John Birch Society and Segregation

John Birch Society and Segregation

Thomas Allen

In the April 23, 2020, online New American, Alex Newman writes an article, “NeverTrumper Lies About Birch Society & Schlafly in ‘Daily Beast.’” In this article, he refutes what Ronald Radosh wrote about Phyllis Schlafly in “Phyllis Schlafly, ‘Mrs. America,’ Was a Secret Member of the John Birch Society,” the Daily Beast,  April 20, 2020.  Newman writes that Radosh is “a former Communist Party USA operative turned NeverTrump neoconservative Buckleyite.”

The discussion that follows is about what Newman writes about the John Birch Society (JBS) and its founder Robert Welch and their support of integration instead of what he writes about Schlafly. Most of what Newman writes in his article focuses on the JBS and Welch’s opposition to racial segregation and support of racial integration.

On racial issues, Welch and the JBS were at the forefront of political correctness. While attacking communism and communists, they supported the communist organized and led desegregation-integration movement.

Newman ardently objects to Radosh’s characterization of the JBS as a “far-right group infamous for its support of segregation.” On the contrary, the JBS was and still is dedicated to integration and, apparently, everything that has grown out of integration, such as, Black privileges and the movement to genocide the White race — although, most likely, Newman would argue otherwise.

Noting that the JBS has never supported segregation, Newman lists several notable Black activists who were members of the JBS: George Schuyler, Manning Johnson, and Julia Brown. Continuing, he adds that members of the JBS “helped lead the fight against racism, racial collectivism, government-enforced segregation, discrimination, and so on.” Except for racial collectivism, progressives, liberals, and communists also fought against these things.

Although it may have opposed governmental-enforced integration, the JBS has never been as vigorous in opposing government-enforced integration as it was in opposing government-enforced segregation. Moreover, it seems to have accepted segregation by custom (the Northern approach) while opposing government-enforced segregation (the Southern approach). Thus, the JBS is a right-wing Puritan Yankee organization out to reconstruct Southerners into its own image. (Most Southerners never wanted to force segregation in the North. However, most Northerners wanted to force integration in the South, but not in the North.)

Although Welch was a Southerner, he was a scalawag par excellence. Obviously, he believed that the Radical Republicans failed to remake the Southerner into the image of the Puritan Yankee.  Consequently, he sought to finish their work. While he failed to replace segregation with integration, the communists succeeded.

Newman remarks that National Review and its founder, William Buckley,  supported segregation into the 1960s. He condemns Buckley for claiming that Whites were more advance than Blacks and that Southerners should suppress voting by Blacks to preserve civilization. Apparently, Newman believes that the civilization of post-civil-rights America, with its increased sexual promiscuity, divorces, acceptance of homosexual marriages, abortions, crimes by Blacks, lost liberties, socialism, police state, drug abuse, power of the Establishment, etc., is superior the civilization to pre-civil-rights America.

Even as late as the mid-1960s, Buckley was fighting a rearguard action to save the White race and Western Civilization, while the JBS and Welch were rejoicing covertly their demise —at least that has been the result of their war against racial separation. (The communists knew this destructive result of integration, which is why they fought for it.) Later, Buckley repented his evil ways and adopted the politically correct racial view that Whites, especially Southerners, are the vilest creatures in the Universe — Welch would have been proud of him.

Next, Newman writes that Welch wrote an article, “A Letter to the South,” in which he argues against segregation in the South. In that article, Welch argues “that segregation was on its way out, that this demise was a good thing, and that the communist exploitation of the “civil rights” cause had set back this progress by a generation.” Welch was wrong. Within a decade after this article, the communist lead civil rights movement had won; integration had replaced segregation in the South. Only mop-up operations against the few remaining renegades and expansion into the North remained. Because of this victory for which Welch longed, the White race is on its way to extinction —and the American Black may not be far behind.

Although Welch condemned communist racial agitators for stirring up racial hatred and for impeding integration, they did achieve victory quickly and completely. For this victory, Welch should have been glad. Was Welch’s hostility toward the communists coming from his lust for glory, i.e., he wanted the credit for ending segregation in the South? Does this explain the hostility of the JBS toward communists?

On racial issues, Welch was an extremely progressive and indefatigable promoter of racial equality, which is among the most detrimental hoaxes that the Establishment, the ruling elite, has ever advanced. (For the unbiased, science has proven that the races are not equal. They differ in physical abilities, intelligence, temperament and many other aspects. As history has shown, races differ in their abilities to develop civilizations, technologies, and many other things.)

Being racial egalitarians, Welch and his fellow Birchers are a step away from being full-fledged socialist and communists. They believe that the several races of men are identical in attributes. Except for a few external physical features, which no one but a liar can deny, the races are identical and, therefore, equal. (Nevertheless, the races of man differ in blood and bone, which are not readily visible.) If the attributes of the races are identical and equal, then the attributes of each individual comprising the races must be identical and equal. From this egalitarian notion, socialists, especially communists, derive the logical conclusion that each individual should, therefore, be equal in wealth. However, Birchers have not come to this logical conclusion of racial equality. Consequently, they are not as logical in their reasoning as are socialists and communists. Is because the egalitarianism of the communists is more consistent and logical than that of the Birchers a reason that Birchers despise communism?

In the 1950s, most Southerners, both liberals and conservatives, and many Northerners opposed race-mixing. Only communists and their kindred and Birchers favored race-mixing, which leads to miscegenation, which is genocide — the destruction of the races. Thus, integration is genocide.

Apparently, Welsh and the Birchers who followed him in advocating integration did not care about the Black man. If they did, they would not have pushed policies that would eventually lead to his death.

Welch “openly promoted and supported an end to segregation” because ending segregation would result in “exposing evildoers and reduce government.” One must wonder what drugs Welch was taking to believe this nonsense. The death of segregation birthed an explosion in the size of the government. (More government is needed to enforce integration than segregation because integration is unnatural.)  Moreover, what vile evildoer has been exposed and, if exposed, has suffered any penalty?

Much of the hostility of the JBS and Welch toward communists and communism seems to come from the civil rights movement. While the JBS failed to replace segregation with integration, the communists succeeded. Does much of the JBS hatred of communists come from the communists succeeding where the JBS failed?

Welch is not the only leader of the JBS to support genocide via race-mixing. JBS President Emeritus John McManus also promotes genocide via race-mixing. (Also, see “A Letter: Miscegenation” by Thomas Allen.) Unlike most Blacks and other nonwhites, Welch and his fellow Birchers are racial nihilists who follow the new morality.

NOTE:
According to Eustace Mullins (Murder by Injection: The Story of the Medical Conspiracy Against America, 1988, page 200), the Rockefellers sponsored the JBS. Nelson Rockefeller bought the Welch Candy Company from Robert Welch, a 32nd degree Freemason, for a handsome price. For the principal officers of the JBS, Welch chose from his acquaintances at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). (Years later, the JBS would attack the CFR as a more dangerous group than the Communist party. Because of the support that the CFR gave the Soviet Union through its control of the US government, multinational corporations, and international financiers, the Soviet Union lived decades longer than it would have lasted without such aid.) As Buckley, who was a CIA operative (and a member of the CFR and Skull and Bones), and his National Review were established to control conservatives and the Right, so Welch and the JBS seemed to have been established for the same purpose. When the JBS credibility began to fade, Buckley gave the JBS free publicity by attacking it in his magazine.

According to Mark Hines (“A Good Reason to Leave the John Birch Society: Masonic Roots of Mormonism,” The Federal Observer, Vol. 06, No. 343, Dec. 10, 2006, http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=8610, accessed Dec. 10, 2006), the JBS “is a front organization set up to attract and control unsuspecting Patriots that wish to band together to make a difference in our Country.” He criticizes the JBS for collecting a great deal of money and expending much time and energy without ever accomplishing anything. Hines discovered that Mormons controlled the JBS. The Mormons had a different, even the opposite, agenda than the common members. Mormons pushed the Freemasonry agenda of globalism, which the common Bircher vehemently opposed.

In Kangaroo Court Versus the John Birch Society (“The Belmont Brotherhood,” http://watch.pair.com/belmont. May 5, 2006.), A.J. MacDonald discusses some founders and council members of the JBS and their connection with the Establishment, Insiders, Ruling Elite, Globalists, or whatever one wants to call them. Moreover, Welch’s view of Christianity is similar to that of an ultra-liberal “Christian” — far more humanistic, communistic, Masonic, and Illuministic than Christian. (Perhaps, this explains why Welch promoted policies that would lead to the genocide of the races that God created.) About Welch, Nicholas J. Bove, Jr. writes, “Welch has provided the most valuable service of all time to the Conspiracy. He founded an organization to neutralize millions of Americans from discovering what the true power behind the Illuminati really was.” (“The Belmont Brotherhood,” op. cit.)

According to Dr. Henry Makow, before founding the JBS, Welch had been a member of the Communist (Trotskyite) front League of Industrial Democracy ("The Zionist Billionaires Who Control Politics," Feb. 23, 2011, http://www.henrymakow.com/koch.html, accessed Feb. 24, 2011).

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Review of “Resurrecting the Old Right”

Review of “Resurrecting the Old Right”

Thomas Allen

In his article, “Resurrecting the Old Right” in Chronicles (September 2019), Paul Gottfried presents himself as a paleoconservative and a disciple of the Old Right. In his article, he stresses the need to resurrect the Old Right.
He may be a paleoconservative, but his racial views are indistinguishable from neoconservatives, libertarians, progressives, liberals, and communists, and a majority of Americans. Like them, he is a racial nihilist and, therefore, cares nothing about the White race or any other race as unique species that God created, and, consequently, none is worthy of preservation. (Gottfried’s attitude toward Whites is based solely on this article.) Moreover, like all neoconservatives, libertarians, progressives, liberals, and communists and most Americans, he believes that the United States are a propositional country. He definitely does not believe that they are a genetic country as the founding father established.
He strongly condemns the establishment conservatives, the neoconservatives. They avoid discussing homosexual marriages, feminism, and other divisive social issues (and especially the sin of miscegenation, which Gottfried seems not to consider a sin). They often defend progressive and liberal social positions. On immigration, distinguishing between establishment conservatives and liberals is often difficult. Typically, liberals want to flood the country with an unlimited number of third-world immigrants, most of whom they expect to vote for Democrats. On the other hand, most conservatives want to flood the country with large numbers of third-world immigrants albeit via streamlined legal means. Other conservatives prefer restricting the number of third-world immigration to a level low enough to amalgamate them into the population. Gottfried seems to support the amalgamators. Almost no one favors prohibiting nonwhites entering the country.
At least, he rightly condemns conservatives, such as Rich Lowery, editor-in-chief of National Review, for supporting and promoting the destruction of Southern monuments and history.
Also, Gottfried denounces neoconservatives for kowtowing to the liberal controlled old media. They also fail to mention all the Zionist funding that conservative organizations receive — and that these Zionists support the left-wing social agenda.
Neoconservatives condemn anti-intervention Southern conservatives and all who are labeled “racist” or “antisemitic.” Gottfried identifies a few prominent conservatives whom the establishment conservatives have condemned, such as, M.E. Bradford. For its opposition to the Vietnam War, the establishment conservative William Buckley chastised the John Birch society. (Buckley was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and, perhaps more important, Skull and Bones. He also worked for the CIA and participated in the Bohemian Grove. Thus, Buckley was an establishment insider whose job was to control conservatives.)
Another group whom the establishment conservatives condemn is the White nationalist. (Does any White nationalist organization exist that does not have some federal agency or left-wing organization behind it?) Gottfried also denounces White nationalism and considers it an “obstacle to a credible, authentic right.” About White nationalism, he writes, “Its adherents represent a moribund ideology that offers an imaginary antidote to a misdiagnosed pathology.”
For Gottfried, the war is cultural and not racial — as though culture can exist independently of race. Thus, he thinks one-dimensionally. He thinks solely in terms of culture and ignores race. He refuses to recognize that culture depends on race. As race preceded culture, it created culture. Therefore, culture is racial. Consequently, each race has a different culture with each ethnicity of that race having its own subculture. To use some trite analogies, race and culture go together like hand and glove, love and marriage, and horse and carriage.
Contrary to what Gottfried may believe, most White nationalists are not as one dimensional as he is. Most recognize the connection between race and culture.
However, Gottfried is correct in that the leaders of the war to destroy the culture that he wants to save are White. Nevertheless, that does not mean that the war is not racial. Luciferians, self-hating White, and White racial nihilists are using nonwhites to bring down America and the civilization that Whites created and to genocide White race (species) — and, by that, annihilate everything that Gottfried values. Gottfried seems to be acting like the typical libertarian by condoning, if not outright promoting, policies that result in the death of his goal.
Unlike Gottfried, White nationalists at least dimly see that the war is racial. Unfortunately, they mostly ignore the primary leaders of this war to genocide the White race because these leaders are White. Thus, they focus on the nonwhite pawns instead of the White kings and queens.
Why would Whites seek to destroy the White race? All the top leaders are Luciferians. Lucifer, Satan, seeks to destroy the race (species) created in God’s image. They are merely doing their master’s bidding. Another group is the self-hating Whites like members of Antifa. However, like Gottfried, most are racial nihilists, who see no need to preserve the White race, the Black race, or any other race.
Gottfried reproves White nationalists for being too willing to accept the agenda of the left on nonracial issues, such as sexual immorality. (Gottfried does not seem to recognize that miscegenation is a sin; at least White nationalist acknowledge this sin and denounce it.) For White nationalists, the issue is Whites against everyone else. Correctly, Gottfried condemns White nationalists for having too narrow of a focus. They ignore the cultural aspects of the war just as Gottfried ignores the racial aspects.
Furthermore, Gottfried condemns White nationalists who seek to become acceptable in the national debate. These White nationalists typically hold left-of-center views except they are staunch Zionists and advocates of an aggressive, missionary foreign policy. Unfortunately, to receive positive support from the establishment, they have to compromise significantly their racial views. At least, he credits them with attempting to raise the self-esteem of Whites about their race. Nevertheless, for a racial nihilist like Gottfried, why should self-esteem about one’s race matter?
According to Gottfried, for anyone on the right who wants to be “acceptable to large numbers of people on the right,” he has to free himself from being seen as a White nationalist. Thus, Gottfried shows that most people on the right are racial nihilists who loathe racial identitarians. In this respect, they are indistinguishable progressives, liberals, and libertarians, and even self-hating Whites of Antifa and Luciferian Whites. Therefore, the White race (species) is doomed to extinction.
Moreover, Gottfried is “especially bothered by the reductionist argument about racial IQ.” He recognizes the importance of IQ to society and civilization and the possibility of some parts of the world (he avoids “race”) having a cognitive advantage over others.  However, he questions general intelligence being the only precondition for managing human development.
Gottfried is correct about highly intelligent people leading the destruction of America and Western Civilization. Again, he fails to recognize that the annihilation of the White race is part, the most important part, of this destruction.
Furthermore, Gottfried is proof that being White and highly intelligent does not automatically make one an albusphile. He is White and highly intelligent, yet he is completely indifferent to the fate of the White race. He does not care whether the White race lives or dies if the culture that it created survives.
Gottfried claims that he never stopped believing in the Old Right. However, from my reading of the works of the Old Right, none gave me the impression that he believed in the new morality of sacrificing the races, especially the White race, on the altar of humanity. To the contrary, they all seemed to believe in the old morality of racial preservation. Unlike Gottfried, who seems to have no concerns about the sin of miscegenation, they seem adamant in opposing interracial mating. (Gottfried claims to want to restore social morality. Yet, he ignores the sin of miscegenation, the amalgamation of the species of men.)
In conclusion, Gottfried is a racial nihilist and abhors racial identitarians. He is a disciple of the new morality. His revival of conservatism would be void of any race consciousness.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political issues articles.

Two Views of History ‒ Part 1

Two Views of History ‒ Part 1
Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: Footnotes in original are omitted.]

People’s view of history and the major events occurring during their lives generally falls into two categories. The first category believes everything happens by accident or chance. No planning is involved. No force is guiding events from behind the scene. The major events are random and spontaneous. The second category believes that not all events happen by accident or chance; many are planned. A force is guiding many, if not most, events from behind the scene. The major events are not spontaneous.

Rush Limbaugh, the well-know conservative and a staunch Zionist, falls in the first category. He rejects a conspiratorial explanation of history. Yet he describes the acts of liberals essentially the same way as most conspiracy historians and conspiracy scientists describe the actions of the conspirators. He also has admitted that people who advance in Washington have been handpicked by an Ivy League school. These people are given certain roles in government. They are monitored and go where the hand pickers put them.[1] Sounds like a conspiracy, doesn’t it?

One argument that he gives for rejecting conspiracy science is that it is too simple. Actually, it is more complex than the alternative of random and spontaneous causes. Conspiracy historians and scientists must look far beneath the surface to explain the cause of an event. Accidental historians merely investigate the surface causes.

Another reason that he gives for rejecting conspiracy science is that some conspiracy scientists claim that William Buckley is part of the conspiracy. Buckley, a neo-conservative, typically advocated conservative positions while most conspirators are identified with the left. Therefore, conspiracy scientists are wrong, and conspiratorial historical interpretations are false. What Limbaugh overlooks is that Illuminists support both sides in order to influence and control both sides for their benefit. Buckley was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations[2] and, perhaps more important, Skull and Bones.[3] He also worked for the CIA[4] and participated in the Bohemian Grove.[5] Therefore, he was an Illuminist of some degree. Buckley directed and influenced the right. His job was to prevent the right from getting too close to the inner circles of the Illuminists. He was to the right-wing what the Lamonts were to the left.

Nevertheless, Limbaugh did agree with conspiratorial historians that a powerful force outside the federal government was directing President Clinton to support NAFTA. He said, “This is the one issue Clinton has, other than welfare reform, where he has just flown in the face of his constituency groups. . . . There are forces, powerful forces, outside Washington, who are steering this one.”[6]

Contrary to Limbaugh’s claim, a sinister force has guided major historical events in the background. This sinister force is termed “Illuminism.” Illuminists have been involved in, if not behind of, most world events of importance that have occurred since the end of the Middle Ages. They were involved in many major events before then. Working through various secret societies, semi-secret societies, and front organizations, Illuminists have been a major force of world history.

Most historians deny conspiracies as the cause of major events in history. Accidental historians have bought Napoleon’s dictum, “history is a fraud agreed upon.” The “fraud agreed upon” is that conspiracy does not exist in history. For example, most historians believe that conspiracy played no important part in the French Revolution. They point to the Jacobins outlawing Freemasonry in 1792 and dissolving Masonic lodges. (Napoleon legalized Freemasonry in 1798 and encourage Freemasons to reopen their lodges.)

This action has been used to argue that Freemasonry was not involved in planning or directing the French Revolution. The thought that a small group of conspirators aided by dupes was behind the French Revolution is belittled. Such an assertion does not rule out conspiracy. Most important collaborators were not dupes. Liberals and Jews throughout the twentieth century have supported and collaborated with the Communist cause, yet they are not Communists. So it was with the French Revolution. People collaborated with the conspirators not because they were dupes but because they were sympathizers. They knew what the conspirators want to do, and they sympathized with that goal.

That most revolutions, wars, and other great events of history have complicated causes does not mean that conspiracy is not involved. Furthermore, conspiracies are not omnipotent. Although a conspiracy may start an event, it may not be able to control it as planned. In the end what really matters is the blood sacrifice to Lucifer. As long as the blood flows, who causes it to flow matters little.

That the Jacobins outlawed Freemasonry does not mean that the two were not co-conspirators. (The Jacobin Club was a puppet society of Freemasonry established to carry out the political initiative of Freemasonry.[7]) A favorite trick of the Illuminists is to use two opposing factions that they control to confuse the masses. They often use the tactic of pressure from below and pressure from above. Illuministic agents either incite the rabble to riot or disgruntled groups to revolt while illuministic agents in positions of power come forth to suppress the violence with superior violence. Another common approach is to control all major political parties or factions; thus, the electorate is tricked into believing that it has a choice when it does not.

The Jacobins may have been a rebellious faction. Or a power struggle may have occurred between the Jacobins and other Illuminists as occurred in the Soviet Union between Stalin and Trotsky. Outlawing Freemasonry may have been part of the Illuminists’ plan to purge undesirables, i.e., anti-illuministic, members from Freemasonry. At this time many Masonic lodges were operating independently of the Grand Orient. When the revolt came and the king was in danger, many Freemasons came to his defense. Thus, outlawing Freemasonry gave Illuminists the opportunity and excuse to purge these lodges and Freemasonry of counterrevolutionists. Furthermore, the Jacobins may have feared that some Freemasonry lodges might be used for a counterrevolution — just as the Jacobins had used them for their revolution. The Jacobins, or the Illuminists behind them, may have had other reasons for outlawing Freemasonry.

However, the most likely reason for outlawing Freemasonry was to prevent it from being accused of cooperating in the revolt. This tactic is commonly used. Secret societies are divided into two factions or parties. One is the intellectual party, which is passive and supports the cause through intellectual means like speeches and writings. The other is the war party, which supports the cause through violence.

Another ploy used to discredit a conspiratorial explanation of great historical events is to identify people whom conspiratorial historians claim were co-conspirators. For example, to disprove that conspiracy and secret societies had any relevant part in the French Revolution, accidental historians identify persons who were suppose to be part of the conspiracy, but who were executed. Philippe the Duke of Orleans, Mirabeau, Robespierre, and others were executed; thus, a conspiracy could not have existed. Why could not conspirators have executed fellow conspirators? The Duke of Orleans was merely a tool of the Illuminists who were behind the conspiracy of the French Revolution. When his usefulness ended, Illuminists fed him to the mob. Mirabeau was a high-degree Illuminist. However, when he began to waver against executing King Louis XVI, he became a threat to the Illuminists and had to be eliminated. Likewise, with Robespierre, he was also a high-degree Illuminist. However, the Illuminists were beginning to lose control of him, and he was becoming a threat. Furthermore, the Illuminists were ready to move to the next level of the revolution, and they no longer needed Robespierre. So they guillotined him. Such explanations account for the execution of Illuminists and other members of secret societies. The executed are tools who have outlived their usefulness, or they are threats and know too much. Also, some may become victims of the passions of the moment. Of coarse, accidental historians give little credence to such explanations.

Accidental historians question how a conspiracy could pass from one generation to another. They point out that most conspirators are nefarious characters. They question how such people could maintain their conspiracy for so long without turning on each other much more frequently than they do. (Responding adequately to these objections is where many conspiracy scientists fail.)

If the conspiracy originated in man and was man-centered, accidental historians would be correct. Such conspiracies are short-lived. They certainly do not pass on to the next generation. The evil men involved in them would destroy each other, especially as the conspiracy was achieving its goal. However, the conspiracy is not man-centered. At the center of the conspiracy is Lucifer. He has organized it, and he directs it. Thus, the conspiracy can transcend generations. Lucifer controls and checks his miscreant conspirators. Consequently, the conspiracy lives.

Another ploy, which is perhaps second only to the silent treatment, used by anti-conspiratorialists is to attack the messenger. If they cannot refute the facts, arguments, or conclusions, which they seldom can, they destroy the messenger. Assail his character. Ridicule him. Smear him as a “fascist,” “racist,” “anti-Semitic,” etc. Anyone who believes in a conspiracy is mentally unstable, if not insane — a kook. Discredit the messenger anyway possible, i.e., as much as necessary to ruin him. If his facts and conclusion cannot be refuted, he can be discredited by destroying his character. (Personal attacks often force the person being attacked to expend his resources to defend his name instead of exposing the conspiracy.)

Most accidental historians approach the conspiratorial explanation of history by ignoring it. They do not attempt to refute the evidence of conspiracy because they cannot refute it.

Perhaps the main reasons that most historians discount conspiracies are (1) career advancements, (2) vested interest, and (3) the difficulty in finding information. Conspiracies by their nature are secretive.[8]

The first reason is the primary reason. Illuminists control academia; therefore, any historian who explains historical events from a conspiratorial perspective risks career advancement and perhaps his career. Illuminists control the major universities, and most minor ones, and the major publishers. Thus, funding for and publishing of conspiratorial histories, especially conspiratorial twentieth century histories, are greatly stifled. Additionally, any historian who writes history from a conspiratorial perspective faces social and professional ostracism.

The teachers, mentors, and employers of most historians are accidental historians and have a vested interest in a non-conspiratorial explanation of history. They instill on historians under their control and influence a bias against conspiratorial history. Thus, these historians also acquire a bias against conspiratorial history. People are highly reluctant to admit that they have been deceived and that they are wrong. For an accidental historian to admit the existence of a conspiracy requires rejecting a lifetime of work.

Finally, conspiracies seldom make their true goals and programs public. (Many of today’s secret societies and their front organizations are open about their general goal of establishing a New World Order with one world government. However, they pooh-pooh anyone who suggests that a totalitarian government will control this New World Order or that a conspiracy is involved.) Much inductive reasoning is required to discover them.

Accidental historians nearly always present revolutions as spontaneous events. The politically, economically, or socially oppressed rebels against an autocratic state, for example the French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution. Rare is the historian who identifies the source of financing for the revolutionists. No revolution would last more than a few months without money, weapons, and other support. Most revolutions would fail if the backers were not also influencing, if not controlling, the government against which they are revolting.

Accidental historians fail to explain why world leaders continue to make the same errors that lead to war, inflation, and depression. They fail to explain why each “mistake” made by world leaders nearly always advance Illuminism in one form or another. (If an accidental historian dares to offer an explanation, it is usually with the Marxist Hegelian dialectic. In reality, the Hegelian dialectic is a description or explanation of planned events — not of accidental, random, or spontaneous events.)

Furthermore, accidental historians must argue that the leaders of the United States are stupid. Yet they fail to explain how such influential people can achieve such success while being completely void of intelligence. If the leaders of the United States are not stupid, why do they continuously adopt domestic and foreign policies that destroy the foundation and fundamental principles of the United States? (The answer is one that few accidental historians will give — they ignore the question and, therefore, do not give an answer. The answer is that most of the leaders of the United States have declared war on the God of the Christians. They may call themselves Christians, although this label is becoming more taboo each day, and go through the motions of being Christian [baptism, church attendance, praying, etc.], but many of them are not really Christians.)

Accidental historians fail to explain why the big bankers, multinational corporations, and other so-called capitalists of the West built up and maintained the Soviet Union. Why would anyone arm someone who threatened to kill him? This is exactly what the rich and powerful in the West did. A basic tenet of Communism is to kill the rich and distribute their wealth to the proletariat. The Soviet Union would not have survived more than a few years if it were not for the money and technology of the West. Accidental historians must believe that these so-called capitalists were greedy fools or dupes. Yet they fail to explain how fools and dupes can successfully run the largest banks, corporations, and governments in the world. (Contrary to what accidental historians would lead one to believe, these men were not fools or dupes. They were not going to arm anyone who was a threat to them, which is why they seek to nullify the Second Amendment and disarm the American people. These men knew what they were doing. They controlled the Soviet Union and knew that it was no threat to them in spite of the communist rhetoric. The rhetoric was for show. These so-called capitalists were greedy, but they were not fools or dupes.)

Those who reject a conspiratorial explanation of history have to believe that the United States’ entry into World War II was an accidental, spontaneous, random event. They have to reject and explain away all the evidence that shows that the Roosevelt administration and the British government planned and connived to bring the United States into the war. Likewise, with the French Revolution, World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution, they must reject and explain away the overwhelming evidence of conspiracy. Accidental historians must claim that the communist capture of the countries of eastern Europe resulted from spontaneous grassroots revolts. The communist capture had nothing to do with Roosevelt and Churchill conspiring with Stalin in secret meetings and giving him eastern Europe.

The Bible clearly shows that a group of Jews conspired to get Jesus crucified. People who reject the conspiratorial view of history must reject any conspiracy involved in the crucifixion of Jesus. They must argue that his crucifixion resulted from the spontaneous act of a mob.

Opponents of conspiratorial historians often suggest that conspiratorial historians are mentally ill. On the contrary, the opponents are the ones who display symptoms of mental illness, for they refuse to look at the evidence. (Or worse, they know the truth and seek to conceal it.) They ignore the evidence and hope that it is not true. A rational person would review the evidence and draw a logical conclusion. The logical conclusion is that a sinister force, a conspiracy, is behind many great events of history.

Endnotes
1. Dennis L. Cuddy, Now Is the Dawning of the New Age New World Order (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Hearthstone Publishing, 2000), p. 204.

2. Gary North, Conspiracy: A Biblical View (Ft. Worth, Texas: Dominion Press, 1986), p. 89.

3. Jim Marrs, Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids (New York, New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2000), p. 94.

4. “Neoconservatism: a CIA Front?” 1997, http://lewrockwell.printthis.clikcability.com/pt/ cpt?action=cpt&expire=&urlID=65..., June 8, 2003.

5. David Icke, “Conspiracies, Cover Ups, Truths, Facts, Oddities, Research,” http://mysite.users2. 50megs,com/research/bohemianclub.html, June 18, 2001.

6. Dennis L. Cuddy, Secret Records, The Man, the Money, & the Methods Behind the New World Order (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Hearthstone Publishing, 1999), p. 182.

7. Bernard Fay, Revolution and Freemasonry (Boston, Massachusetts: Little, Brown, and Company, 1935), p. 315.

8. Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy (Seal Beach, California: Concord Press, n.d.), pp. 7-16.

Copyright © 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2 

 More articles on history.