Allan Pinkerton

Allan Pinkerton

Thoms Allen 

In To the Victor Go the Myths & Monuments: The History of the First 100 Years of the War Against God and the Constitution, 1776 - 1876, and Its Modern Impact (Appleton, Wisconsin: American Opinion Foundation Publishing, 2016), Arthur R. Thompson provides some interesting information about Allan Pinkerton of the Pinkerton detective fame.

In Scotland, Allan Pinkerton (1819–1884) became a leader of the Chartists and formed the Glasgow Democratic Club. (Chartists were communistic revolutionists.) As a young man in Scotland, he was involved in radical activity and frequently disobeyed the law. Because of his involvement in the communist Chartist movement, he fled to the United States to avoid arrest.

In 1843, Pinkerton left Scotland and settled in Chicago, where he became the first police detective in Chicago. In 1850, in response to problems that various railroad companies were having that required a security system, Pinkerton partnered with E.G. Rucker to form Chicago’s first detective agency. A year later, the partnership dissolved, and Pinkerton provided the security for the railroads with his own agency, which became known as the Pinkerton National Detective Agency. Lincoln, who was an attorney for the Illinois Central Railroad, became a friend and patron of Pinkerton while he was providing security.

Since Pinkerton was a contact for John Brown, Brown was often a guest at Pinkerton’s house. Frequently, he disobeyed the law and aided and abetted the terrorist Brown. He aided Brown in his move to Kansas. After Brown’s arrest, Pinkerton developed a plan to free him. Disguised as a Southern planter, he learned the layout of the prison and concluded that he could not free Brown. Consequently, the plan never came to fruition. 

As a participant in the Underground Railroad, Pinkerton aided in moving escaped slaves to Canada. Furthermore, he was instrumental in creating the psychological basis for the events that brought Lincoln’s War into being. 

At the beginning of the war, Pinkerton became the Union’s main intelligence officer and helped form the US Secret Service. “As one wag of the day quipped, ‘While Pinkerton's right hand caught lawbreakers, his left hand broke the law.’” (P. 352.)

Pinkerton warned Lincoln that an assassination attempt would be made on him as he journeyed to Washington for his inauguration. As a result, Lincoln disguised himself and switched trains. However, no evidence existed that such an assignation attempt was planned — except in Pinkerton’s mind.

If he were alive today, Pinkerton would be a leading supporter and spokesman for the Democratic Party. His radicalism would have melded effortlessly with that of today’s Democrats.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More historical articles.

Republicans, Democrats, and Populists

Republicans, Democrats, and Populists

Thomas Allen

Following Lincoln’s War, the Republicans used the Fourteenth Amendment and Fifteenth Amendment to debilitate the Democratic Party and destroy the South, which was the backbone of the Democratic Party. (Ironically, following World War II, both the Republicans and Democrats used them to destroy what remained of the South.) Before the Populists captured the Democratic Party following the last Cleveland administration, the South and the Democrats opposed most of the Republican Party’s policies and agendas.

Later, the Republican Party would use the Fourteenth Amendment to destroy the United States as a whole. (After World War II, Democrats joined the Republicans in using it to destroy the country.) This destruction began during the Eisenhower administration with the Warren Court. With the arrival of the Lyndon Johnson administration, the Democrats began surpassing the Republicans in bringing down the country and have now left the Republicans far behind in their mayhem.

In general, the Republican Party supported and mostly still supports a strong central government, government-business partnerships, mercantilism, protective tariffs,[1] internal taxes, corporate welfare, centralized banking, profligate spending, large-scale public works, growing federal debt, a large standing army, expansionism and imperialism, and a loose, expansive interpretation of the Constitution. It opposed States’ rights, free trade, and a limited, prudent, frugal federal government. Furthermore, it opposed State sovereignty and maintained, in practice, that sovereignty resides in those who really control the federal government. Hamilton is the forefather of the Republican Party.

On the other hand, the Democratic Party supported States’ rights, a small, limited federal government, little or no federal debt, free markets, free trade, tariffs for revenue only, decentralized banking with the States regulating banking, personal freedom, a strong emphasis on the Bill of Rights, and a strict interpretation of the Constitution. It opposed a strong centralized government, corporate welfare, protective tariffs, internal taxes, centralized banking, a large standing army, and a large federal debt. Moreover, it supported State sovereignty, i.e., “We the People” of each individual State were sovereign. Jefferson is the forefather of the Democratic Party. (By the time of the Wilson administration, the Democratic Party had abandoned Jefferson for Hamilton.  President Wilson was an admirer and imitator of Lincoln. Both were imperial presidents.[2])

During the Franklin Roosevelt administration, the Democratic Party became the image of the Republican Party. Most of the programs that Roosevelt adopted were extensions of Hoover’s programs. Following World War II, the Democratic Party became more Republican than the Republican Party. After the Republicans brought the country integration, affirmative action, and quotas, the Democrats pushed integration, miscegenation, and amalgamation with more vigor than did the Republicans.  Consequently, the Democratic Party promoted genocide of the White race with more ferocity than did the Republican Party. Additionally, the Democratic Party moved on to promote political correctness, wokeism, diversity-equity-inclusion, queerdom, and other perversions. Today’s Democratic Party is the logical conclusion of Lincoln’s Republican Party.

Ironically, today, the political philosophy of many rank-and-file Republicans is closer to that of the traditional Democratic Party than to the philosophy of the traditional and contemporary Republican Party.

In general, Populists agreed with the fundamental principles of the Republican Party. Their primary disagreement was that they wanted to use the power of the federal government to favor farmers and workers instead of big business. Like Progressives, they favored the envy-driven progressive income tax (the Sixteenth Amendment) and the direct election of US Senators (the Seventeenth Amendment), which weakened the States. Moreover, Populists favored cheap credit, cheap money (low-quality money), inflation, and cheating creditors by paying off debt with less valuable money. Unlike today’s Democrats and most Republicans, Populists want to restrict immigration.

Endnotes

1. Following World War II, the Republican Party abandoned advocating protective tariffs because most major American corporations had become international corporations. Protective tariffs no longer suited their needs. They wanted managed foreign trade. As a result, the Republican Party supported free trade agreements such as NAFTA, which USMCA replaced, and GATT, which managed trade to benefit multinational corporations.

2.  Like Lincoln, Wilson supported and promoted centralized banking and government-business partnerships — only Wilson was more fascist than Lincoln. Additionally, both had little regard for the Constitution of 1788, which they largely ignored. Furthermore, like Lincoln, Wilson suppressed free speech and imprisoned political opponents. Both were warmongers who led the country to an offensive war that could have easily been avoided. However, Lincoln had a more aggressive approach to the racial issue. While Lincoln wanted to ship Blacks out of the country, Wilson settled for segregating the races. Ironically, Glenn Beck ranks Lincoln as the best or second-best President and Wilson as the worst or second-worst president (Jackson is his rival). However, their similarities far outweigh their differences.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Rothbard on Lincoln’s War

Rothbard on Lincoln’s War

Thomas Allen

In “Just War,” which is based on a talk given in May 1994 and posted in March 2012 (https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/whats-a-just-war/), Murray Rothbard explains that the War for Southern Independence (Lincoln’s War) was a just war on the part of the South and an unjust war on the part of the North. (Rothbard [1926-1995] was a libertarian economist of the Austrian School, economic historian, and political theorist. He was a proponent of anarcho-capitalism and part of the post-World War II Old Right.)

Rothbard states that “a just war exists when a people tries to ward off the threat of coercive domination by another people, or to overthrow an already-existing domination. A war is unjust, on the other hand, when a people try to impose domination on another people, or try to retain an already existing coercive rule over them.” He identifies two just wars that Americans fought: the American Revolution and the War for Southern Independence.

The South was trying to free itself from the North’s oppressive domination — therefore, a just war on the part of the South. On the other hand, the North was trying to maintain its dominance over the South — therefore, an unjust war on the part of the North.

Before Lincoln’s War, a chief principle of war was not to target civilians. Sherman, Sheridan, and other Northern generals targeted civilians. The Union army often looted and deliberately destroyed civilian property that had no military value. When Lee’s army invaded the North, he ordered his troops not to molest civilians.

Like Americans during the American Revolution, Southerners believed that sovereignty resided in the people. They delegated certain sovereign powers to the governing authority, and their delegation was voluntary and contractual. As such, they could withdraw that sovereignty anytime that the governing authority had violated its trust. Thus, government was a contractual arrangement — “consent of the governed.” Some divine hand from above did not impose it. When the 13 States, whose governments had been created by the people thereof, ratified the Constitution of 1789, they did not bind themselves perpetually to it or the Union formed under it. Being sovereign republics, they reserved the right to withdraw from the Union if they found that the government created by the Constitution continuously violated it.

After years of the federal government threatening and assaulting Southern institutions, the Southern States “exercise their natural, contractual, and constitutional right to withdraw, to ‘secede’ from that Union.” Then, as sovereign republics, they contracted with other Southern States to form the Confederate States of America. Thus, just as the American Revolution was just, so was the War for Southern Independence. For the same reasons that the American colonies seceded from the British Empire, so did the Southern States secede from the Union formed under the Constitution of 1789.

Just as the American colonies rebelled against “the taxing power: the systematic plunder of their property by the British government,” so did the Southern States rebel against the systematic plunder of their property by the federal government. A principal grievance of the South was the protective tariffs that the North had imposed. These tariffs were used to protect inefficient Northern industries. Consequently, they forced Southerners to pay higher prices for manufactured goods. Also, these tariffs threaten to reduce Southern exports. Moreover, the South paid most of the tariffs, and the North received most of the appropriations and monopolistic Northern industries.

Not only did most Northerners want to continue plundering the South via tariffs, but others, the Yankees, also wanted to purge the South and remake it in the Yankee image. Yankees had a Puritan mentality and were driven by postmillennialism. (Before Christ returns, “man must set up a thousand-year Kingdom of God on Earth.”) Consequently, Yankees must cleanse society of sin and create a perfect society. “Moreover, if you didn’t try your darndest to stamp out sin by force you yourself would not be saved.” Further, the coercive power of government was an essential tool in cleansing the world of sin. For these Yankees, sin was anything “which might interfere with a person’s free will to embrace salvation.” They were abolitionists and prohibitionists and opposed Catholicism. Governments must stamp out the evils of slavery, alcohol and tobacco, gambling, most entertainment, and Catholicism.[1] Thus, they promoted paternalistic government at the federal, State, and local levels.

Like most Northerners, Yankees promoted governmental paternalism in economic affairs. They supported “the Whig program of statism and big government: protective tariffs, subsidies to big business, strong central government, large-scale public works, and cheap credit spurred by government.”

Also, Yankees opposed personal liberties, States’ rights, minimal government, free markets, and free trade — the basic principles of the Democratic Party at that time. Consequently, they supported the Republican Party, which was the “party of great moral ideas,” i.e., the stamping-out of sin.

To the delight of the Yankees, “The Northern war against slavery partook of fanatical millennialist fervor, of a cheerful willingness to uproot institutions, to commit mayhem and mass murder, to plunder and loot and destroy, all in the name of high moral principle and the birth of a perfect world.” Thus, the North fought “to maintain their coercive and unwanted rule over” the South.

Then, Rothbard compares the British during the American Revolution to the North during Lincoln’s War. “The British, at least, were fighting on behalf of a cause which, even if wrong and unjust, was coherent and intelligible: that is, the sovereignty of a hereditary monarch.” What was the North’s excuse? It had no allegiance to a real, actual person like a king. Its allegiance was “to a nonexistent, mystical, quasi-divine alleged entity, ‘the Union.’” Unlike a king, one cannot evaluate a Union’s deeds, and the Union is accountable to no one. Thus, Northerners replaced the Union formed under the Constitution of 1789, which was “a contractual institution that can either be cleaved to or scrapped,” with “a divinized entity, which must be worshipped, and which must be permanent, unquestioned, all-powerful.”

Using the cause of “human rights,” modern-day supporters of Lincoln’s War support and glorify his war. Lincoln “goes forth and rights the wrong of slavery, doing so through mass murder, the destruction of institutions and property, and the wreaking of havoc which has still not disappeared.” Yet, all other countries ended slavery without war.

Endnote

1. Most of the sins on which Yankees focused were vices. (Vice sins are sins that injure the sinner and his family but do not generally injure others.) For the most part, they not only ignored but also often supported sins that injured others, such as homicide (offensive wars), looting the public treasury (subsidies), and forcing the common people to pay higher prices (tariffs), often for lower quality goods. Many frequently supported business dealings where merchants took advantage of ignorant customers. Most did not object to debtors cheating creditors with depreciating fiat money — then the two largest debtors were banks and governments. As for slavery, they objected to the ownership of slaves. However, they had little issue with transporting and selling slaves, as many Yankees became rich trafficking slaves. Moreover, when the Northern States emancipated slaves, most Yankees sold their slaves instead of freeing them.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern issues articles.

Republicans Owned Blacks

Republicans Owned Blacks

Thomas Allen

I posted a comment on a comment on “Trump Surprises BLM Activist!” by Vince Quill (https://wltreport.com/2023/11/30/president-trump-surprises-blm-activist/). [Note: If you go to this site, you will not see my comments because it has banned me. Apparently, I objected too much about it censoring my comments telling the truth about God’s chosen people and their political movement.] My comment was “From 1865 to around 1960, the Republicans owned the slaves; then, the Democrats acquired ownership.” Not surprisingly, my comment received several negative responses. For the most part, these commenters seem to be victims of orthodox establishment propaganda that is called history.

Most of the commenters to the newsletter containing this article are anti-Democrats, anti-RINOs, pro-Republicans, especially pro-Trump, and racial nihilists who practice the new morality. (Interesting, when I commented on another article that most commenters of this newsletter were racial nihilists who practiced the new morality, that comment was censored.) Many have Dixiephobic and, especially, Confederaphobic tendencies. 

This discussion is presented in the appendix. Only the pertinent comments are given.

What caused the negative comments was that “the Republicans owned slaves.” Although this phrase is a little hyperbola, it is the truth.

During Reconstruction, carpetbaggers and scalawags, backed by the Union army, used freed slaves to aid them in their plunder of the South. As payment, Blacks filled many elected and appointed political positions and used their new power to further plunder the South. They increased the debt in some Southern States so unbearably high that these States repudiated their debts following the end of Reconstruction.

In the South, Republicans maintained control of Blacks during Reconstruction. In the North, Republicans gained control of Blacks by giving them the vote via the Fifteenth Amendment.

After Reconstruction, Republicans maintained control of Blacks, although they mostly neglected them. Moreover, Republicans left the control of race relations to the States where it constitutionally belonged.

In the South, States made voting difficult for Blacks primarily for two reasons. (1) During Reconstruction, Blacks had proven their incompetence at participating in government.  (2) Most Blacks would have voted for Republicans, the party that had destroyed the South.

During the Franklin Roosevelt administration, the Democrats started replacing Republicans as owners of Blacks. The Democrats acquired ownership of Blacks by offering them more booty and privileges than the Republicans were offering. President Johnson sealed the deal with the Civil Rights Act and the War on Poverty.

Moving on to the founding of the Democratic Party, E claims that the modern Democratic Party was formed in 1828, and Jefferson was not a founder of it. He is deceiving with a partial truth. Apparently, he hates Democrats and does not want anything with “Republican” in its name to be associated with the Democratic Party. (You will notice from E’s comment to my comment on the founding principles of the Republican Party, that ignorance and stupidity consume him. Since he cannot refute my claim, he resorts to name-calling. He is the one who has drunk the cool aid of orthodox establishment propaganda, which is erroneously called history.)

According to Compton’s Pictured Encyclopedia (1957), The World Book Encyclopedia (1971), and Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia (1983), the Democratic Party grew out of the Democratic-Republican Party, which Thomas Jefferson founded. The Democratic-Republican Party advocated a strict interpretation of the Constitution and States’ rights. In 1828, it split into two parties: the Democratic Party and the National Republican Party, which the Whig Party later absorbed. Representing the Eastern interest, the National Republican Party advocated nationalism, protective tariffs, and centralized banking (then called national banking) — policies that the Republican Party advocated after the collapse of the Whig Party. Representing the Western and Southern interests, the Democratic Party advocated States’ rights, tariffs for revenue only, and an independent Treasury — thus, it continued the original policies of the Democratic-Republican Party that Jefferson founded but under a shorter name.

When wokeism and political correctness do not consume it, the Democratic Party claims Jefferson (the first president of the Democratic-Republican Party) and Jackson (the first president of the Democratic Party) as its founders.

As for Abraham Lincoln, whom all these commenters idolize, he believed in and promoted corporate welfare (subsidies to big businesses), protective tariffs (a form of corporate welfare), internal improvements (a form of corporate welfare), national banking (now called centralized banking), and preserving the territories for Whites (Black should be kept out of them). (I suspect that these commenters oppose corporate welfare and centralized banking, although they may support corporate welfare in the form of protective tariffs.) Lincoln’s job as president was to serve big business and convert the United States from a federation of sovereign nations to a consolidated empire. In this task, he was highly successful.

Appendix

The following are the original comment I commented on and the pertinent comments that followed. The pseudonyms have been changed to protect the guilty. 

C: Yep, democrats keeping their slaves on the plantation since the end of the Civil War. Only they no longer house them on their property.

Me to C: From 1865 to around 1960, the Republicans owned the slaves; then, the Democrats acquired ownership.

E to Me: That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. You must be reading those revisionist history books.

The foundation of the Republican Party was on abolitionism (that means that a person is AGAINST slavery, and not for it), and the Democrat Party was so adamantly for it, at least one Republican Congressman was murdered on the Floor by a Democrat (but because he was a Democrat, he apparently was never charged, just like today). After losing the Civil War, the Democrat Party formed the KKK, to intimidate and kill “uppity niggers”that dared to speak up. In the 1960’s, the Democrat Party went on a new path: make blacks willing slaves, by offering them money to have babies, not marry, not get an education, and as a result, they were beholden to the Democrat Party for all "free money" and such they got.

D to E: Thank you, you explained it a lot better then I did, but I was trying to explain it as simply as I could because thats [sic] how you have to for some people that never listened in history class. About the black babies they should read about the abortionist herself Margret [sic] Sanger. And if anyone doesn’t think Librals [sic] aren’t trying to bring Socialism to us, they could read the 8 rules of socialism by Saul Alinski [sic]. Oh and lets [sic] not forget Democrats voted into Congress a good friend of Joe Biden’s The one Head Master of the KKK, ROBERT BYRD. And Hillary Clinton done [sic] her college thesis on Saul Alinski [sic] and praised how great she thought he was.

Me to E: The foundation of the Republican Party was to keep Blacks out of the territories, to subsidize big business, and to establish central banking, which it did with the national banking law. The Republicans could have aided the freed slaves by giving them land in the territories. However, since the territories were preserved for Whites, they didn’t. They wanted them to stay in the South as punishment for Southerners. Moreover, Lincoln stated that he had no intention of freeing the slaves until he could use freeing the slaves as war propaganda. He always said that he was fighting to preserve the Union, which is why nearly all Northerners fought. His Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves because it only applied to slaves in places that the Union army did not control. It exempted places under the control of the Union Army. Moreover, if Lincoln had gone to war to free the slaves, he would not have had much of an army because Northerners would have rebelled. Most Northerners despised the abolitionists almost as much as Southerners despised them. Northerners feared if slaves were freed a significant number of them would migrate to the North, and they did not want Blacks in the North. Further, the slaves were freed in the Confederate States before they were freed in the Union States. The KKK was created to protect Southerners from an occupying army as the French did during WWII. Unfortunately for the Blacks, they were the tools that the carpetbaggers and scalawags used to pillage the South, and thus, they received the brunt of the retaliations. The people who formed the KKK disbanded it a few years later. However, the KKK was later resurrected, and in the 1920s, it was stronger in the Republican North than in the Democratic South. This will surprise most of these people who cannot think beyond “Democrats created the KKK” and “all are Democrats evil,” Jefferson is the father of the Democratic Party, and the last truly Jeffersonian president was a Democrat, Cleveland.

E to Me: Oh, my God; you drank the whole jug of Cool-Aid! Just where did you get this claptrap? From the Democrat Party website? I suppose that next, you’ll inform us, that the Democrat Party was really the party of Black Freedom, and it was the Republican Party that wanted to keep the slaves, right?

Stop trying to greenlight us, and try to convince us that a turd is really a Baby Ruth bar.

For everyone’s edification, the modern Democrat Party was formed in 1820, not by Jefferson; he was long-dead by then.

Me to E:  Revisionist history books are often closer to the truth than are establishment orthodox history books. Examples are the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, and 9-11.

Me to Me: Those who give the down votes on this comment [on revisionist history] must believe the official story of the Kennedy assassination and the official governmental conspiracy story of 9-11 because they are the orthodox history of these events. If they are consistent, they believe that the COVID so-called vaccine saved millions of lives while killing almost no one because that the establishment orthodox history.

D to Me: Such BS . Guess history wasn’t one of your strong subjects. This is a little bit of history, Abraham Lincoln - A REPUBLICAN writer of the emancipation to free the slaves. DEMOCRATS FOUGHT AGAINST IT. AND has had the blacks under their thumb for 200 + years later and a commie loving Democrat in office again that’s letting every TOM, DICK and HARRY cross their open border, has every Communist country pointing nuclear weapons at us, has depleted our oil supplies, and our military, there’s no way we’d ever win. I’m glad blacks are waking up.

H to Me: You need to catch up on your history. Democrats have been changing the history so know one will know the truth about what they did. The civil war proves that the Republicans wanted freedom of slaves and the democrats did not. The democrats started the KKK, THEY WERE SYMPATHIC [sic] TO THE Nazis, THEY SUPPRESSED THE BLACK COMMUNITY AND TREATED THEM LIKE 2ND CLASS CITIZENS FROM THE GET GO. Blacks mostly voted Republican from after the Civil War and through the early part of the 20th century. That’s not surprising when one considers that Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president, and the white, segregationist politicians who governed Southern states in those days were Democrats. Nwaubani Ogogo Oriaku, WAS A BLACK BUSINESS MAN WHO SOLD SLAVES!!!! Nwaubani Ogogo's slaves were sold through the ports of Calabar and Bonny in the south of what is today known as Nigeria. IMAGINE THAT.

Me to H: Much of my information comes from the time that the Republicans were in charge of writing history. Your sources of the civil war, which was not a civil war, seem to come from the Democratic, liberal, progressive, and neoconservative sanitized version of that war. How could the KKK be sympathetic to the Nazis when the Nazis did not arrive until about 70 years later? By that time, most KKK organizations were governmental sting operations to entrapped dimwits. Lincoln was a racist bigot who wanted to repatriate all Blacks. Since slavery was better protected within the Union than outside the Union, slavery was not the cause of the war. (Here are some comments that Lincoln said about Blacks: https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2019/10/lincoln-on-negro-race.html. Here is what the typical antebellum Northerner thought of Blacks: https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-antebellum-northerners-opinion-of.html. Here is evidence that slavery did not cause the war: https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2012/12/slavery-not-reason.html. Of course, you are too lazy and opinionated to read them.)

The founding principles of the Republican Party were hatred of the Constitution and Southerners, disunion, and the concentration of political power in the federal government. Being a White man’s party, the Republican Party had little use for Blacks — free or slave. (https://tcallenco.blogspot....[?])

Moreover, the Democratic-controlled Confederate states freed their slaves before the Republican-controlled Union States freed theirs. Further, Blacks received the vote in the South before they received it in most of the Northern States.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political issues.

King on Where We Are Going– Part 1

King on Where We Are Going– Part 1

Thomas Allen

In “Where We Are Going,” Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), pages 143–176, Martin Luther King, Jr., discusses the development of civil rights programs, power, Negro economic activity, labor unions, Negro political power and voting, Negro leaders, and poverty. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

(First, I must remind the reader that most conservatives and nearly all conservative commentators consider King a conservative. Furthermore, many conservative commentators assert that King is an archconservative and the greatest conservative ever. Some have even deified him. Hereafter, all these conservatives are referred to as King-idolizing conservatives. Since King is an archconservative, these King-idolizing conservatives should advocate everything that King advocated.)

King blames the Vietnam War for the slow progress of the civil rights movement and the cause of the absence of program advancement. Although many programs had been proposed, most had been ignored. Moreover, the federal government failed to enforce existing laws that would have advanced the cause of the civil rights movement.

Chastising the federal government, King declares, “Underneath the invitation to prepare programs is the premise that the government is inherently benevolent.” (P. 144.) (One thing that the civil rights movement taught, or should have taught, Southerners is that the federal government is malevolent — just as it was during the First Reconstruction.)

Next, King complains about shifting the burden of producing civil rights programs from the White majority to the oppressed minority. This shifting of the burden gave Whites an excuse to do nothing and to claim that Negroes wanted nothing. (Placing the burden on Whites allowed Negroes to blame Whites for the failure of such programs although they failed because of the Negro’s innate attributes. Nevertheless, when Whites finally did push forward civil rights and related programs, they gave the country to the Negro and then enslaved themselves to the Negro. Is the country any better off because of this suicidal act of Whites?)

King declares, “When a people are mired in oppression, they realize deliverance when they have accumulated the power to enforce change.” (P. 144.) (Now the Negro has the power to enforce change. Have they changed the country for the better or the worse? If for the better, why is America destroying itself and why is America far, far more divided today than in the 1960s?)

Then, King states, “Our nettlesome task is to discover how to organize our strength into compelling power so that government cannot elude our demands.” (P. 145.) (King’s followers accomplished this goal. Not only do the federal and State governments not elude Negro demands, but they also exceed those demands while Whites attack each other for not giving the Negro more. Reparations are the only demand where Whites have not yet surrendered, but that surrender is coming.)

King wanted programs that would satisfy the Negro’s aspirations. (Within a few years after King’s death, Whites showered Negroes with rapine, benefits, and privileges that Whites never enjoyed. Yet, Negroes still demand more.)

Next, King laments that “too few Negro thinkers have exerted an influence on the main currents of American thought.” (P. 146.) (This problem has now been solved. Has the country improved because of it?)

Continuing, King complains about the lack of Negro businesses. (Negro businesses were growing under segregation during the Jim Crow Era. However, the civil rights moment diminished them — at least initially.)

Although King condemns labor unions in other essays for discriminating against Negroes, he praises them in this essay for creating racial harmony and for providing Negroes hospitality and mobility. Further, unions had brought Negroes high wages. Still, Negroes needed to increase their influence in the labor movement. He notes, “The coalition of an energized section of labor, Negroes, unemployed and welfare recipients may be the source of power that reshapes economic relationships and ushers in a breakthrough to a new level of social reform. The total elimination of poverty, now a practical possibility, the reality of equality in race relations and other profound structural changes in society may well begin here.” (P. 150.) (King-idolizing conservatives take note.)

Then King discusses Negroes using their vote as consumers to exert economic power. They needed to use the boycott to give them what they demanded. (Some Whites attempted to use the boycott to counter Negro boycotts. However, because of a lack of White unity and disorganization, White boycotts failed. Unlike White boycotts, Negroes were unified and organized in their boycotts; therefore, they succeeded. Now, after 55 years, Whites finally learned something from the Negro and are using boycotts to punish businesses that promote wokeism and queerdom, but not interracial mating. Since the country is rapidly succumbing to wokeism and queerdom, how effective these boycotts will be, remains to be seen.)

Part of the Negro’s demands was quotas for Negroes. The workforce in each category should reflect the percentage of the Negro population. (Qualifications of the Negro for the job did not matter. What mattered was his race. Consequently, all King-idolizing conservatives need to support hiring based on race to meet the quota.)

Next, King comments on the rising political power of the Negro. The population in major cities was rising because of Negro migration and because the Negro birthrate was exceeding that of Whites in the cities. “The two trends, along with the exodus of the white population to the suburbs, are producing fast-gathering Negro majorities in the large cities.” (P. 154.) (As a result, Negroes have taken control of several major cities. In other major cities where they do not control directly, they control indirectly through their kowtowing White slaves.) By controlling governments of large cities, especially in the North, Negroes obtained enough political power substantially to “determine the political destiny of the state.” (P. 154.) 

King remarks that through a coalition of urban minorities, Negroes will control the Democratic Party. (Where Negroes are a significant part of the electorate, Democrats usually need the Negro vote to win. The question is, do Negroes use White Democrats or do White Democrats use Negroes?) Continuing, King states that even the Republican Party needs the Negro’s vote to win, especially in the presidential elections. (Even today, most Republicans believe that they need the Negro vote to win although only a small percent vote for Republicans and although Republicans have won more presidential elections than Democrats since the 1965 voting rights act. If Whites valued the interest of their race as Negroes do theirs and voted for the candidate that served their racial interest as Negroes do, no White presidential candidate would need the Negro vote.)

Then, King comments on Negroes destroying the power of the Dixiecrats and Southern reactionaries. Consequently, they eliminated the power of Dixiecrats and Southern reactionaries in Congress. Thus, Congress can impose the Negro’s agenda on the South and then the rest of the country(, which it did). 

Next, King discusses the need for Negroes in party politics. Traditionally, White political leaders have manipulated Negroes. (Some believe that White political leaders still manipulate Negroes. White oligarchs have been highly successful in manipulating Negroes to increase the power and wealth of the oligarchs.) He criticizes the typical Negro politician, most of whom were frontmen whom Whites had picked and supported. About these Negro politicians, King writes, “Tragically, he is in too many respects not a fighter for a new life but a figurehead of the old one.” (P. 156.) Then, he comments on the poor performance and distrust of Negro politicians.

About what Negroes need to do, King states that “we shall have to do more than register and more than vote; we shall have to create leaders who embody virtues we can respect, who have moral and ethical principles we can applaud with an enthusiasm that enables us to rally support for them based on confidence and trust.” (P. 158.) (This goal has only been partially achieved. Many Negro politicians have come forward whom Negroes and even many Whites enthusiastically support. However, most of these Negro politicians lack moral and ethical principles — just as many White politicians lack moral and ethical principles.) Continuing, King demands, “We will have to demand high standards and give consistent, loyal support to those who merit it.” (P. 158.) (Negroes have failed to demand high standards. But, then, since King’s moral and ethical standards were low, he may have been considering his low standards as high. Anyway, most Negroes give consistent loyal support to Negro political leaders whatever their standards. Many Whites are also guilty of supporting Negro politicians with low standards and with no moral or ethical principles.)

Next, King describes the need for Negroes to become politically independent and ways to force machine politicians to bow to the Negro’s will. Then, he states, “The future of the deep structural changes we seek will not be found in the decaying political machines. It lies in new alliances of Negroes, Puerto Ricans, labor, liberals, certain church and middle-class elements.” (Pp. 158-159.)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2

More social issues articles.

A Credibility Test

A Credibility Test

Thomas Allen

The following is a test to decide if a person is credible and has a rudimentary knowledge of recent American political history. It is especially useful for politicians and political commentators. (This article is an expansion of the credibility test given in “More Political Thoughts.”)

Does the person believe or act as though he believes:

1. The official story of the Kennedy assassination. (Along with the many other flaws and anomalies of the official story, the person believes that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone assassin who killed President Kennedy by firing three shots from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. He believes that Oswald could fire three shots in six seconds and hit two men 200 feet away with a cheap, low-quality, defective rifle. Further, he believes that a single high-powered rifle bullet penetrated both Kennedy and Governor Connally causing seven wounds, shattering a rib and wrist bone, and emerging in almost pristine condition. Also, he must believe that all the eyewitnesses whose accounts contradict the official story deliberately lied. Moreover, he believes that the statements in the Warren Report that have subsequently been shown to be inaccurate or untrue are still true and accurate. On the other hand, he must ignore (1) evidence that more than three shots were fired, (2) the overwhelming evidence that shots were fired from the Grassy Knoll, (3) evidence of more than one rifle being used and more than one shooter, (4) the lack of evidence that places Oswald on the sixth floor of the Depository at the time of the shooting and the evidence that he was not on the sixth floor at that time, (5) no evidence that Oswald ever had possession of the rifle used in the assassination (moreover, the scope on the rifle was adjusted for a left-handed shooter; Oswald was right-handed), (6) a tree branch prevented a clear line of sight from the window of the sixth floor of the Depository, (7) Oswald never achieving marksmanship standard when he was in the Marines, (8) the paraffin test made on Oswald on the day of the assassination suggesting that he had not fired a rifle that day, (9) evidence that the FBI put Oswald’s finger prints on the murder weapon after he died, (10) the scientific evidence that different bullets struck Kennedy and Connally, (11) Connally’s claim that different bullets hit him and Kennedy, (12) the poor quality superficial autopsy, (13) the Dallas doctors claiming that Kennedy had a large hole in the right rear of his head while the Bethesda doctors claimed that the wound stretched from the upper side of the rear to the right front, (14) Kennedy’s body being wrapped in a white sheet and placed in an expensive bronze casket in Dallas for transport to Bethesda and arriving at Bethesda in a black zipper body bag inside a cheap military shipping casket, (15) changing the location of the entry wound between Kennedy’s shoulder blade that exited through his throat, which required the bullet to travel in an upward direction, by raising the entry wound to fit the official story, (16) the throat wound being smaller than the back wound, which suggests that the bullet entered the throat and exited the back. (17) evidence that three bullets hit Kennedy instead of two, and (18) the Commission not being allowed to see the autopsy photographs and X-rays. Moreover, he must ignore the Commission, FBI, and other federal agencies suppressing evidence that conflicted with the official story, changing evidence to support the official story, and harassing and intimidating witnesses whose testimony conflicted with the official story. Also, he must disagree with members of the Warren Commission who later questioned the conclusions of the Warren Report. Above all, he must believe that the Kennedy assassination involved no conspiracy.

2. The official governmental conspiracy theory of 9-11. (A gang of Muslims, who could hardly fly trainer aircraft, hijacked four passenger airplanes. They flew two into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, which caused the two buildings to collapse at near free-fall speed into their footprints. Somehow, they also caused Building 7 to collapse at near free-fall speed into its footprint. Moreover, they made an impossible turning maneuver to fly an airplane into the Pentagon so that they could avoid hitting the side of the building, which required no turn, where Rumsfeld’s office was. Instead, they made an impossible turn and hit the side of the building where an audit of the Department of Defense’s expenditures was occurring. Remarkably, they managed to do this by causing a hole in the building much smaller than their hijacked airplane and causing no damage to the adjacent lawn. If such miracles were not enough, they managed to create a fire hot enough to vaporize aluminum, greater than 4400̊F, yet cool enough not to incinerate human bodies, less than 1400̊F. Further, the hijackers caused several simulations of hijacked aircraft to occur while they carried out their dastardly deed. Moreover, they changed the standard operating procedures for intercepting hijacked airplanes. Additionally, the hijackers sent intercepting jets from airfields far enough away and at slow enough speeds so that they could not intercept the hijacked aircraft before they crashed into the buildings. Moreover, the United States have the most incompetent intelligence agencies that have ever existed throughout history [If this notion is rejected, then the other two choices are {1} high-ranking governmental officials knew that the attack was going to happen and let it happen or {2} high-ranking governmental officials collaborated in the attack.])

3. That the Democrats did not steal the 2020 presidential election but won it fairly. (Thus, the person believes that 81 million people hate America so much that they voted for its destruction by putting the great destroyer in office, who has done an excellent job in destroying the country.)

4. That White replacement is a hoax. (No program exists to replace Whites [Aryans, Homo albus] in Europe, the United States, and the White Anglophone countries with people of color: Negro [H. niger], Melanochroi [H. brunus], Turanian [H. luridus], Indo-Australian [H. australis], and  Khoisan [H. khoisanii]. [Being racial nihilists, most conservatives and libertarians, or albusphobes, most liberals and progressives, they refuse to acknowledge the facts that prove that White replacement is true.])

If a person answers “yes” to any of these statements, his credibility is questionable. If he answers “yes” to two or three, he has no credibility. If he answers “yes” to all four, he is ignorant beyond repair and is irredeemably stupid.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Black Replacement

Black Replacement

Thomas Allen

In “They’re Replacing You, Black America” (June 2, 2022, https://www.takimag.com/article/theyre-replacing-you-black-america-2/), Ann Coulter argues that immigrants are replacing Blacks and not Whites. As the following table shows, immigrants are not replacing Blacks. They are replacing Whites.

Coulter is a Dixiephobe and a Negrophile. With the possible exception of the American Negro, she is a racial nihilist who practices the new morality of sacrificing the races on the altar of humanity. Concerning the American Negro, she partially proclaims the old morality of racial preservation although she probably does not object to Blacks marrying outside their race, which destroys racial preservation.

Also, she believes that Republicans are the saviors of Blacks while Democrats are the enslavers of Blacks. Unfortunately, Blacks fail to recognize Republicans as their saviors and Democrats as their enslavers.

As the following table shows, the percentage of the White population has been declining since 1950. With the passage of the 1965 immigration act, the Regan amnesty, other acts and policies favorable to nonwhite immigrants, and the open-door policies of Clinton and the following administrations, the percentage of the White population has plummeted. On the other hand, except for 2020, the percentage of the Black population has been rising. Thus, immigrants are replacing Whites and not Blacks. (The non-Hispanic Whites percentage may be a better indicator of White replacement. Most Hispanics identify themselves as White although only about 20 percent are White. Except for Hispanics from the Caribbean, who are mostly Negroes and mulattoes, most Hispanics are Turanians [American Indians] and mestizoes.) Although the percentage of the Black population dropped in 2020, its total population rose. However, the White population dropped in total number in 2020. It fell from about 224 million in 2010 to about 204 million in 2020.

Coulter’s concern is about Blacks losing job opportunities to immigrants instead of Blacks falling behind in population. With some justification, she argues that immigrants, who are mostly people of color, are filling set-asides, quotas, and affirmative action jobs reserved for Blacks. (Apparently, employers have found that these immigrants are better and more competent workers than Blacks and that they satisfy the diversity and inclusiveness goals of discriminating against Whites — especially White males.)

Coulter claims that the purpose of the 1965 immigration act was to flood the country with cheap labor. (No, the real purpose was to genocide Whites.) She claims that employers have lost their source of cheap labor with the death of slavery and Jim Crow. (Slavery was dying because slave labor was becoming more expensive than free labor. That is, slaves were losing to the cheap labor of free Whites. Under Jim Crow, the Black middle class was rapidly growing, which is why the communists sought to destroy Jim Crow. Blacks had to provide services for Blacks that they could not readily obtain from Whites.)

Coulter asserts that “black academics, intellectuals and activists have been screaming from the rooftops about the devastating impact of mass third world immigration on African Americans.” (These Black academics, intellectuals, and activists must be an extremely small minority of the Black leadership as one rarely hears them.) Yet, most self-appointed Black leaders and politicians support unlimited third-world immigration.

Although Coulter moans about these third-world immigrants replacing Black workers, she places none of the blame on Blacks. Perhaps, if Blacks showed enough ambition to abandon their criminal and welfare state of mind, were more responsible, acquired a basic education not based on equity, developed a better attitude, and disposed of their entitlement mentality, they would be more employable and marketable and could successfully compete with third-world immigrants. After all, with set-asides, quotas, and affirmative action, the system is rigged in favor of Blacks and against Whites. Unfortunately, for Blacks, nonwhite immigrants have learned to game the system, and employers prefer them to satisfy their antiwhite agendas because they are more competent than Blacks.

Nevertheless, the real blame for replacing both White and Black workers with third-world people of color lies with the political leaders and the people who support them. With the 1965 immigration act, they opened the United States to third-world nonwhite immigrants. Further, they have encouraged ever-increasing numbers of nonwhite immigrants with various laws and policies.

Further, Coulter complains about Blacks losing their political power to immigrants. (Although nearly all these immigrants are people of color, most have no use for Blacks. For the most part, their opinion of Blacks is lower than that of the stereotypical Klansman. Even Black immigrants have a low opinion of American Blacks.)

Democrats take Blacks for granted. Blacks are going to support the Democratic Party no matter how poorly the Democrats treat them. (This attitude is not restricted to Blacks and Democrats. Most White conservatives still support the Republican Party despite the poor treatment the Republican leadership, especially at the federal level, gives them.)

Pessimistically, Coulter concludes with “without the tiniest sliver of hope that historic black America will ever notice that the Democratic Party is screwing them six ways from Sunday.”  Thus, by stating that Blacks are too stupid to learn that the Democratic Party is using them, Coulter proclaims the low intelligence of Blacks. (Like many Blacks who are too stupid to realize that they are being used, many Whites also suffer from this handicap.) She chastises Republicans who waste resources trying to win the Black vote.

In any event, Whites are suffering much more from the large-scale immigration of nonwhites than are Blacks. This nonwhite immigration is slowly genociding Whites.

 

Appendix. Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck, who like Coulter, is a racial nihilist and a Dixiephobe, agrees with the progressives about White replacement. On his radio program, he declared that White replacement was a hoax, a conspiracy theory. Obviously, he has not looked at the US population statistics for some decades. ("Conspiracy theory" is a derogatory term used to smear someone without offering any proof that he is wrong.)

Cochran’s Law Lexicon defines conspiracy as “an unlawful combination or agreement between two or more persons to carry into effect a purpose hurtful to some individual, or class, or the public at large.” Thus, when two or more people collaborate to carry out an act that harms an individual, class of people, or the public, a conspiracy exists. White replacement requires more than one person to carry out, and it is harmful to White Americans as it ultimately genocides them. Therefore, White replacement is a conspiracy fact and not a conspiracy theory.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

The Democratic Party

 The Democratic Party

Thomas Allen

Today, the Democratic Party is America’s version of Europe’s social democratic parties. It is a party of progressive egalitarianism. Like these parties, the Democratic Party promotes a cradle-to-grave welfare state, diversity, unlimited third-world immigration, multiculturalism, multiracialism, and globalism. Also, the Democratic Party advocates indoctrination through government schools and a social system where perversions, libertinism, hedonism, narcissism, and wokeism are encouraged and traditional values are suppressed. In economic matters, like the European social democrats, it espouses a form of democratic fascism with government-business partnerships, i.e., managerial capitalism and the managerial state (a social justice-welfare state with a regulated market economy — welfare capitalism). Like all left-wing parties, the Democratic Party forcibly takes the property of others, often enslaves them, and at times kills them to satisfy its lusts, desires, biases, and prejudices. However, unlike the European social democratic parties, the Democratic Party pursues foreign intervention (imperialism) to impose its ideals on the rest of the world. Yet, the Democratic Party has not always been a fascist or semi-socialist party.

The neoconservatives and most of the alt-right claim that the Democratic Party is the party of racism, slavery, segregation, and “Jim Crow.” This is a highly misleading exaggeration. Racists (whatever that now means — see “Are You a Racist?” by Thomas Allen for more than 700 definitions of “racist”) and segregationists dominated both the Republican and Democratic parties until after World War II. All parties in the United States presided over slavery until 1865. (Even President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation protected slavery in areas under the control of the Union army when Lincoln issued it.) However, today, the Democratic Party is free of these charges except it fosters discrimination against and racial hostility toward Whites.

(According to the argument of the neoconservatives and the alt-right, today’s Democrats are racists, segregationists, and advocates of Jim Crow because some Democrats were racists, segregationists, and advocates of Jim Crow in the past. If their argument is correct, then today’s Republican Party is the party of repatriationists and eugenists because Republican President Lincoln wanted to repatriate the Negroes and Republican President Roosevelt was a eugenist.)

Unfortunately for the neoconservatives and most of the alt-right, their assertion that the Republican Party is the party that advocates freedom and civil rights for the Negro is flawed. Following Lincoln’s War, Republicans supported civil rights, voting rights, and privileges for Blacks not because they cared about the Negro. Even the abolitionists only cared about Negroes in the abstract; they did not care about them as concrete individuals. Republicans wanted to use the Negro to retain power and to finish genociding the Southerner — to finish what the Union army failed to do.

Later the Democratic Party usurped this endeavor to finish genociding the Southerner from the Republicans. In the 1950s with the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education and the civil rights and related laws in the 1960s, the Democratic Party earnestly sought to complete the work of the Republicans to genocide the Southerner. In this drive to exterminate Southerners, the Democratic Party has sought to genocide all Whites despite Whites controlling the Democratic Party. Like the Republican Party, the Democratic Party has never cared about the Negro per se; both parties have always used the Negro to genocide the Southerner and to gain and retain political power. To them, the Negro is just a useful tool.

In the nineteenth century, the Democratic Party was the party of “the old republican American tradition: resistance to unconstitutional powers and a proper relationship between state and general governments; strict economy in federal expenditures; opposition to corporate welfare in all its manifestations; sound money and a stable currency; peaceful neutrality and the cultivation of international trade; and more broadly the spirit of personal and political independence.”[1]

Under the leadership of William Bryan, the populists captured the Democratic Party. Then, with the election of Woodrow Wilson, the progressives gained control of the Democratic Party. Under Franklin Roosevelt, the progressives morphed into fascists. President Lyndon Johnson transformed the Democratic Party into the social democratic party that it is today. Thus, the Democratic Party now stands for the opposite of what it stood for 130 years ago.

Endnote

1.  Brion McClanahan, “Rejecting the ‘Proposition Nation,’ Chronicles, April/May 2021, p. 21.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Russia Versus Ukraine

Russia Versus Ukraine

Thomas Allen

The following are some of my observations about the Russian-Ukraine conflict. Most of these observations are aimed at the hypocrisy of the United States government and its warmongering supporters.

One should not believe known liars until their story is verified by independent sources. “Our” governmental officials and the presstitutes are known liars and everything that they say is highly suspected. Also, whatever the governments of Europe, Ukraine, and Russia say is suspect although Putin has been more forthright in his plans than the others involved in this war.

Moreover, far too many Americans are addicted to war. These Americans hate peace. A few months without war is more than they can bear. That is why they are pushing for war with Russia, which means nuclear war. 

Except those who have condemned America’s wars since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Americans who condemn Russia for invading Ukraine are hypocrites. Since World War II, no country has been as many wars as the United States. Also, since World War II, no country has invaded as many countries as have the United States. Moreover, the countries that the United States invaded or attacked were not a threat to the United States.

Furthermore, many liberals and most other left-wingers thought that the Soviet Union was the greatest country on the planet and could do no wrong. Now nearly all liberals and left-wingers believe that Russia is the evilest country to ever exist and that Putin is viler than Satan.

Additionally, one thing that I have noticed is that AM conservative talk shows place most of the blame on Putin while shortwave conservative talk shows place most of the blame on Biden.

There is one thing that I find interesting, amusing, puzzling, and hypocritical about the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Until a few weeks ago, most conservative and right-wing commentators believed that Biden and his administration and the presstitutes were a gang of crooks and lied about everything. Now, unless Trump is blamed, many of these same commentators believe that just about everything that Biden and his administration and the presstitutes say about Russia and especially about Putin is the unadulterated truth. Concerning Russia and Putin, Biden and the presstitutes have the integrity and honesty of Jesus. 

Moreover, many conservatives and right-wingers who do disagree with Biden and his administration on the Russia-Ukraine conflict do so because Biden is not belligerent enough. They seem impatient with Biden for not militarily attacking Russia. Also, they demand that Biden cut off all Russian energy supplies to Europe and, by that, destroy the European economy and greatly damage the US economy.

Who has brought us the highest inflation since the 1970s? Putin or Biden. Who has greatly retarded America’s energy independence? Putin or Biden. Who has left the borders of the United States unprotected? Putin or Biden. Who is destroying America with wokeism and perversions? Putin or Biden. Who is causing the federal government to become ever more intrusive in the lives of the American people? Putin or Biden. The answer is obvious: Putin is the blame. He is the blame because Trump made him do it — at least that is what any good Democrat and never-Trump Republican would assert.

Furthermore, the saber-rattling with Russia is to distract the stupid sheeple not only from COVID issues, but also from inflation, shortages, the disappearing US borders, and other Biden and Democratic party disasters. To incinerate the world in a nuclear war is better than to lose an election in a landslide. A nuclear war will destroy many voting stations and contaminate most of the remainders.

Is the reason that Biden is trying to start a war with Russia is to prevent a rout of the Democrats in the upcoming election? Never fear, the RINOS will fill the void left by defeated Democrats to ensure that Democratic policies remain in place. The GOP (or the Stupid Party as Sam Francis called it) does not know how (or want) to win. (Francis called the Democratic Party, the Evil Party.)

Biden values Ukraine while he hates the United States. He wants to protect the borders of Ukraine but not the borders of the United States.

Immigration is like poverty. Too many people are getting rich from immigration for immigration to ever go away.

Additionally, “our” generals have reached the point where if given the choice between one female who has transgendered to a male or a thousand Rambos, they would choose the transgender because he, she, it, or whatever pronoun is superior to a million Rambos. “Our” military leaders place more importance on wokeism than on military tactics. A woke military can defeat all.

Also, Lindsey Graham says that “we” should assassinate Putin as “we” have other world leaders. Graham needs to put his body where his mouth is and challenge Putin to a duel. If broadcast on live TV, it would slaughter the previous viewership record. 

Moreover, the United States objects to Putin's increasing his political power over Europe because it decreases the United States’ control over Europe. Germany is still a US occupied-country although World War II ended more than 75 years ago.

The United States want Ukraine to join NATO and to put missile bases in Ukraine. How would the United States react if Russia were seeking to put missile bases in Cuba?

A primary cause of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is that he does not want Ukraine to join NATO. When the Soviet Union fell in 1991, Bush the Elder promised Gorbachev that the European countries formerly allied with the Soviet Union would not become part of NATO. A few years later, this promise was broken. This war would never have happened if the United States and NATO had abided by the agreement that Bush made with Gorbachev when the Soviet Union collapsed. 

 The United States should leave NATO to prevent some third-rate country from dragging the world into a nuclear war — like Poland dragged the world into World War II. Great Britain guaranteed Poland that if Poland went to war with Germany, Great Britain would also go to war with Germany. We see how well that agreement turned out.

Moreover, why would Russia want to invade countries that remain outside NATO? Russia's primary reason for invading Ukraine is to keep it out of NATO. (At least that is the stated primary purpose. Other stated reasons are to get Ukraine to recognize the plebiscite in Crimea in favor of rejoining Russia and the recognition of the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk.)

Two ways of addressing the secession of Donetsk and Luhansk are the Wilsonian and Lincolnian. According to the Wilsonian principle, all nations capable of maintaining an independent country should have their own country. (A nation or nationality is a people who have a common genetic ancestry, culture, language, and history; who have common traditions and customs; and who are capable of forming or constituting an independent country.) Since the people of Donetsk and Luhansk are capable of maintaining their own countries, they should have their own independent countries, which they have done with Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic.

According to the Lincolnian principle, once a region is part of a country, it can never secede and form an independent country unless it wins that right with war. Thus, being part of Ukraine, the two oblasts of Donbas can never be independent countries unless they defeat Ukraine in war. Furthermore, under the Lincolnian principle, Russia has the right to annex Ukraine because Ukraine seceded from Russia and did so without defeating Russia in war. Under the Wilsonian principle, the Ukrainian people deserve their own independent country less the other nations now in Ukraine, who deserve their own independent countries.

According to many, Putin is going out of his way to kill civilians. Other sources claim that Putin is going out of his way to keep civilian casualties low. If Putin did not care about civilian casualties, he could have conquered Ukraine in several days. At least, Putin has done the world a favor by knocking out or causing the Ukrainians to destroy US bio-weapons laboratories in Ukraine. (These laboratories violate the UN Biological Weapons Convention. Thus, Americans involved with these laboratories are war criminals subject to the death penalty.)

If Putin had approached his war with Ukraine as the United States would have done with its Sherman tactic of warring against civilians, the war would have been over by now. Instead, he has sought to minimize civilian causalities. On the other hand, Ukraine has sought to maximize civilian causalities by refusing to let them leave areas of combat, placing their big guns in residual areas, and mining civilian escape routes. (Unfortunately, Ukrainian resistance may lead Putin to adopt the American approach to war by bombarding cities.)

Nevertheless, Putin is more justified in invading Ukraine, which is on Russia’s border and will be a real threat to Russia if Ukraine, i.e., the United States, installs missile bases, than Bush the Elder was in invading Iraq, Bush the Younger was in invading Iraq and Afghanistan, Clinton was in bombing Serbia to distract from his sexual escapades, and Obama was in attacking Syria and Libya. The United States are still occupying Iraq although the Iraqi government has asked the United States to leave. (The United States are still occupying Germany, and World War II ended 75 years ago.) All these third-rate countries that the United States have attacked were on the other side of the world and were no real threat to the United States.

Also, Putin is being accused of committing all sorts of war crimes. How many war crimes has the United States committed since 1990? Is the United States the only country that has the right to invade other countries with immunity? Before Putin is tried for war crimes, Clinton, Bush the Younger, Obama, Trump, and Biden need to be tried for war crimes.

When are Americans going to open their eyes and see that their real enemy resides in Washington and not in Moscow?

Furthermore, the war between Russia and Ukraine could have been prevented without loss to anyone. First, the United States had to promise an enforceable agreement not to make Ukraine a member of NATO. Second, Ukraine had to keep its agreement to make Donetsk and Luhansk autonomous oblasts within the Ukraine boundaries. Third, all parties needed to recognize the plebiscite in Crimea in favor of rejoining Russia. When Russia asked the United States and NATO countries to negotiate on these issues, they spat in Russia’s face. 

Unfortunately for the world, mental infants in adult bodies govern America. In the hand of these idiots rests the fate of the world. Not since the Cuban missile crisis has the world been so close to nuclear war. At least then, the world was fortunate to have adults in charge. If a nuclear war happens, the United States and most of its inhabitants will die. Much of Russia’s population will survive because Russia cares enough about its people to provide them with well-stocked shelters. However, Americans only care about their masters because the US government only provides them with shelters for a nuclear war.

The more Biden insists that America will not get involved militarily with Ukraine and denies that nuclear war will occur, the more certain that the United States will get involved militarily and will precipitate a nuclear war. If war between Russia and the United States occurs and if God takes sides, Russia will defeat the United States because Christianity is growing in Russia and dying in the United States.

In closing, how many American lives is Ukraine worth? Pick a number between 0 and 330,000,000. My answer is all the warmongers at their own expense and without any taxpayers’ support.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Coulter on Race — Part 2

 Coulter on Race — Part 2

Thomas Allen

According to Coulter, Republicans are the friends of Blacks, and Democrats are their enemies. Republicans have been ardent supporters of civil rights for Blacks and integration. Historically, Democrats have been opponents of civil rights for Blacks and supporters of segregation.

During the Jim Crow Era, segregationist Democrats were responsible for all the problems of Blacks. Now, during the Civil Rights Era, liberal Democrats are responsible for all the problems of Blacks. Liberal Democrats have crippled and retarded Blacks with leniency toward criminals and the rewarding welfare state. [Yet, Blacks continue to support liberal Democrats. But then, Blacks are never responsible for their problems and actions.]

The Democrats expelled the White segregationists from their party and began to attack White segregationists because the segregationists were causing the party to lose too many votes. [Now, Democrats not only support but also encourage segregation by nonwhites. Republicans like Coulter oppose segregation by both Whites and nonwhites.]

Coulter is highly critical of Democrats for “denying blacks the right to vote, to go to school, to sit in nonsegregated diners and to use the same water fountain as whites” (p. 163). [She is referring primarily to the Southern Democrats. Unless they failed to meet the qualifications for voting, which were the same for both Whites and Blacks once the grandfather provisions faded away, Blacks were not legally denied the right to vote. Moreover, no one prevented legally Blacks from going to school; Whites heavily subsidized Black schools. Also, she has a low opinion of Black diners since she implies that White divers were superior to Black diners. Now, Blacks are allowed to segregate diners, but Whites are not. If Blacks could not drink from White fountains, Whites could not drink from Black fountains.]

Coulter claims that Democrats have always favored racial discrimination. In the 1960s, however, it switched from discrimination against Blacks to discriminating against Whites. [Since World War II, Republicans have always favored Blacks over Whites. If not, when Republicans held power, they would have repealed all the laws and executive orders that discriminated against Whites in favor of Blacks. Moreover, discrimination shows discernment; Republicans seem to lack discernment.]

If liberals, the Democratic Party, and the media would cease poking the fires of racism, the flames of racism would be reduced to dying smoldering coals — so Coulter implies. [However, more than this is needed. For example, studies on racism, consciousness-raising sessions about racism, articles denouncing racism, and other actions against racism, all of which Coulter seems to endorse, need to vanish.] 

She writes, “Democrats’ commitment to civil rights has always been directly proportional to how much it helps them politically.” [The same is true of Republicans.] 

[While condemning Democrats, Coulter overlooks that most Blacks are Democrats. Consequently, she condemns her beloved Blacks with her attacks on Democrats.] 

While presenting Democrats as Negrophobes, she presents Republicans as Negrophiles. She brags that most Republicans were and are integrationists. In Congress, most Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [Therefore, most Republicans promote policies that lead to amalgamation and the resulting genocide of Blacks. Moreover, this act is the basis for progressive power.]

In addition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, she boasts about the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments that the Republicans ram through. [The thirteenth amendment did not free any slaves in the South; they were already freed before it was ratified. It freed slaves outside the Confederate States. The fourteenth amendment was adopted illegally. The fifteenth amendment did not give Blacks the right to vote in the South; they already had the vote before this amendment was proposed. It gave the vote to Blacks in the North where some States denied them the vote. Its purpose was to keep Northern State Republican —just as the Democrats want to give illegal aliens the vote because most of them will support Democrats.]

Furthermore, she vaunts about Republicans enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which conferred citizenship to Negroes after overriding President Andrew Johnson’s veto. Also, the Republicans passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867 and sent troops to the South to enforce it. [Thus, she displays her disdain for the South and Southerners and endorses oppression and tyranny if they are done in the name of promoting and protecting Blacks. The primary objective of these two laws was to finish destroying the South by stripping it of the wealth that Lincoln’s War had not destroyed and to use Blacks to humiliate and genocide Southerners. Aiding Blacks was only incidental to these laws. If the primary purpose of these laws were to aid Blacks as she claims, then upwards of half or more of the 1865-Black population would not have died during Reconstruction. Moreover, if Republicans were Negrophiles as Coulter maintains, their party platform would not have contained a clause to keep Blacks out of the territories.]

She does an excellent job of illustrating the hypocrisy of liberals. Correctly, she blames liberals for destroying the Black family.

Further, she blames the poor Black behavior on liberals because they did not punish Blacks for acting like redneck Southerners. Instead, liberals rewarded bad behavior and penalized good behavior. Such action has greatly harmed Blacks.

She identifies the beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Movement:

The only people who had ever benefited from the left’s lunacy on race were (1) professional blacks and (2) self-righteous white liberals, who congratulated themselves on their own ethnic sensitivity while moving heaven and earth to make sure their own kids didn’t go to school with black kids (p. 15).

[Since most conservatives echo the left’s position on race, they are just as loony and benefit the same as White liberals.]

She condemns Whites’ condescending to self-appointed Black leaders like Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Lewis Farrakhan.

Liberal reporters, most of whom are Whites, like to hurl the accusation of racism at conservatives and Republicans. Such accusations often destroy careers and reputations. [Instead of rejecting the accusation and attacking the accuser, most conservatives and Republicans accept the accusation and grovel at the feet of an unforgiving Black potentate and degrade themselves begging for forgiveness. Such reprehensible actions only cause loss of respect for the beggar and encourage future accusations.] Her advice for people who are falsely accused of racism is to declare: “You are a liar. That never happened” (p. 244). 

According to Coulter, White liberals have the luxury of being immune to the charge of “racism.” [However, that is changing as Blacks are lumping them with all other Whites.]

Using Al Sharpton as an example, she comments on the double standard of liberals, Democrats, and the media. They praised Sharpton for doing things that if Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell would have done, liberals, Democrats, and the media would have condemned them.

Coulter notes that liberals instill racial hatred in Blacks: “The problem with liberals’ constantly imputing racist hatred to white people was that it kept creating real racist hatred in black people—ending with real dead white people.” (p. 94.)

Overall, Whites are more tolerant of homosexuals than are Blacks. Yet, liberals, who adore homosexuals, did not condemn Blacks for their homophobia. Instead, they either ignore or justify their homophobia.

While liberals idolize Black criminals and revere Blacks who fake hate crimes, they have little use for honest Blacks. Moreover, liberals promote Black hostility toward Whites.

She condemns Franklin Roosevelt for putting a Klansman on the US Supreme Court, refusing to desegregate the military, giving Blacks make-work government jobs, and putting them on welfare. Thus, he brought Black advancement to a halt. Consequently, in the North, Blacks began supporting Democrats instead of Republicans. According to her, Southerners did not let Blacks vote. [When Blacks in the South were allowed to vote, they voted for her despicable Democrats.]

Although the liberal’s approach to helping the Negro was idiotic, at least according to Coulter, they picked the group that deserved special treatment. [Thus, Coulter endorses Black privileges denied to Whites.] She adds, “Civil rights aren’t supposed to be bounties for every self-obsessed group with a grievance” (p. 147). [Accordingly, civil rights are only for Blacks and are not for anyone else. Apparently, Whites with a grievance against Black privileges should be denied their civil rights because civil rights are only for Blacks.]

She criticizes liberals for using Blacks to promote issues that do not help Blacks, such as, national health care, abortion, and homosexual marriage — most Blacks do not support these issues. [Yet, they vote for Democrats who support these issues.] However, liberals have been successful in using Blacks to advance their progressive causes. [Progressivism grew out of Lincoln and the Republicans, whom Coulter adores.] Another complaint that she has about liberals is that they treat Blacks like children. [Conservatives often act the same by supporting special privileges for Blacks as Coulter does.]

Democrats want to expand civil rights victims to cover women, homosexuals, illegal immigrants, transgenders, and most other groups except heterosexual White males. Being a Negrophile, Coulter wants to restrict civil rights to Blacks.

According to Coulter, because Blacks suffered under slavery and Jim Crow, they deserve favorable treatment. [Favorable treatment for Blacks requires discrimination against Whites. So, what is the difference between Coulter and Democrats other than Democrats want to give other groups favorable treatment?]

Consequently, Coulter adamantly opposes the feminist movement and the shift of civil rights from Blacks to women. This shift moved Blacks “to the back of the bus” (p. 157). She disdains feminists promoting rare White-on-Black rape to advance the feminist agenda. So rare is White-on-Black rape that feminists have to resort to hoaxes. Between 2003 and 2008, no White-on-Black rapes were recorded. However, during this time, Blacks raped several thousand White women per year and raped Black women at an even higher rate.

Like Democrats, Coulter supports Roosevelt’s application of the Interstate Commerce Clause except that she extends it much further than he did[, which far exceeds that intended by the Constitution of the founding fathers]. Also, like liberals, she supports extending the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment to private companies[, which the authors of this clause did not intend]. Then she complains about Democrats expanding the Interstate Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause to women and other groups. 

Coulter discusses Bob Jones University and believes that its policy against interracial dating was silly and its theology was incorrect. However, its policy applied to both Blacks and Whites. Whites could not date Blacks, and Blacks could not date Whites. [Yet, she does not apply this reasoning to segregated schools. Blacks were assigned to Black schools, and Whites to White schools. Blacks could not go to White schools, and Whites could not go to Black schools. Both races were treated the same. Moreover, she shows that she has no concerns about supporting policies that lead to breeding Blacks out of existence. Also, she is wrong about prohibiting interracial dating as theologically incorrect. The Bible forbids interracial mating and marriages.] Anyway, Bob Jones repented of its evil ways and became politically correct by allowing interracial dating.

Coulter presents the typical Republican diatribe against Democrats. Republicans are Negrophiles; Democrats are Negrophobes. Republicans promote integration and, therefore, promote the amalgamation and genocide of Blacks. Democrats promote segregation and, therefore, promote the separation and preservation of Blacks. Segregationists are the only people whom she hates more than Democrats, who are almost synonymous with segregationists in her mind.

Moreover, she accuses Democrats of trying to destroy the country, which they are. Yet, she promotes policies that do the same thing although she is too blind with her love for Blacks and hatred for Southerners, segregationists, and Democrats to realize it. She promotes Whites surrendering their political power to Blacks. Wherever and whenever Whites have surrendered political power to Blacks, the results have been disastrous. Africa is a prime example. Other examples are the Southern States during Reconstruction and the major cities run by Blacks. Why does she think this time will be different? Democrats know that Whites surrendering political power to Blacks will be destroyed the country. That is the reason that they push this surrender. Why does Coulter want to aid them in bringing down the country?

  Coulter thought that America’s insanity with race and White guilt ended with the completion of the O.J. Simpson trial. However, this reprieve lasted for only a few years. As she notes, Obama brought back racism with his presidency.

Nevertheless, the election of Obama proves that America is not racist. Many Whites voted for Obama to prove that they were not racists. White guilt elected Obama to the presidency. She blames White guilt for electing many of the Black liberal Democrats to office and the resulting disasters that their policies cause. 

Coulter wants the country to move beyond race. However, liberal Democrats make just about everything about race. (Only two ways can her dream be achieved. One is the physical separation of the races, which is the Scriptural way and which she rejects. The other way is the complete amalgamation of the races to form motley mongrel man.)

One of the flaws of her book is that she fails to define “racism,” which is the soul of her book. Nevertheless, if you want to read a book written by a racial nihilist who practices the new morality of sacrificing Blacks on the altar of humanity, this is the book for you.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Part 1.