables are heavily armed and do not want any more restrictions placed on gun owners. On the contrary, they want fewer restrictions on buying and owning guns. However, Bidenites, who now control the government, do not trust an armed citizenry because it can more effectively resist the despotic agenda of the Bidenites than can a disarmed citizenry. Consequently, Bidenites want to make gun ownership more difficult and eventually want to confiscate most privately owned guns (only the politically privileged elite and the government would be allowed to own guns). Thus, Biden and the Bidenites have behaved much more like Nazis than Trump or the Deplorables when it comes to disarming the people by prohibiting or highly restricting the private ownership of firearms.

Nazis are known for heavily regulating businesses. Who wants to regulate businesses heavily: Biden and the Bidenites or Trump and the Deplorables? Again, the answer is Biden and the Bidenites. Trump with the approval and support of most Deplorables reduced regulations on businesses. Biden with the approval and support of most Bidenites is moving forward with heavily increasing regulations on businesses. Thus, Biden and the Bidenites have behaved much more like Nazis than Trump or the Deplorables when it comes to regulating businesses.

Nazis are known for controlling and stealing elections. Who stole the last election and who is moving forward with a law that will guarantee that the Democratic party never loses another election: Biden and the Bidenites or Trump and the Deplorables. Obviously, the answer is Biden and the Bidenites. Most of Biden’s campaigning was from his basement. When he did venture out into the public to campaign, his audience seldom exceeded a few dozen (and this is being generous). Yet, he defeated the most popular man in the country, whose campaign crowds were measured in the thousands and tens of thousands in a country that was locked down. Trump was leading in the closely contested States when the vote counting was halted and the Republican observers were ushered out of the buildings only to have the counting to start again without the observers present and boxes of newly discovered ballots marked for Biden were found after which Trump fell behind—such is an honest election according to Bidenites. Thus, Biden and the Bidenites behaved much more like Nazis than Trump or the Deplorables when it comes to elections. 

Based on the above criteria, Biden and the Bidenites act much more like Nazis than do Trump and the Deplorables.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

COVID-19 Vaccine: Its Effectiveness and Safety

COVID-19 Vaccine: 

Its Effectiveness and Safety

Thomas Allen

For 20 years, big pharma has been trying to develop a vaccine for coronavirus. For 20 years, it has failed. Now, we are asked to believe that big pharma has accomplished in less than a year what it failed to achieve in the previous 20 years. (A major reason for previous failures is that the vaccine fell to pass the animal trials. Trump’s Operation Warp Speed eliminated animal testing.)

How Protective Is the Vaccine

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. – Mark Twain

The presstitute media continually report that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is 90 percent effective. They mislead with their statistics. Thus, they lie with a deceptive truth.

Most people interpret the 90-percent effectiveness to mean that if they are vaccinated, they have only a 10 percent chance of contracting COVID-19. Or, they interpret it to mean that of every 100 people vaccinated, only 10 may become infected; the other 90 percent are immune and, therefore, need not fear catching COVID-19. They are wrong.

In the Pfizer trial, about 0.43 percent of the control, or placebo, group tested positive at the end of the trial while 0.04 percent in the vaccinated group tested positive. This translates into 90.7-percent-vaccine effectiveness [100–(1–(0.04 ÷0.43))]. However, the absolute risk reduction for an individual is only 0.39 percent [0.43–0.04]. That is, the vaccinated person has a 0.39-percent advantage over an unvaccinated person in not contracting COVID-19. Thus, 256 [1÷0.0039] people have to be vaccinated for one person to benefit from the vaccine. Of the remaining 255 vaccinated people, none receive any benefit. However, they risk the adverse effects of the vaccination, which can be severe. Of the trial participants, 10 to 15 percent suffered significant side effects. Moreover, the long-term effects of the COVID-19 vaccines are unknown. Even if one interprets Pfizer’s data to mean that an unvaccinated person has ten times greater chance of contracting COVID-19, it still means that an unvaccinated person has less than a 0.5-percent chance of contracting COVID-19. Why would one assume risking the side effects described below when only 0.43 percent of the unvaccinated population, based on trial studies, becomes infected? Thus, more than 99 percent of the population will receive no benefit from the COVID-19 vaccines.

New Technology and Side Effects

Pfizer’s and most of the other COVID-19 vaccines are using a technology that has never before been used in a vaccine in the United States: mRNA technology. And, only a few months of safety testing have been done with this technology. Instead of using the coronavirus in the vaccine, these COVID-19 vaccines instruct the body to make the COVID-19 spike protein. Consequently, the COVID-19 vaccines manipulate a person’s biological makeup, i.e., it changes the vaccinated person’s cell structure. Moreover, the RNA technology used in the COVID-19 vaccines is known to have caused autoimmune reactions; that is, it causes the body to attack itself.

Among the other side effects is the sterilization of women. Also, people with a compromised immune system are at great risk of dying from the vaccine. Narcolepsy (sudden and uncontrollable attacks of deep sleep), Bell’s palsy (facial nerve paralysis), Guillain-Barre syndrome (an autoimmune disorder that is an inflammatory neuropathy affecting the peripheral nervous system), shingles, and hepatitis are other potential side effects. RNA technology can activate dormant viruses. Moreover, people with a history of allergic reactions should avoid vaccination. (People with a history of allergic reactions were excluded from the study trials — thus, making the vaccines look safer.)

Another side effect is that people who have been vaccinated are testing positive for HIV. (Some researchers have identified COVID-19 as a synthetic virus, and at least one study states that it is made by combining coronavirus with HIV. On the other hand, the standard scientific methodology for identifying a new virus has never been done for COVID-19.)

Control and Track

The ruling elite, the globalists, have been developing mechanisms to use the COVID-19 plandemic and the COVID-19 vaccines as an excuse to control and track people. One consideration is a global passport that shows, among other things, a person’s vaccination status. People would need such a passport to travel. It may also be required for employment and for entering stores, restaurants, sports and entertainment events, etc. Moreover, this passport may be required forever — even long after the pandemic is a forgotten memory. (The ultimate goal of the globalists, the ruling elite, is to turn the world into a society like communist China.)

The current plan calls for giving people who have been vaccinated a vaccination card that shows proof of receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. How long will it be before these cards morph into the equivalent of a global passport? Moreover, people who receive a COVID-19 vaccination will be entered into the States’ immunization registries and reported to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention — so much for medical confidentiality.

View of Louis Farrakhan

In “The Covid-19 Vaccine and the U.S. policy of depopulation,” Ava Muhammad, Student National Spokesperson of the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, argues that the COVID-19 vaccine is being used to genocide Blacks. [Any White progressive, liberal, or wokesperson who disagrees with Farrakhan on this or any other issue is a racist and White supremacist.]

This article associates White’s pushing the COVID-19 vaccines with the pale horse of Revelation, i.e., death. For the government to force Blacks to take the COVID-19 vaccines would be a declaration of war.

When COVID-19 vaccines are ready, governmental officials and the presstitute media will vigorously fill people with the fear of COVID-19. [To terrorize people into being vaccinated, every news broadcast stresses the ever-increasing number of COVID-19 cases and the number of hospitalizations. Also, accompanying these reports is a segment on the availability and distribution of the vaccines and their safety and effectiveness.]

Views that disagree with the establishment’s story of COVID-19 and its vaccines are suppressed and censored. The objective is to keep people fearful and ignorant.

Farrakhan believes that the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines are weapons that Whites are using to genocide nonwhites. [If Farrakhan’s bigotry did not blind him, he would realize that the vaccines are as much a threat to Whites as they are to Blacks and the other races. Moreover, the only race facing genocide is the White or Aryan race.]

The article states that big pharma is the largest lobbyist in Washington and owns both parties. [He is correct about big pharma owing both parties. However, the industrial-military-security lobby is probably larger.] People injured by a vaccine cannot sue the vaccine manufacturer. Moreover, people injured from a COVID-19 cannot receive any compensation from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. This prohibition went into effect a month before the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 pandemic. [This action looks conspiratorial. Nevertheless, some compensation may be available from the Countermeasure Injury Compensation Program {CICP}. However, the CICP limits the maximum payment that a person injured by a COVID-19 vaccine to $250,000. Most likely, the injured person will receive less, much less, than this amount. However, no payment is made until the injured person has exhausted his private insurance. Also, the CICP only pays the difference between what the insurance covers and the CICP’s cap. Furthermore, the Department of Health and Human Services {DHHS} administers the CICP, and it is also sponsoring the COVID-19 vaccination program. Consequently, the DHHS has a conflict of interest that makes the CICP much less likely to find fault with the vaccines. Moreover, the victim has only one year to file a claim. Rarely, does DHHS pay a claim for a vaccine injury — less than 1 percent of those injured receive any compensation. In any event, why should taxpayers be coerced into paying for damages caused by vaccines? Should not vaccine manufacturers be liable for injuries caused by their products?]

[Hopefully, Farrakhan’s hostility toward COVID-19 will prove fruitful. His opposition has caused most governmental officials to cease pushing making vaccination mandatory — although forcing children to be vaccinated to attend a school or to keep child protection agencies from taking unvaccinated children from their families and forcibly vaccinating them remains to be resolved. As for businesses requiring the COVID-19 vaccination to work, buy, or travel, maybe Farrakhan can send thousands of members of Black Lives Matter to protest these businesses to halt their evil ways. They will certainly respond more quickly and more positively to Black protesters than to White protesters. Thus, the fate and temporal salvation of the country and even mankind may depend on Farrakhan and other people like him.]

Conclusion

Dr. Robert Koops writes, “Vaccines are not cures. Vaccines are not preventatives. Vaccines do not seek out and destroy.” (Koops has worked in the pharmaceutical industry in development, quality control, and biopharmaceuticals and vaccines.) The purpose of vaccines is to cause the body’s immune system to produce antibodies to a particular virus. Thus, in theory, if the body is later exposed to this virus, its immune system will recognize it and respond more quickly and efficiently than normal. Like traditional vaccines, the COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent the body from becoming infected; they attack the viruses in the infected body using a different technology as described above.

Governmental officials and the presstitutes are notorious liars. So, why should anyone believe anything that they say until independent sources collaborate their assertions? So far, the independent sources are saying no COVID-19 pandemic exists and, therefore, no vaccines are needed. Furthermore, independent sources are saying that the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines are highly questionable.

Jon Rappoport writes, “What rational person would line up to take this shot?” Perhaps, that is why the first to receive the shots are those who do not have the right to refuse. Farrakhan needs to organize massive protests against vaccinating prisoners to prevent the genocide of Black prisoners.

To end on a positive note, if you are among the 90 percent who has had one of the common cold coronaviruses in recent years, you are probably protected from COVID-19. Many of these cases being reported as COVID-19 may be no more than cases of the common cold.

References

Koops, Roger W. “A Primer for the Media on Viruses, Vaccines, and Covid-19.” – September 25, 2020. https://www.aier.org/article/a-primer-for-the-media-on-viruses-vaccines-and-covid-19/. Accessed September 25, 2020.

Mercola, Dr. Joseph. “COVID-19 Vaccination May Be Difficult to Avoid.” December 14, 2020. https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/12/14/covid-19-vaccine-cicp.aspx. Accessed December 14, 2020.

Mercola, Dr. Joseph. “Emergency COVID-19 Vaccines May Cause Massive Side Effects.” December 08, 2020. https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/12/08/coronavirus-vaccine-side-effects.aspx. December 8, 2020.

Mercola, Dr. Joseph. “New Report Claims to Shed Light on SARS-CoV-2 Origin.” September 28, 2020. https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/09/27/chinese-whistleblower-coronavirus.aspx. December 8, 2020.

Muhammad, Ava. “The Covid-19 Vaccine and the U.S. policy of depopulation.” December 8, 2020. https://new.finalcall.com/2020/12/08/the-covid-19-vaccine-and-the-u-s-policy-of-depopulation/. Accessed December 14, 2020.

Neill, Steven. “COVID-19 Vaccination Record Cards Will Be Issued.” December 10, 2020. https://thenewamerican.com/covid-19-vaccination-record-cards-will-be-issued/, Accessed December 15, 2020.

Neill, Steven. “Medical Freedom Activists Plan International COVID-19 Vaccine Protests.” November 29, 2020. https://thenewamerican.com/medical-freedom-activists-plan-international-covid-19-vaccine-protests/. Accessed December 15, 2020.

Neill, Steven. “U.K. Health Officials Warn of Allergy Risks From Pfizer COVID–19 Vaccine.” December 10, 2020. https://thenewamerican.com/u-k-health-officials-warn-of-allergy-risks-from-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine/. Accessed December 15, 2020.

Rappoport, Jon. “Shocking report on COVID vaccine adverse effects: the roll-out continues anyway.” December 14, 2020. https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/12/14/shocking-report-on-covid-vaccine-adverse-effects-the-roll-out-continues-anyway/. December 14, 2020.

Roberts, Paul Craig. “They Are Using Fear to Create Acceptance of Vaccination. Why?” https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/12/13/they-are-using-fear-to-create-acceptance-of-vaccination-why/. December 13, 2020. Accessed December 14. 2020.

Sardi, Bill. “99% Of U.S. Population Would Not Benefit From Mass Vaccination With Pfizer’s RNA Covid-19 Vaccine.” December 11, 2020. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/12/bill-sardi/99-of-u-s-population-would-not-benefit-from-mass-vaccination-with-pfizers-rna-covid-19-vaccine/. Accessed December 11, 2020.

Sardi, Bill. “The Science Of Lockdown, Masks & Vaccines Crumbles.” September 16, 2020. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/09/bill-sardi/the-science-of-lockdown-masks-vaccines-crumbles/. Accessed September 16, 2020.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

COVID-19 Vaccine

COVID-19 Vaccine

Thomas Allen

Politicians, governmental health officials, the presstitute media, and others are pushing the COVID-19 vaccine and are encouraging people to take the COVID-19 vaccine when it is available. However, at least two important questions need to be answered. Will the vaccines really be safe or just claimed to be safe? (Of course, the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] will do the bidding of its masters and rule that the vaccines are safe.) Other than being a large moneymaker for big pharma, is a vaccine even necessary?

Many people who are pushing vaccination for COVID-19 have a financial interest in the vaccines. Even their presstitute propaganda media have a financial interest because much of their pay comes from big pharma. 

The pharmaceutical companies that are manufacturing and selling the COVID-19 vaccines have no real interest in producing safe and effective vaccines. They are exempted from any liability, so if the vaccines kill or maim millions of people, big pharma suffers no financial penalties. Moreover, since many people will be required to be vaccinated to work, travel, or go to school, big pharma has a guaranteed market regardless of safety or effectiveness. Also, if the vaccines prove deadly and ineffective, the presstitute media will shill for their masters, big pharma and the political establishment, and conceal any dangers or lack of effectiveness of the vaccines.

(The polio vaccine is an example of the media and political establishment protecting big pharma from the consequences of a deadly vaccine. The polio vaccine contained a cancer virus. A few people tried to expose this fact. However, the presstitute media and political establishment ostracized, made persona non grata, and otherwise destroyed the exposers. Instead of removing a deadly vaccine, the government acted to protect big pharma and its profits. Thus, the polio vaccine proves that power, propaganda, and profits are more important than safety. Some contributed the explosion in cancer during the 1970s and beyond to the polio vaccine.)

Most of the COVID-19 vaccines incorporate a never-before-tried new vaccine technology. Only short-term safety has been evaluated. Long-term safety will not be known until years later. In other applications of this technology, human health effects have been highly deleterious. Some of these adverse health effects did not appear until years later. 

        Furthermore, the vaccines are not designed to protect the vaccinated person from becoming infected with COVID-19. They are designed to lessen the symptoms of COVID-19 after a person becomes infected.

        Also, the vaccines have been solely or almost solely tested on young, healthy people. Little or no testing has been done on the sickly or aged. Testing on them comes when the vaccines are given to them after the FDA approves the vaccines.

Moreover, the immune stimulant, squalene, being used in the COVID-19 vaccines has been linked to Gulf War Syndrome. Naturally, the government and the presstitute media will deny any connection between the immune stimulant and any later health effects just as they have denied any connection between the immune stimulant and Gulf War Syndrome. (Also, manufacturing squalene may be endangering certain species of sharks since shark liver is the best source of squalene.)

The FDA cannot be trusted to protect the public from dangerous vaccines. Big pharma owns the FDA. Besides, the FDA is a political machine and, therefore, is highly susceptible to political pressure. If the president and Congress want a vaccine, the FDA will approve a vaccine — especially since big pharma wants to sell COVID-19 vaccines. Vaccines are risk-free rewards for big pharma because the taxpayers assume all the risk.

Politicians, high-ranking bureaucrats, officers and directors of pharmaceutical companies, presstitutes, and their families should be the first to be vaccinated (and no saline-solution-shot substitutions). If they believe what they promote, they should gladly be first in line for an untried vaccine. After all, since the government guarantees that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe, they should have nothing to fear.

If a person wants complete immunity from COVID-19 with no adverse side effects, all he needs to do is to join Antifa or Black Lives Matter (BLM). Then, he will have complete immunity from COVID-19 with the benefit of immunity from most laws. “Our” governors and mayors have told us so with their actions and occasionally with their words. Unlike what they have done with churches, schools, and businesses, no governor or mayor has restricted the size of Antifa or BLM crowds. Moreover, they have not imposed the requirements for social distancing or wearing a face-covering although most do cover their faces to conceal their identity. While taking a vaccination is risky, being a member of Antifa or BLM is safe and rewarding.

The number of cases of COVID-19 can be reduced significantly with a simple change in the testing procedures. If testers followed Dr. Fauci’s recommendations instead of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recommendations, fewer infections would be measured. The CDC’s recommendations magnify the sample so much that all sorts of irrelevant fragments that have nothing to do with COVID-19 are detected, and, thus, the person tested is identified as having COVID-19. Moreover, as Elon Musk has shown, the test is highly unreliable. He took four tests in one day. Two tests were positive, and two were negative. Even papaya has been tested positive for COVID-19. Also, the New York Times has reported that 90 percent of the people tested as having COVID-19 do not have the disease.

Furthermore, the number of COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths can be significantly reduced with one simple action: Stop paying hospitals bonuses for COVID-19 cases and deaths. Whenever a hospital reports a COVID-19 patient or death, the federal government pays it a bonus. This bonus encourages hospitals to report as many COVID-19 patients and deaths as they can — thus, they greatly inflate COVID-19 cases and deaths. On the other hand, if the federal government ceased paying hospitals bonuses for COVID-19 cases and deaths and started paying bonuses for ingrown toenail cases and deaths, COVID-19 cases and deaths would plummet, and ingrown toenail cases and deaths would soar. The federal government gets what it pays for. It wants COVID-19 cases and deaths, so it pays bonuses for them.

In obedience to their masters in government and big pharma, the presstitute media have terrorized by extravagantly overstating cases of hospitalizations and deaths from COVID-19. Terror is being used to stampede fearful people into taking a COVID-19 vaccination. Many presstitutes and political and business leaders are discussing forcing everyone to be vaccinated for COVID-19. The only winners are the politicians and health department bureaucrats, who get to wield more power, and big pharma, which makes a large profit with zero risks (the taxpayers assume the risk). The losers are the people — especially the vaccinated, who receive what are essentially experimental vaccines.

Deaths by COVID-19 have been greatly exaggerated. According to the CDC, the total number of deaths in 2020 is about the same as in 2019. Even the number of deaths of older people after the invasion of COVID-19 is about the same as it was before COVID-19. Offsetting the thousands of COVID-19 deaths is a reduction in other causes of death. The reduction in other causes of death approximates the deaths by COVID-19. (In an article, “A closer look at US deaths due to COVID-19” in “The John Hopkins News-Letter,” Genevier Briand uses CDC data to show that COVID-19 deaths are offset by a decrease in other causes of death such that there is little or no net gain in deaths after COVID-19 as compared with deaths before COVID-19. John Hopkins has since censored and removed this article.) The CDC seems to agree with her conclusion. According to the CDC, COVID-19 has caused only about 16,000 deaths. Other diseases and accidents account for the remaining deaths attributed to COVID-19.

As shown above, the COVID-19 “pandemic” (plandemic) is a scam to enrich big pharma. More important, from their perspective, the pandemic has fed the uncontrollable insatiable lust for power that consumes politicians and governmental health bureaucrats as they usurp ever more unchecked power. Unfortunately, it has terrorized most people into enslaving themselves to these politicians and bureaucrats. Moreover, these terrorized people will gladly line up to be injected with a poison that they believe will save them from a virus that they believe is more deadly than the Ebola virus.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Allen.

More political articles.