Yankees Need the South

Yankees Need the South

Thomas Allen

Yankees need the South and Southerners, but Southerners do not need Yankees. Furthermore, Southerners are better off without Yankees. 

Yankees are extremely self-righteous, arrogant, hypocritical, greedy, disagreeable, and bossy. They possess the typical Puritan attitude: they lust to remake America and the world into the perfect image of themselves. (For more descriptions of the Yankee, see “The Yankee,” “The Puritan Yankee,” and “Cusson’s Description of the Yankee” by Thomas Allen.)

Although many Northerners are not real Yankees, many, unfortunately, have become Yankeefied. Likewise, many scalawag Southerners have become Yankeefied. (Most governors of Southern States have been Yankeefied: Examples are Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Roy Cooper of North Carolina. Two recent Southern governors are real Yankees: George Bush and Jeb Bush.)

Because of their need for Southerners, Yankees could not let the South go in 1861 and cannot let them go today. Furthermore, Yankees believe that the solution to America’s problems is to rule the South with an iron fist.

Yankees have a psychological need for the “Lost Cause” of the Confederacy.  Could it be that Yankees know in their hearts that the leaders of the Confederacy were morally and ethically superior to Lincoln and the leaders of the North? Yankees needed and still need the “Myth of the Lost Cause” to reassure themselves that Southerners were and still are fiendish, diabolical, and abominable to justify their power, privilege, and amour propre.

Being void of virtue, Yankees need to steal virtue from others. Since the South is part of the American empire, stealing virtue from the South is convenient and easy. Thus, every good thing that comes out of the South is not really Southern; it is American, i.e., Northern, especially New England.

Moreover, Yankees need to belittle Southerners to feed their self-esteem. Without having Southerners to disparage, Yankees would be nothing. Thus, Yankees view themselves as righteous and Southerners as evil.

Although Yankees have lure and ideology, Yankeedom has no civilization; they have no culture. Therefore, they need the South to provide them with a culture.

Sanctimonious Yankees need Southerners so that they can have someone to whom feel superior. Condemning the South gives Yankees a sense of identity and importance because they feel superior to Southerners.

Additionally, Yankees need a scapegoat to blame for their sins and failures.  Being part of the American empire makes the South a convenient scapegoat. Consequently, every undesirable thing that happens in the North, such as racial strife in Northern cities, results from the sins of the South. Yankees blame Southerners for the racial hatred and social pathologies in the North. Moreover, they blame Southerners for the evil that Yankees have caused. Thus, all economic, social, and psychological problems are the fault of Southerners. Needing someone to blame for their failures, Yankees blame Southerners.

No Yankee is going to let the truth detour his hatred of and hostility toward Southerners, whether they are reconstructed or remain unreconstructed.

Appendix

In America, two primary branches of Protestantism compete with each other. They are the Yankee religion and the Southern religion.

The Yankee religion is Calvinist and Puritan, that is, disciplined, communal, and focused on the purification of the community. It places evil in the object, e.g., drugs, guns, and the living environment. Thus, it seeks power and stresses social improvement. Being on the right side of history is a personal virtue. Out of the Yankee religion have come abolitionism, millennialism, progressivism, prohibition, feminism, the civil rights movement, neoconservatism, political correctness, social justice, wokeism, and Antifa. Furthermore, it is the parent of the the concept of "the city on the hill.”  Usually, the sermons of the Yankee religion are on current events.

The Southern religion is spiritually Anglican, although it is not structurally Anglican. That is, it is folkish and focuses on the individual and his soul. It places evil in the hearts of men. Thus, it seeks sanctification and manifests in a person’s private life, and goes unnoticed by intellectuals and historians. It stresses faith and piety with the notion of a Christian gentleman. A virtuous person is valuable to his fellow man. Usually, the sermons of the Southern religion are on salvation.

The Yankee religion represents worldly power and prestige more than does the Southern religion.

Reference

Wilson, Clyde N. Defending Dixie: Essays in Southern History and Culture. Second edition. Columbia, South Carolina: Stonewall Publishing LLC: 2005, 2025.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

Israel-Iran War

Israel-Iran War

Thomas Allen

The following are some observations about Israel’s sneak attack on Iran and President Trump’s response.

Self-defense

Israel and nearly every Zionist use the self-defense argument to justify Israel’s sneak attack on Iran. According to Israel, for the last 45 years, Iran has been weeks away from developing a nuclear weapon. (If true, Iran must have some highly incompetent scientists and engineers to have failed to acquire a nuclear weapon a long time ago, when a country as poor and backward as North Korea managed to develop nuclear weapons years ago.) Once Iran has a nuclear weapon, Israel contends that Iran will immediately use it on Israel. Although Israel has at least 200 nuclear weapons, Iran must not have even one. (According to Iran, if one believes Iran, which Zionists and Jews do not, it has no nuclear weapons and does not plan to build any. Unfortunately, Israel’s surreptitious attack may have changed Iran’s mind.) The primary thing that Israel seems to be defending itself against is peace.

If a supposed theoretical attack by Iran on Israel justifies Israel’s sneak attack on Iran, then it justifies Japan’s surprise attack on the United States. Indeed, Japan was more justified than Israel. 

Roosevelt was trying to provoke a war with Japan. Iran’s threat to Israel has been primarily rhetorical. However, Roosevelt’s threat was more than rhetoric. He had placed an embargo on exporting vital resources to Japan. Iran’s economic sanctions on Israel are of little consequence. On the contrary, Israel and its vassal states, primarily the United States, have placed many important sanctions on Iran.

Moreover, for decades, Israel has been threatening Iran with far more vigor than Iran has been threatening Israel. If either of them is justified in launching a surprise attack, it is Iran.

Precision of the Attack

Many Zionists boast about the precision of Israel’s sneak attack. It killed mainly Iran’s nuclear scientists and military leaders. Except for family members and others who were nearby when the attack occurred, civilian casualties were minimized.

If Israel could carry out such precise attacks against Iran, why could it not have done the same in killing Hamas in Gaza? While Iran is a large country with aircraft and an air defense system, Gaza is a tiny territory with no air defense. A precision attack against Hamas in Gaza would have been much easier and cheaper than the approach that Israel took of leveling the country and genociding the Palestinians.  Instead of killing Hamas with a precise attack, Israel chose to utterly destroy Gaza with bombs and bulldozers and to genocide the Palestinians who lived there. Obviously, Israel wants to kill as many Palestinians as possible and drive the survivors from Greater Israel. The question remaining is whether Trump or the Jews will turn Gaza into a resort area.  Perhaps Israel will let Trump develop Gaza as a reward for being such a servile slave.

Trump

President Trump has become another sleazy politician. He lied to the American people when he promised not only to keep the United States out of war but also to end quickly the Russia-Ukraine War and the Israeli-Gaza War. Although he could have ended both wars within a few weeks without any threats or expenditures by the United States, he managed not only to stretch them out but also to bring the world even closer to nuclear annihilation. (Most Christian Zionists greatly desire a global nuclear war — especially the premillennialist rapture cultists — and so does a segment of Islam. Both believe that the world must be destroyed before the Messiah comes.)

As President Wilson lied America into World War I, and President Roosevelt lied the country into World War II, Trump seems to be lying the country into World War III. Wilson and Roosevelt ran on a platform to keep America out of war. Likewise, Trump ran on a platform to keep the country out of war.

However, the US Air Force defending Israel from Iranian weapons and bombing Iranian targets for Israel is Trump’s idea of keeping the United States out of war. To anyone with a functioning brain cell, these actions involve the United States in the war. (Is Trump brain dead, or has he sold his soul to Israel and Zionism?)

Further, Trump seems to have aided Israel in its sneak attack by distracting Iran with his nuclear deal negotiations. However, his negotiations were not serious. He offered Iran a deal that he knew Iran would not and could not accept. Now, he can use the excuse that he offered Iran a way to avoid war, but it rejected the offer. Consequently, the blame lies with Iran as Trump goes to war against Iran.

Furthermore, Trump has demanded Iran’s unconditional surrender, which he knows or should know is unacceptable. He followed this demand by ordering the air force to bomb Iran. Consequently, as an obedient slave of Israel, Trump has attacked Iran for Israel.

For decades, Israel had been trying to convince the United States to strike Iran. Finally, Israel got a subservient lapdog in the presidency, who is so Zionist that he will do whatever Israel orders, to fulfill its lustful dream of Greater Israel.

At least Israel does not have to attempt another USS Liberty incident to draw the United States into war against Iran. (During the  Six-Day War in 1967, Israel attacked and tried to sink the USS Liberty, which was an intelligence-gathering ship, off the coast of Egypt. Israel wanted to sink the ship and blame Egypt so that the United States would enter the war against Egypt.)

Apparently, in Trump’s mind and the minds of nearly all members of Congress, Christian Zionists, and most Zionist commentators, no sacrifice is too great to pay to and for “God’s Chosen People.”  Even the utter destruction of America and a global holocaust is an acceptable price to pay for the survival of Israel and the Jews.

Trump deserves the blame for all Americans killed and maimed by Iranian retaliation. Iran did not want war with the United States, but warmongering Zionist Trump attacked it, although it was no threat to the United States. Now, Trump has gotten the United States into another useless, no-win war.

Ever since the assassination of Kennedy, every US President, including Trump, has been a lackey of Israel. With the assassination of Kennedy, the United States became a vassal state of Israel. Since then, Israel has owned every US President and nearly all members of Congress. (Today, 100 Senators and about 430 Representatives represent Israel in Congress.) As Biden was  Zelensky’s president, so Trump is Netanyahu’s president — both of whom are Jews.

If Trump is not a slave of Israel, he needs to start acting like he is not. If he is a man of peace, he needs to stop threatening and bombing Iran and stop supporting Israel’s war machine. If he is a man for the little people, he needs to defend the Palestinians and stop Israel’s genocide of them.

Is Trump’s attack on Iran motivated in part by a desire to fulfill Bush the Younger’s police state dream? After all, Trump completed Bush’s program of the Real ID card, which is the foundation of an authoritarian police state. With his attack on Iran, Trump may have hoped to trigger Iranian sleeper cells in the United States to attack American infrastructure. Does he hope they do so that he can declare martial law and achieve Bush’s nightmare? A police state is also the vision of neoconservatives and Democrats.

If Trump were a statesman instead of a contemptible politician, he would tell Israel, “You started this war; you finish it on your own without any help from us.” Then, he would withdraw all US troops and naval vessels from the Middle East and close all the air force bases. (There is no need to give Israel American targets to attack and blame Iran and draw America into the war.)

Trump’s slogans of “America First” and “Make America Great Again” have become “Israel First” and “Make Israel Great.” As a spin-off of an old saying, “With a friend like Israel, who needs enemies?” Whereas Biden flooded the country with  queerdom and alien invaders, Trump is drowning the country in Zionism.

Jews

Most people who call themselves Jews are not true Jews. Properly speaking, only descendants of Judah are Jews. Most of today’s Jews are not descendants of Judah, and probably all of those who are are mixed with non-Jews. Some are descendants of the people of the Persian Empire who became Jews during the time of Esther for fear of the Jews (Esther 8:17). Others are descendants of the Edomites, who were prominent in Palestine during the life of Jesus. Most of today’s Jews are descendants of the people of Khazaria, who are called Ashkenazim. Yet, all these Jews are “God’s Chosen People.” Since Jews as such did not come into being until the time of the Babylonian captivity, the descendants of the northern tribes are not really Jews. Moreover, the northern tribes were not descendants of Judah.

Since both my father’s and mother’s ancestry can be traced back to Judah, does that make me a Jew? It seems to give me a stronger claim to being a Jew than most contemporary Jews have.

One final note about Jews: most people who hate Jews do not hate them because of their religion or ethnicity. They hate them because of the misbehavior of many Jews.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Allen.

More political articles.

Revisionist History

Revisionist History

Thomas Allen

In response to a comment that I made on “MSNBC’s Revisionist History About JD Vance and America’s Failed Wars,” The New American, by Selwyn Duke, July 22, 2024, (https://thenewamerican.com/us/msnbcs-revisionist-history-about-jd-vance-and-americas-failed-wars/#comment-6515624670), I had an interesting discussion with “Confused” on revisionist history. (I have changed his pseudonym to protect his ignorance or stupidity — whichever the case may be.)

Duke’s misleading statements on revision history prompted my comment. My comment was:

A revisionist history is a history that disagrees with the standard orthodox establishment history. It is a historical account based on facts or a perspective that differs from the standard orthodox establishment history, which emphasizes a particular narrative or agenda instead of objective facts. That is, the primary purpose of the standard orthodox establishment history is to declare that the victors had the moral high ground and were not at fault or to advance an agenda of the establishment. More often than not, revisionist history is closer to the truth than is the standard orthodox establishment history. 

(This comment is a quotation from “Another Discussion with the Imbecile” by Thomas Allen.) The essence of revision history is that it significantly contradicts standard orthodox establishment history.

Duke may be the cause of some of Confused’s confusion about revisionist history. He writes that Alexander Nazaryan, a left-winger, condemned JD Vance over who launched America’s failed wars. Nazaryan attacked Vance and claimed that Vance was accusing Democrats in general and Biden in particular for the death of Americans in the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars, although Vance hardly mentioned these wars and did not blame Democrats for them. Nazaryan identified the Republican Party as the party of war because of Bush the Younger’s war with Iraq. Yet, Nazaryan ignored the wars in which Democrats led the countries: World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. Duke called Nazaryan commentary revisionist history. Nazaryan’s historical account may be revisionist history, but that does not mean that all revisionist historians are left-wingers.

Confused maintains that only left-wingers write revisionist histories; right-wingers do not write revisionist histories. However, since progressives, liberals, and neoconservatives write most standard orthodox establishment history, they have little need to write revisionist history. Consequently, right-wingers write most revisionist history.

Among the right-wing writers of revisionist history are Dennis Cuddy, G. Edward Griffin, Jim Marrs, Jack Mohr, Eustace Mullins, Murray Rothbard, Antony Sutton, Nesta Webster, Clyde Wilson, and even Pat Buchanan. (This list is only a minute sample of right-wingers who have written revisionist histories.) Because these writers have written revisionist history, Confused considers them to be left-wingers, even communists. Following are some examples of revision history.

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that the French Revolution began as a spontaneous grassroots revolt of repressed peasants and proletarians against an oppressive aristocracy, monarchy, and clergy. Revisionist historians argue that the French Revolution was planned years earlier and was guided by elites and secret societies. (See “The French Revolution: Part I: The Foundation” by Thomas Allen.)

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that slavery was the cause, even the sole cause, of Lincoln’s War. The North fought to free the slaves, and the South fought to preserve and even to expand slavery.

Revisionist historians argue that slavery was a minor, even an insignificant issue, until about halfway through the war. Tariffs were the primary cause of secession for the Lower South, and the denial of the constitutional right of a State to secede was the primary cause of secession for the Upper South. (Until 1861, most people, including and especially New Englanders, claimed that States had a right to secede. However, once New Englanders and their allies in New York and the Upper Midwest gained control of the US government, States no longer had a constitutional right to secede.) Thus, the South fought against Northern exploitation, and the North fought to continue to exploit the South. Further, the South fought to preserve self-government and not to protect slavery. Most Southerners fought to repeal an invading hoard; if the Yankees had not invaded the South, no war would have occurred.

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack. Revisionist historians say that it was a surprise attack for the people at Pearl Harbor. However, it was not a surprise to Roosevelt and his inner circle. They knew about it before it happened. Not only did they let it happen, but Roosevelt facilitated the attack. (See “World War II” by Thomas Allen.)

Robert Welch, who was a co-founder of the John Birch Society, asserted that President Eisenhower was a Communist sympathizer and an agent of the Communist conspiracy. Standard orthodox establishment historians disagree with Welch.

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone assassin. Moreover, no conspiracy was involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. Revisionist historians argue that Oswald did not act alone; others were involved in the assassination, which made it a conspiracy. Furthermore, Oswald may not have been the actual assassin. (For more on the Kennedy assassination, see “A Credibility Test” by Thomas Allen.)

One left-wing revisionist history that has become partially, if not wholly, accepted as standard orthodox establishment history is that slaves in the Catholic Latin colonies were treated better than in the Protestant colonies of North America. This history is the opposite of the truth. Slaves were treated better in Protestant North America.

Another slavery-related left-wing revisionist history has become standard orthodox establishment history. That revisionist history was that slavery was the reason for Lincoln’s War. Many Republican leaders, who were the progressives of that day, promoted this revisionist history. Now, this explanation for the war is the standard orthodox establishment history.

Confused is like Imbecile; any history with which he disagrees is revisionist history. The standard definition of revisionist history, which he rejects, is any explanation of a historical event that disagrees significantly with the standard orthodox establishment explanation. (For more on revisionist history, see https://tcallenco.weebly.com/history.html.)

Discussion in Comments

Me: A revisionist history is a history that disagrees with the standard orthodox establishment history. It is a historical account based on facts or a perspective that differs from the standard orthodox establishment history, which emphasizes a particular narrative or agenda instead of objective facts. That is, the primary purpose of the standard orthodox establishment history is to declare that the victors had the moral high ground and were not at fault or to advance an agenda of the establishment. More often than not, revisionist history is closer to the truth than is the standard orthodox establishment history. https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2024/05/another-discussion-with-imbecile.html

Confused: That’s not correct. “Revisionist history” has a negative connotation and is usually applied to leftist manipulation of history.

There are facts relating to events that have happened. Actual history involves revealing and expressing those facts.

Me: If you are correct and I am wrong, then the official explanation of the Kennedy assassination and 9-11 are accurate, and the revisionists are wrong. Likewise, only revisionist historians claim that the Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election. Also, the conspiratorial history that the JBS [John Birch Society] spews out is revisionist history, and, therefore, it has a negative connotation and is usually applied to manipulate history if you are correct. Most revisionist historians do a better job of discovering and explaining facts relating to historical events than do the standard orthodox establishment historians, whom you seem to prefer to believe.

Confused: Your above analysis is incorrect and illogical.

The problem is semantics. You’re defining “revisionist history” in a very anomalous way. The people you’re describing are conspiracy theorists, who may be right or wrong. Here is the definition of “revisionism”: “1 : a movement in revolutionary Marxian socialism favoring an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary spirit.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revisionism

By calling correct historical interpretations “revisionism” YOU are unwittingly demonizing them by associating them with a negative label. You can do that if you wish, but it’s misguided and unwise.

Please stop hurting the cause.

Me: Your definition is for “revisionism” and not for “revisionist history.” Nevertheless, if you are correct, then people who question the official history of the Kennedy assassination and 9-11 and present an alternative explanation are Marxist socialists.

Confused: Again, that’s illogical. It’s only “revisionist history” if it’s an incorrect portrayal of history put forth to deceive and warp people’s conception of reality. So if the 9/11 doubters are correct, or at least if they’re questioning the official story in good faith, it’s not revisionist history.

Me: I have concluded that you are like Imbecile; any history with which you disagree is revisionist history. The standard definition of revisionist history, which you reject, is any explanation of a historical event that disagrees with the standard orthodox establishment explanation of that event. JBS’s conspiratorial explanation of various historical events is revisionist history, just as a communist class-warfare explanation of the same event is revisionist history.

Confused: Go bake some cookies, hon.

END

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More historical articles.

American Police State

American Police State

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was written in 2002, shortly after the enactment of the so-call PATRIOT Act]

    In defending his newly imposed restrictions on legal rights, President Bush said that “the Constitution is sacred” and that it will not be undermined in his war against terrorism. His actions contradict his words.
    He has had American citizens arrested and imprisoned without charges, hearings, or convictions and without access to an attorney or anyone else. Apparently, he can have anyone arrested and imprisoned indefinitely merely by labeling that person as “an enemy combatant.” The victim is not allowed to appeal this charge. This action violates the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, to be informed of the charges, to confront witnesses, and to have a lawyer.
    The Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) is building several large detention (prison) camps across the country. These centers may be used to imprison people who refuse an untested toxic vaccination, dissenters, segments of the population declared “enemy combatants,” terrorists like constitutionalists and Christians who believe that these are the last days, and others whom Bush deems undesirable.
    Bush endorsed and rapidly pushed through a scared, cowardly Congress his Anti-Patriot bill. This bill was not even available for Congressmen to read until after they had passed it.
    Under this law, federal agents can monitor conversations between a prisoner and his attorney. Such monitoring violates the Sixth Amendment.
    Court hearings can be, and are being, held in secret The Sixth Amendment requires trials to be public.
    The Anti-Patriot Act also makes a mockery of the Fourth Amendment. Now almost no restrictions are placed on searches and seizures. Probable cause is no longer needed for search warrants. (When Congress asked the Justice Department how many subpoenas had been issued under the Anti-Patriot Act, the Justice Department told Congress that the information was classified and could not be released. Nearly every time that the Bush Administration does is classified and cannot be released. Why all the secrecy? What is Bush trying to hide? The police state that he has given America.)
    Legal barriers to the police searching library records have been greatly reduced. These searches include removing hard drives of computers from libraries. Not only can the police view the Internet usage of a suspect, but they can also view the usage of everyone else who has recently used that computer. Until now, what one read was protected under the First Amendment. The Anti-Patriot Act has voided this First Amendment Protection.
    The only things that remain sacred are that racial profiling will not be used and the borders will not be closed to immigrants. Racial profiling and closing the borders to immigrants are not unconstitutional.
    Bush is knowingly, or possibly unknowingly, falling into an old standard Communist trap. A common Communist tactic is to commit terrorist acts to cause the government to react with oppression. The typical government reaction to terrorism is to clamp down on the freedom of the people. More terrorist acts are followed by more freedom-restricting reactions by the government. Soon the people are living in a police state that is nearly as oppressive as what the Communist would have imposed. Discontent and rebellion are often the results.
    If Bush were really serious about defeating terrorism, he would bring all the U.S. troops scattered across the globe home and use them to seal the borders to all immigrants. (He would also respect the posse comitatus law and refuse to allow troops to participate in law enforcement or to patrol American streets.) He would reduce immigration to zero. (The Mexican invasion is far more detrimental to American welfare than anything that Iraq, Hussein, bin Laden, al-Qaeda, or any other Arabic terrorist group could inflict.) He would institute a vigorous program to round up and deport all illegal immigrants. When an immigrant’s visa expired, he would have to return home.
    Instead of violating the Constitution to fight terrorism, Bush should use it. Anyone who is suspected of terrorism or collaborating with terrorists should be tried quickly in open court. If convicted, he should be sentenced to the fullest extent of the law. Any high-ranking governmental official who knew about the 9-11 attack, aided the terrorists in the attack, concealed information that could have prevented it, or otherwise aided the terrorists should be publicly executed.
    Instead of seeking to curb private ownership of firearms, Bush should be openly and vigorously encouraging it. He would push to repeal federal laws that impede private ownership of firearms. A highly armed citizenry is not only the best defense against terrorism, but it is also the best defense against a despotic police state.
    Bush would replace our Zionist Middle East foreign policy with a more even-handed one that did not favor either side. He would withdraw the United States from the United Nation and all those entangling alliances created under the authority of the United Nations including NAFTA and GATT. He would embargo trade with China, North Korea, Syria, Saudi-Arabia, and other countries whose governments support terrorists or whose governments allow private citizens to support terrorists.
    Instead of administering the government in secrecy, Bush would open the government up to public inspection. With the possible exceptions of weapons technology, manufacturing trade secrets, the identity of undercover agents, activities related to criminal investigations, and the like, he should declassify and unseal all governmental records and make them available to the public. If we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then the people need to know what the government is doing. Bush would make public all records concerning the 9-11 attack. He would release everything that could reveal who knew what when.
    If Bush’s goal is to turn the United States into a despotic police state with troops on the street where citizens fear both the government and terrorists, he is traveling the right road. If his goal is to defeat terrorism, protect the Constitution, and restore American freedom, he needs drastically change course.

Copyright © 2002 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Some Thoughts About Terrorism

Some Thoughts About Terrorism

Thomas Allen

The war on terrorism is being used to enslave the American people. This is illustrated below with the discussions on terrorism, fighting terrorism, and the Transportation Security Administration.

Terrorism
Congress has shredded the Bill of Rights in the name of protecting Americans from terrorists. Yet, it allows the greatest terrorist organization in the United States, if not the world, to continue to operate with impunity. If Congress really wanted to protect Americans from terrorists, it would abolish the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which exists at the pleasure of Congress. Since Congress continues to allow the IRS to operate, obviously it is not concerned with protecting the American people from terrorism. The purpose of the antiterrorist programs and agencies that Congress and the President have created is to enslave the American people and not to protect them.

Fighting Terrorism
A favorite slogan of the Bush administration’s war on terrorism was that we need to kill the terrorists over there so that they cannot kill us over here. How are they going to kill us over here unless the US government lets them in? The terrorists have no navy or air force. Surely, the greatest navy and air force in the world can stop any rickety vessels or air crafts that the terrorists might commandeer. Therefore, terrorists were and are no real threat to the American people unless the US government invites them in. Inviting them, the Bush and especially the Obama administrations did with their open borders and unlimited immigration policies.

Transportation Security Administration
People should be suspicions of alt-right, conservative, and libertarian leaders who do not openly protest the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and urge people to boycott flying on commercial airliners until the TSA is abolished. Moreover, these conservative leaders should lead by example and refuse to fly on commercial airliners until Congress abolishes the TSA. Their failure to do so shows that they prefer slavery and convenience to liberty.
The TSA is a highly visible apparatus of America’s police state. Its primary job is not to protect passengers from terrorists, but to teach them to be obedient slaves to ridiculous and humiliating requirements — just as Mussolini required his lieutenants to perform ridiculous and humiliating activities. If such a young, visible, and irritating agency of the police state can be abolished, then recovery of America is hopeful. If not, America is doomed to despotic tyranny.
Moreover, the TSA violates at least five of the amendments of the Bill of Rights: the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth. An argument for ignoring the violations of these inalienable rights is that flying is voluntary. Thus, by the mere act of flying on an airplane, a person voluntarily exchanges his inalienable rights for slavery, which is a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. Voting is also voluntary. Following the reasoning for violating the rights of airline passengers, Congress could require everyone registered voter to sign away all his inalienable rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.
If the spokesmen for the alt-right, conservatives, libertarians, and other preachers of liberty want to strike a blow for liberty, they need to refuse to fly on commercial airliners until the TSA is abolished and is replaced with nothing. Moreover, they need to urge their followers to imitate their example and refuse to fly on commercial airliners until Congress abolishes the TSA. Likewise, their followers need to persuade their friends and relatives to boycott commercial airlines. If enough people refuse to fly until Congress abolishes the TSA and replaces it with nothing, the airlines will eventually force Congress to abolish the TSA.
If people refuse to give up the short-term convenience of flying, they deserve enslavement. Unfortunately, they will also drag people who value freedom over slavery further down into slavery.
Nevertheless, the TSA does offer a great opportunity for pedophiles. Where else can a pedophile get paid to grope children all day long?

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.