A Discussion with an Imbecile

A Discussion with an Imbecile

Thomas Allen

In response to an article about some people wanting to use the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent Donald Trump’s name from appearing on ballots, I posted a comment. In my comment, I noted that Lincoln and the Republicans rebelled against the Constitution, but the South did not. (https://wltreport.com/2023/09/01/president-trump-scores-huge-court-victory-election-ballot/#comment-6277814175) [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.]

Then, an imbecile responded: “Like continuing SLAVERY?” At first, I thought that he was ignorant and was confusing the Fourteenth Amendment with the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery. Consequently, I replied that the Fourteenth Amendment had nothing to do with slavery. “However, it does prove that Negroes were not and could not be citizens under the Constitution that the founding fathers gave us.”

Instead of trying to refute my statement, he smeared me with today’s greatest smear word: “racist.” Thus, he proved that he lacked the intellect to refute me or that he knew that I was right and could not refute me.

Responding to his reply, I stated that “it takes one to know one.” Then, I noted that he was a racist by several of the 800 definitions of racist in “Are You a Racist?” and asked which one he was using for me. He answered with more derogatory invectiveness. Our discussion is in the Appendix.

After discussions with this imbecile in other articles, I can make more intelligent inferences about him. He suffers from the worst sort of stupidity: arrogant stupidity. Moreover, he is a Confederaphobe and a staunch Zionist. No truth is going to enter his brain. (I respond to him not to educate him because he is beyond salvation but to educate others.)

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment reads:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. 

It prohibits persons who had taken an oath to support the Constitution and who had engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution from holding public office.

The South did not rebel against the Constitution. Before Lincoln became President, almost everyone in the country knew that a State had the right to secede.

The Constitution that the Confederacy adopted was similar to the US Constitution but with some improvements. These improvements included:

1. The President served a six-year term and could not be reelected for another term.

2. The President had a line-item veto of appropriation bills.

3. The House or Senate could require cabinet secretaries to appear before it to answer questions.

4. Bills that Congress passed could only address one subject.

5. It prohibited protective tariffs.

6. It prohibited subsidies to private companies and corporate welfare.

7. States could enter treaties with other States to regulate waterways.

8. States could levy taxes on ships using their waterways.

9. States could impeach certain federal officials.

Also, States were allowed to issue bills of credit, paper money, which was regressive. The US Constitution prohibited the States from issuing bills of credit.

On the other hand, Lincoln and the Republicans did rebel against the US Constitution. They uprooted and overthrew the very foundation of the Constitution.

Before Lincoln’s War, the United States were a federation of sovereign nations. After Lincoln’s War, the United States became a consolidated empire with the States subjugated to provinces. The United States became what Lincoln declared them to be in his Gettysburg Address.

Completing this conversion from a federation of sovereign nations to a consolidated empire was the Fourteenth Amendment, which was illegally and unlawfully ratified. Before the Fourteenth Amendment, a person was a citizen of the United States by being a citizen of a State. After the Fourteenth Amendment, a person was a citizen of a State by being a citizen of the United States. Negroes were not citizens under the original Constitution. (For more on the Fourteenth Amendment and citizenship, see “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?” and “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen.)

Except for Coolidge, especially Cleveland, and possibly Harding, no President has even attempted to keep his oath of office since Buchanan. Therefore, with these three exceptions, all Presidents since Buchanan, including Trump, rebelled against the Constitution if they swore their oath to the Constitution that the founding fathers gave the United States. However, if they swore their oath to the Constitution that Lincoln gave the United States, then no President rebelled against the Constitution. Rebelling against Lincoln’s Constitution is difficult. (For the difference between the Constitution that the founding fathers gave the United States and the Constitution that Lincoln gave the United States, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen.)

If Trump’s name is removed from ballots according to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, then Biden’s name and most other candidates who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution ought to be removed.

Appendix

Me: “The way Section 3 reads, Lincoln and the Republicans rebelled against the Constitution and overthrew it. The Confederates fought to preserve it; their Constitution was almost identical with some improvements.”

Imbecile: “Like continuing SLAVERY? You’e [sic] a brain-dead revisionist!”

Me: “The 14th amendment has nothing to do with slavery. However, it does prove that Negroes were not and could not be citizens under the Constitution that the founding fathers gave us.”

Imbecile: “. . . and a disgusting RACIST!!”

Me: “It takes one to know one. By several definitions of racist, you are also a racist. Which of the 800 definitions of racists are you using (https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2016/04/are-you-racist.html)”

Imbecile: “It’s impossible to argue with the brain-less, the brain-washed, and/or the brain-dead, and you, sister, are all three, so adios!” [He did not attempt to argue his point; he immediately resorted to name-calling. He called me “sister” because my user name is Cassandra, who is a mystical Greek character who could see the future, but no one would believe her.]

Me: “At least I did not resort to insults and name calling.”

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles

Four Comments on Political Issues

Four Comments on Political Issues

Thomas Allen

Blow four items are discussed. They are two ways of addressing secession, saving “our Democracy,” the difference between progressives and conservatives, and inalienable versus unalienable.

Two Ways of Addressing Secession

There are two ways of addressing secession: the Wilsonian and the Lincolnian.

  According to the Wilsonian principle, all nations capable of maintaining their own 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 the Donbass region are capable of maintaining their own country, they should have their own independent country, which they have done with the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic. (Through a plebiscite, the people of these two countries voted to join Russia, and Russia accepted them.)

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 Donbass 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 countries. However, under the Lincolnian participle, they do not unless they defeat Russia in war. 

Likewise, under the Lincoln principle, China has the right to annex Taiwan. Under the Wilsonian principle, China has no right to annex Taiwan; the Taiwanese deserve their own country, or perhaps several countries since several ethnicities inhabit Taiwan.

“Saving our Democracy”

According to the Democrats, the purpose of the January 6 select committee, the violation of due process in arresting and detaining the January 6 protestors, the censoring of people who claim that the Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election, and the lynching of Donald Trump is to protect “our Democracy.” The reason that Trump supporters were rallying in Washington on January 6 was to protect “our Democracy.” They were protesting the Democrats stealing the 2020 presidential election — and plenty of evidence supports the conclusion that the Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election.

Furthermore, Democrats are notorious for doing what they accuse others of doing. Thus, Democrats accuse Trump and his followers of destroying “our Democracy” while Democrats destroyed “our Democracy” by stealing the presidential election. Democrats stole the election, so they blame Trump and his followers for trying to steal the election.

Difference Between Progressives and Conservatives

G.K. Chesterton explains the difference between progressives and conservatives. About progressives, he writes, “The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes.” About conservatives, he writes, “The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.” Thus, progressives begin idiotic programs, and conservatives preserve them. Worse, Conservatives make the progressive programs operate more efficiently and effectively.

Seldom do conservatives eliminate progressive mistakes. Prohibition is an example of a progressive program that has been eliminated — and that was because progressives abandoned it. 

Another progressive program that has been abolished is eugenics. Conservatives did not end eugenics; progressives did. Progressives replaced eugenics with the genocide of the White race, which racial nihilistic conservatives only weakly oppose. (Paradoxically, the genocide of the hated White race leads to the genocide of the beloved American Negro.)

Inalienable vs. Unalienable

Some people stress a great difference between inalienable and unalienable. For them, the two words mean entirely different things — even opposite meanings. They maintain that unalienable rights cannot be transferred whereas inalienable rights can be. Following are some dictionary definitions of the two words.

These definitions are from Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition: 

– "inalienable," adj. Not transferable or assignable (inalienable property interests). — also termed unalienable.

– "unalienable," adj. See INALIENABLE.

Thus, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, the two words mean the same thing. It makes no distinction between the two.

Webster’s 1828 dictionary gives the following definitions:

– INALIENABLE, a. Unalienable; that cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another. The dominions of a king are inalienable. All men have certain natural rights which are inalienable. The estate of a minor is inalienable, without a reservation of the right of redemption, or the authority of the legislature.

– UNALIENABLE, a. Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights.

According to Webster, the two words seem to mean the same thing — especially, since he defines “inalienable” to mean “unalienable.”

The following are definitions of "unalienable" from other dictionaries:

– “Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable” – American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.

– “law a variant of inalienable” – Collins English Dictionary.

– “not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.” – Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary.

– “inalienable” – Merriam Webster.

The following are the definitions of "inalienable" given in these four dictionaries:

– “That cannot be transferred to another or others: inalienable rights” – American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.

– “not able to be transferred to another; not alienable” – Collins English Dictionary.

– “not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights” – Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary.

– “incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred” – Merriam Webster

“Unalienable” and “inalienable” look like they mean the same thing. Merriam Webster even defines “unalienable” to mean “inalienable.” What is the difference?

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Reason for the Loss

Reason for the Loss

Thomas Allen

As the red wave has turned into the red drop, Republican and conservative commentators look for an explanation to explain the loss. Following are some of the excuses for the loss.

1. Trump. Blaming Trump is the most popular one. If true, this means that people loathe Trump so much that they would rather have the Democrats destroy the country than have Trump as president and his endorsed candidates as Representatives, Senators, and governors.

2. McConnell. According to this excuse, Senator McConnell, a RINO, prefers being the leader of the loyal opposition and, thus, having no responsibilities. Moreover, McConnell failed to provide a vision for the Republican Party to follow or any programs and policies to solve the problems and disasters that the Democrats have inflicted on the country. Also, he failed to fund close races that Republicans could have won while funding races that the Republicans were going to win anyway.

3. McCarthy. PACs associated with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy spent money on Republican candidates running in primaries against make-American-great-again (MAGA) candidates. Consequently, money that could have been used against Democratic candidates in the general election was used against Republican MAGA candidates in the primary elections. Thus, McCarthy placed defeating MAGA candidates in primary elections above defeating Democratic candidates in the general election.

4. Abortion. Most Americans seem to want to offer their unborn and even born babies as sacrifices to Moloch. (Moloch is a pagan god who is worshiped by sacrificing children.) While most Democrats support abortion for any reason and up to and even beyond birth, many Republicans do not. (Most abortions are for birth control. Rarely is an abortion performed to save a mother’s life or for rape or incest.) Thus, Democrats turned abortion into the winning issue that exceeded the importance of the horrendous economic problems, the destruction of the country by third-world nonwhite aliens, crime, and the growing possibility of a nuclear war.

5. Failure to Keep up with the Times. Republicans have failed to keep up with the changes in how elections are conducted. Unlike Democrats, Republicans have not used these election changes. While Democrats have become masters of ballet harvesting, Republicans have not. Republicans still mostly depend on voting on election day. However, Republicans need to follow the Democrats’ example of voting early (but what prevents the Democratic vote counters from losing these early Republican votes). However, ballot harvesting and early voting are only minor issues. Voting machines malfunctions only in predominately Republican precincts and voting machines that switch votes from Republicans to Democrats are major problems and strongly suggest stealing elections. Other major issues that suggest stealing elections are shipping in truckloads of ballots even from other States mostly marked for Democrats, preventing Republican poll watchers from observing the ballot count, and frequently violating State election laws. Another scheme (scam) is mailing ballots to Republicans with incorrect addresses; the ballots are then returned to the board of election giving them legal ballots that can be filled out for Democrats. Republicans cannot overcome these disadvantages because Democrats and RINOs control the boards of elections and, therefore, the vote counting in key cities and the voting machines. Thus, Democrats can easily add Democrat votes and lose Republican votes. Moreover, Democrats can get judges to change the voting laws for the benefit of Democrats; Republicans have been unable or unwilling to do this. Furthermore, Republicans have difficulty in finding a judge to hear cases about election fraud and illegalities, and if they do find one, a higher court overturns the case. Consequently, for the Republicans to become the dominant party in the federal government ever again, they must out-cheat the Democrats.

6. Young Voters. Voters less than 30 years of age overwhelmingly voted for Democrats. Why? Because most young voters are stupid or ignorant. The ruling elite has brainwashed the young into supporting Democrats because Democrats support the agendas of the ruling elite with much more alacrity than do Republicans. Schools and universities have dumbed down and indoctrinated students so that they support the ruling elite’s agenda. The ruling elite has taught the young to hate America and Whites and to support globalism and sexual perversions. Consequently, the young vote for Democrats, who want to destroy America and genocide Whites and who promote globalism and sexual perversions.

7. Wokeism. Democrats promote the woke agenda with much more vigor than do Republicans. With alacrity, Democrats push granting special privileges to the alphabet people (LBGT+). As advocates for transgenders, Democrats are more likely to approve of mutilating children’s bodies. Democrats also champion critical race theory, which teaches the hatred of Whites because Whites are the cause of all America’s and the world’s problems — only people of color, excluding East Asians, can save humanity. Moreover, Democrats are much more likely to eliminate bail for violent crimes than are Republicans. Furthermore, Democrats favor open borders and unlimited nonwhite immigration while Republicans weakly oppose them. Thus, Republicans support and promote the woke agenda with less enthusiasm than do Democrats. Consequently, Republicans lost because they are not radical enough on social issues to satisfy wokesters. Wokesters hate Whites, Christianity, and Western Civilization and love Satan and sin so much that they will do anything to annihilate Whites, Christianity, and Western Civilization — even if it means annihilating themselves. Since Democrats are more supportive of the woke-driven agenda than are Republicans, wokesters, who seem to vote in greater numbers than their victims, voted Democrats into office.

8. January 6. Many voters vehemently disagreed with supporters of Trump taking action at the Capitol Building in an attempt to prevent a stolen election. What these people overlook are the Capitol guards opening the doors to the Capitol Building and waving people inside, Democratic provocateurs in the crowd trying to incite a riot, and Democrats refusing Trump’s offer of 20,000 natural guardsmen to protect the Capitol.

9. Money. The Democrats and their supporting PACs spent significantly more money than did the Republicans and their supporting PACs, especially in close races. Accordingly, the Democratic Party is no longer the party of the workingman and the little guy, except for welfare recipients and nonwhites. It is the party of big money and big business, and, consequently, it raises more money than the Republican Party.

Whatever the cause of the red wave becoming the red drop is, most Republican and conservative commentators are certain about one thing. Just as no election was stolen in 2020, so no election was stolen in 2022. However, when the number of ballots counted exceeds the number of registered voters, election fraud exists.

Copyright © 2023 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.

Mencken on News Editors and Public Servants

Mencken on News Editors and Public Servants

Thomas Allen

    In 1926, H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) wrote Notes on Democracy in which he expressed his views on democracy and related issues. He was a journalist, satirist, and critic and a libertarian and one of the leaders of the Old Right. In his book, he describes news editors and public servants, pages 145-148. Below is an overview of his discussion on news editors and public servants; my comments are in brackets.
    About newspaper editors, Mencken writes, “Their very lack of sound knowledge and genuine intelligence gives them a special fitness for influencing the mob, and it is augmented by their happy obtuseness to notions of honour. Their daily toil consists in part of praising men and ideas that are obviously fraudulent, and in part of denouncing men and ideas that are respected by their betters.” The typical American editor “is, like the politician, an adept trimmer and flatterer. His job is far more to him than his self-respect.” Furthermore, “the influence of such men upon public affairs is generally evil that their weight is almost always thrown against the public man of dignity and courage — that such a public man cannot hope to be understood by them, or to get any useful support from them.” [Does this explain the old media’s opposition to President Trump?] “Thus they give their aid to the sublime democratic process of eliminating all sense and decency from public life.” [What Mencken writes about newspaper editors is true about editors in other media — especially, television.]
    Mencken continues, “Coming out of the mob, they [editors] voice the ideas of the mob. The first of those ideas is that a fraud is somehow charming and reassuring. . . . The second is that an honest and candid man is dangerous — or, perhaps more accurately, that there is no such animal.” [Again, does this explain the old media’s opposition to President Trump?]
    Then Mencken adds, “The newspaper editor who rises above this level encounters the same incredulous hostility from his fellows and his public that is encountered by the superior politician, cast into public life by accident. If he is not dismissed at once as . . . a Bolshevik, [today, he would be called a racist, homophobe, sexist, fascist, islamophobe, or all these] i.e., one harbouring an occult and unintelligible yearning to put down the Republic and pull God off His throne, he is assumed to be engaged in some nefarious scheme of personal aggrandisement.”
    Mencken remarks, “The democratic process, indeed, is furiously inimical to all honourable motives. It favours the man who is without them, and it puts heavy burdens upon the man who has them. Going further, it is even opposed to mere competence.”
    He concludes with some comments on the competent public servant. “The public servant who masters his job gains nothing thereby. His natural impatience with the incapacity and slacking of his fellows makes them his implacable enemies, and he is viewed with suspicion by the great mass of democrats.” Then he paraphrases Emile Faguet of the French Academy: “Under democracy, . . . the business of law-making becomes a series of panics — government by orgy and orgasm. And the public service becomes a mere refuge for prehensile morons — get yours, and run.”
    [Governments are criticized for waiting for a problem to occur and then reacting. However, when they try to prevent a problem before it occurs, they are also criticized. Recently, people saw this criticism in North Carolina. After adopting a law requiring people to use the restroom, locker room, and the like of their biological birth sex, one would have thought that the General Assembly had ordered a first-strike nuclear attack from the way that liberals and their lackeys in the old media reacted. The law made illegal for a man to say that he felt like a woman and then being allowed to use the women’s locker room so that he could see naked women. {Liberals preferred the General Assembly forcing business to allow men to use the women’s locker room if they claimed that they felt like a woman.} Oddly, some of the most vocal opponents of this law were those who holler rape if a man looks at a woman. Like all good politicians, the legislators succumbed to the boisterous mob led by the lowest of inferior men, i.e., entertainers and leaders of sports teams and sports associations {they must have wanted their male players to be entertained by naked women} and heavily diluted the law.]

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Mencken on the Maker of Law

Mencken on the Maker of Law

Thomas Allen

    In 1926, H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) wrote Notes on Democracy in which he expressed his views on democracy and related issues. He was a journalist, satirist, and critic and a libertarian and one of the leaders of the Old Right. In his book, he describes the maker of law, pages 131-139. Below is an overview of his discussion on the maker of law; my comments are in brackets.
    “In the United States, the general democratic tendency to crowd competent and self-respecting men out of the public service is exaggerated by a curious constitutional rule, unknown in any other country.” Although its “aim is to preserve for every electoral unit a direct and continuous voice in the government; its actual effect is to fill all the legislative bodies of the land with puerile local politicians, many of them so stupid that they are quite unable to grasp the problems with which government has to deal.” [For example, the Representative from Georgia who thought that islands floated like boats and would sink or capsize if too many people were on the island.]
    Often no competent man is available in a district to represent it. [Many competent men live in most districts; however, they do not want to degrade themselves to the level of a democratic politician described by Mencken.] According to Mencken, the competent man “is usually so enmeshed in operations against the resident imbeciles and their leaders, and hence so unpopular, that his candidature is out of the question.”
    [Mencken seems convinced that if Congress and State legislatures were filled with competent men the Eighteenth Amendment prohibiting the sale of alcohol would not have been adopted.] “[P]liant and unconscionable jackasses” in Congress allying with members from “all the more backward States” forced the Prohibition Amendment through Congress. “[T]he votes of even more degraded noodles, assembled from the backwoods in the State Legislatures, that put the amendment into the Constitution.”
    Mencken believes that “[i]f it were possible for a congressional district to choose any man to represent it, as is the case in all other civilized countries, there would be more breaks in the monotony of legislative venality and stupidity, for even the rustic mob, in the absence of strong local antipathies, well fanned by demagogues, might succumb occasionally to the magic of a great name.”
    Because a representative must reside in the district that he represents, “a depressing gang of incompetents, mainly petty lawyers and small-town bankers” become the predominant representatives. Moreover, “in intelligence, information and integrity,” the House of Representatives “is comparable to a gang of bootleggers — a House so deficient in competent leaders that it can scarcely carry on its business.” [This is an excellent description of the Congress that President Trump faces.] Another result “is the immense power of . . . corrupt and sinister agencies [lobbyists].”
    Mencken has a low opinion of the average Southerner in the House of Representatives. According to him, the average Southern Representative “got his early education in a hedge school, he proceeded to some preposterous Methodist or Baptist college, and then he served for a time as a school teacher in his native swamps, finally reaching the dignity of county superintendent of schools and meanwhile reading law. Admitted to the bar, and having got a taste of county politics as superintendent, he became district attorney, and perhaps, after a while, county judge.” After running for Congress three or four times, he is finally elected. Such a man is unfit “for the responsibilities of a law-maker. . . . He is an ignoramus, and he is quite without the common decencies. Having to choose  between sense and nonsense, he chooses nonsense almost instinctively.” Before he went to Washington and began meeting “lobbyists, bootleggers and the correspondents of the newspapers, he had perhaps never met a single intelligent human being.” Moreover, officialdom disdains him. “His dream is to be chosen to go on a congressional junket, i.e., on a drunken holiday at government expense. His daily toil is getting jobs for relatives and retainers.” He is “a knavish and preposterous nonentity, half-way between a kleagle of the Ku Klux and a grand worthy bow-wow of the Knights of Zoroaster. It is such vermin who make the laws of the United States.” [Mencken’s description of the typical Southern Representative is less accurate today. However, it is still accurate if applied to Representatives from across the country by changing the names of some organizations. For example, the Klan is irrelevant today, except in the minds of those who believe the Southern Poverty Law Center. Today, all Klan organizations of more than two or three members are governmental fronts.]
    As for Senators, they “are measurably better, if only because they serve for longer terms.” Having a two-year term, a Representative “is constantly running for re-election. Scarcely has he got to Washington before he must hurry home and resume his bootlicking of the local bosses.” However, a Senator “may safely forget them for two or three years, and so, if there is no insuperable impediment in his character, he may show a certain independence, and yet survive.” Occasionally, some Senators may attain “a laudable mastery of the public business, particularly such as lies within the range of their private interest.” Moreover, they may “show the intellectual dignity and vigour of genuine statesmen.” Nevertheless, the average Senator “is simply a party hack, without ideas and without anything rationally describable as self-respect. His backbone has a sweet resiliency.” Moreover, “it is quite impossible to forecast his action, even on a matter of the highest principle, without knowing what rewards are offered by the rival sides.” These Senators prefer “their jobs to their dignity.”
    [Mencken gives an accurate, but unfortunately, description of the people who govern the United States and make their laws. Nothing has changed for the better since he wrote.]

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Mencken on Utopia

Mencken on Utopia

Thomas Allen

    In 1926, H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) wrote Notes on Democracy in which he expressed his views on democracy and related issues. He was a journalist, satirist, and critic and a libertarian and one of the leaders of the Old Right. In his book, he describes utopia, pages 115-124. Below is an overview of his discussion of utopia; my comments are in brackets.
    Mencken notes that in the United States, “every office-holder, when he takes oath to support the Constitution, must swear on his honour that, summoned to the death-bed of his grandmother, he will not take the old lady a bottle of wine. He may say so and do it, which makes him a liar, or he may say so and not do it, which makes him a pig.” [When Mencken wrote, the Constitution contained an amendment that prohibited the sale of alcohol — the Prohibition amendment. Much of Mencken’s hostility toward democracy and, to a slightly lesser degree, toward religion, seems to result from Prohibition. At least, Prohibition is often his prime example of democracy run amuck.]
    In spite of this dilemma, “idealists, chiefly professional Liberals, . . . argue that it is the duty of a gentleman to go into politics.” To which, Mencken replies that this remedy “is quite as absurd as all the other sure cures that Liberals advocate. When they argue for it, they simply argue . . . that the remedy for prostitution is to fill the bawdy-houses with virgins. . . . [This] device would accomplish very little: either the virgins would leap out of the windows, or they would cease to be virgins.” Then he adds, “The same alternatives confront the political aspirant who is what is regarded in America as a gentleman — that is, one who is not susceptible to open bribery in cash. The moment his leg goes over the political fence he finds the mob confronting him, and if he would stay within he must adapt himself to its tastes and prejudices. In other words, he must learn all the tricks of the regular mountebanks.” That is, he must either respond to the mob and serve it or lose his job.
    Mencken supports his argument with some examples. He notes, “It is an axiom of practical politics, indeed, that the worst enemies of political decency are the tired reformers — and the worst of the worst are those whose primary thirst to make the corruptible put on incorruption was accompanied by a somewhat sniffish class consciousness.” One example is Theodore Roosevelt entering “politics as a sword drawn against demagogy.” Yet he became a “violent and shameless demagogue.” [We may be seeing the same happening with Donald Trump. He entered the political arena as an outsider who was going to “drain the swamp,” end American foreign entanglements and wars, rebuild America, and control and limit immigration. Yet he has expanded America’s wars and filled his administration with swamp monsters. Most of the real outsiders that he appointed, he has since removed. He continues America’s Israeli-first foreign policy instead of adopting an America-first foreign policy. He is beginning to soften on immigration and give into the establishment on that issue and others. He is acting ever more like the typical establishment politician.]
    Mencken admits that a gentleman may enter politics under democracy. However, “it is almost impossible for him to stay there and remain a gentleman.” He continues, “The haughty amateur, at the start, may actually make what seems to be a brilliant success, for he is commonly full of indignation, and so strikes out valiantly, and the mob crowds up because it likes a brutal show. . . . If he retains his rectitude he loses his office, and if he retains his office he has to dilute his rectitude with the cologne spirits of the trade.” [Much of what Mencken is describing can be written about Donald Trump, a gentleman by Mencken’s definition and an amateur politician. Will he remain a gentleman or will he become another sleazy politician catering to the mob, or, more correctly, the minority that manipulates the mob? This minority resides in the old news media, the leadership of the Democratic and Republican parties, the military-industrial complex, most big businesses and big banks, the globalists, and a host of their demagogues.]
    In a democracy, “the man of native integrity is either barred from the public service altogether or subjected to almost irresistible temptations after he gets in. The competition of less honourable men is more than he can bear. He must stand against them before the mob, and the sempiternal prejudices of the mob run their way.”
    Democracy in the United States is worse than it is in Great Britain because the United States have no aristocracy to check the mob. For the most part, American Presidents were not intellectuals, and most avoid intelligent men. Likewise, has been the average American governor.
    Moreover, “[t]he judiciary, under the American system, sinks quite as low.” The U.S. Supreme Court “carries on its dull and preposterous duties quite outside the stream of civilized thought, and even outside the stream of enlightened juridical thought.” Furthermore, “few American judges ever contribute anything of value to legal theory. . . . The Constitution apparently has no more meaning to them than it has to a Prohibition agent. They have acquiesced almost unanimously in the destruction of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and supinely connived at the invasion of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth.” [What would Mencken think about what the Supreme Court has done to the Bill of Rights in recent decades with the War on Drugs and the War or Terrorism?] America’s mediocre judiciary results from the average judge being a trailer instead of a leader when he was a practicing lawyer. [When the judiciary does lead with its activist judges, the results are usually worse than when it restricts itself to being a follower.] “The judicial office is not attractive, as a rule, to the better sort of lawyers.” Moreover, “judges are so often chosen for purely political reasons, even for the Supreme Court of the United States, that the lawyer of professional dignity and self-respect hesitates to enter into the competition. Thus the bench tends to be filled with duffers, and many of them are also scoundrels, as the frequent complaints against their extortions and tyrannies testify.” [An example of such a Supreme Court judge was Earl Warren, whom President Eisenhower appointed to pay Warren for delivering California's convention delegation to Eisenhower. Warren’s court was notorious for tyrannical, despotic rulings that are still destroying the country.] Mencken notes, “In the States, where judges are commonly elected by popular vote, the shyster has every advantage over the reputable lawyer, including that of yearning for the judicial salary with a vast and undivided passion. And when it comes to the Federal courts, once so honourable, he has every advantage again, including the formidable one of knowing how to crook his knee gracefully to the local dispenser of Federal patronage (in the South often a worthless Negro) and to the Methodist wowsers of the Anti-Saloon League.” [America’s judiciary, especially the federal courts, has deteriorated even more since Mencken wrote.]
    Mencken admits that the shyster does not always prevail. “[A] man of unquestionable integrity and ability occasionally gets to the bench, even of the State courts.” [Today, many State courts, especially the higher courts, have a larger percentage of competent judges of integrity than the federal courts.]

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Mencken on the Two Types of Democracy

Mencken on the Two Types of Democracy

Thomas Allen

    In 1926, H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) wrote Notes on Democracy in which he expressed his views on democracy and related issues. He was a journalist, satirist, and critic and a libertarian and one of the leaders of the Old Right. In his book, he describes the two types of democracy, pages 79-85. Below is an overview of his discussion of the two types of democracy; my comments are in brackets.
    [Representative democracy and direct democracy are the two types of democracies that Mencken discusses.]
    Mencken states, “Sovereignty is in him [the lowly Christian, i.e., the inferior man], sometimes both actually and legally, but always actually. Whatever he wants badly enough he can get. If he is misled by mountebanks and swindled by scoundrels it is only because his credulity and imbecility cover a wider area than his simple desires.” Continuing, Mencken writes, “The precise form of the government he suffers under is of small importance. Whether it be called a constitutional monarchy, as in England, or a representative republic, as in France, or a pure democracy, as in some of the cantons of Switzerland, it is always essentially the same. There is, first, the mob, theoretically and in fact the ultimate judge of all ideas and the source of all power. There is, second, the camorra of self-seeking minorities, each seeking to inflame, delude and victimize it. The political process thus becomes a mere battle of rival rogues. But the mob remains quite free to decide between them.” Occasionally and miraculously, the mob chooses the relatively honest and enlightened. More often, it chooses the thieves “because their words are words it understands and their ideas are ideas it cherishes.” Nevertheless, the mob “has the power to throw them off at will, and even at whim, and it also has the means.” [As the lowly Christian is now a minority of the mob in most democratic countries, if Mencken were to write this today, he would need to use another descriptor of the mob. Possibly, he uses “Christian” because he has a low opinion of Christians.]
    Mencken contends, “A great deal of paper and ink has been wasted discussing the difference between representative government and direct democracy.” Many of these pundits conclude that representative government is full of defects. “Not only does it take the initiative in law-making out of the hands of the plain people and leave them only the function of referees; it also raises certain obvious obstacles to their free exercise of that function.” Being scattered and unorganized, the people are unable “to formulate their virtuous desires quickly and clearly, or to bring to the resolution of vexed questions the full potency of their native sagacity. Worse, they find it difficult to enforce their decisions, even when they have decided.”
    Liberals cry over this fact. Their remedy is usually a “purer democracy.” That is, they propose “the recall, the initiative and referendum, or something else of the sort, and so convert the representative into a mere clerk or messenger.” Thus, they place “the final determination of all important public questions . . . in the hands of the voters themselves.” Only the voters “can muster enough wisdom for the business, and they alone are without guile. The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy.” [As witnessed in the United States, as the qualifications needed to be a voter has been lowered, the quality of government has declined. As the quality of government has declined, its power over and control of the people have grown.]
    Mencken notes that more democracy has never cured the evils of democracy. He adds, “Certainly no competent historian believes that the citizens assembled in a New England town-meeting actually formulated en masse the transcendental and immortal measures that they adopted, nor even that they contributed anything of value to the discussion thereof.” Mencken remarks that this “notion is as absurd as the parallel notion, long held by philologues of defective powers of observation, that the popular ballads surviving from earlier ages were actually composed by the folk. The ballads, in point of fact, were all written by concrete poets, most of them not of the folk; the folk, when they had any hand in the business at all, simply acted as referees, choosing which should survive.” Likewise, “the New England town-meeting was led and dominated by a few men of unusual initiative and determination, some of them genuinely superior, but most of them simply demagogues and fanatics. The citizens in general heard the discussion of rival ideas, and went through the motions of deciding between them, but there is no evidence that they ever had all the relevant facts before them or made any effort to unearth them, or that appeals to their reason always, or even usually, prevailed
over appeals to their mere prejudice and superstition. . . . Some of the most idiotic decisions ever come to by mortal man were made by the New England town-meetings, and under the leadership of monomaniacs who are still looked upon as ineffable blossoms of the contemporary Kultur.” [What would one expect from Puritans?]
    Nevertheless, “the difference between representative democracy and direct democracy is a great deal less marked than political sentimentalists assume. Under both forms the sovereign mob must employ agents to execute its will, and in either case the agents may have ideas of their own, based upon interests of their own, and the means at hand to do and get what they will. Moreover, their very position gives them a power of influencing the electors that is far above that of any ordinary citizen.” [Thus, incumbents usually win elections.]
    Mencken adds that “both forms of democracy encounter the difficulty that the generality of citizens, no matter how assiduously they may be instructed, remain congenitally unable to comprehend many of the problems before them, or to consider all of those they do comprehend in an unbiased and intelligent manner.” [This inability to comprehend in an unbiased and intelligent manner is also true of most members of Congress and State legislatures.]
    Continuing, Mencken remarks that “the great masses of Americans of to-day, though they are theoretically competent to decide all the larger matters of national policy, and have certain immutable principles, of almost religious authority, to guide them, actually look for leading to professional politicians, who are influenced in turn by small but competent and determined minorities, with special knowledge and special interests.” [Liberals and progressives consider the people intelligent and competent enough to decide who will govern the country, at least until they elected Donald Trump, but they consider the people too stupid and incompetent to govern their own lives. The people need enlightened liberals and progressives whom they have elected to govern the country to govern their lives.] By this means, the plain people were shoved into World War I. “They were, in overwhelming majority, against going in, and if they had had any sense and resolution they would have stayed out. But these things they lacked.” [The same thing happened with World War II. Roosevelt maneuvered the people into war that most did not want by maneuvering Japan into attacking U.S. territory.]
    In conclusion, the difference between representative democracy and pure democracy is more apparent than real.

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Mencken on Politics under Democracy

Mencken on Politics under Democracy

Thomas Allen

    In 1926, H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) wrote Notes on Democracy in which he expressed his views on democracy and related issues. He was a journalist, satirist, and critic and a libertarian and one of the leaders of the Old Right. In his book, he describes politics under democracy, pages 29-35. Below is an overview of his discussion on politics under democracy; my comments are in brackets.
    Since fear controls politics under democracy, politicians use it to manipulate the mob. “The demagogues, i.e., the professors of mob psychology, who flourish in democratic states are well aware of the fact, and make it the corner-stone of their exact and puissant science.” Thus, “[P]olitics under democracy consists almost wholly of the discovery, chase and scotching of bugaboos. The statesman becomes, in the last analysis, a mere witch-hunter, a glorified smeller and snooper.” The whole history of the United States “has been a history of melodramatic pursuits of horrendous monsters, most of them imaginary: the red-coats, the Hessians, the monocrats, again the red-coats, the Bank, the Catholics, Simon Legree, the Slave Power, Jeff Davis, Mormonism, Wall Street, the rum demon, John Bull, the hell-hounds of plutocracy, the trusts, General Weyler, Pancho Villa, German spies, hyphenates, the Kaiser, Bolshevism.” [Many of these threats were real; however, politicians exaggerated them to terrorize the mob. Politicians used this tactic of fear to get the American people to beg for the police state following 9-11. Fear has been used to terrorize the people to demand just about every enslaving program that the US government have ever adopted.]
    Under democracy, the plain people “never vote for anything, but always against something.” Consequently, the democratic state tends “to pass over statesmen of genuine imagination and sound ability in favour of colourless mediocrities. The former are shining marks, and so it is easy for demagogues to bring them down; the latter are preferred because it is impossible to fear them.” [The demagogue is a democratic man and is, therefore, part of the mob. Thus, being one of them, the plain people understand him and do not fear him. Does this explain the rabid fear that the common Democrat and many Republicans have of President Trump and especially his supporters and their embracement of Hillary Clinton?] Mencken continues, “The demagogue himself, when he grows ambitious and tries to posture as a statesman, usually comes ignominiously to grief, as the cases of Bryan, [Theodore] Roosevelt, and Wilson dramatically demonstrate.”
    Using Bryan as an example, Mencken shows the rise and fall of a demagogue. “If Bryan had confined himself, in 1896, to the chase of the bugaboo of plutocracy, it is very probable that he would have been elected. But he committed the incredible folly of throwing most of his energies into advocating a so-called constructive programme, and it was thus easy for his opponents to alarm the mob against him. That programme had the capital defect of being highly technical, and hence almost wholly unintelligible to all save a small minority; so it took on a sinister look, and caused a shiver to go down the democratic spine.” [Consequently, most political campaigns consist almost entirely of slogans and mudslinging with little or no details about what the candidate plans to do if he wins.] Continuing, Mencken writes, “It was his cross-of-gold speech that nominated him; it was his cow State political economy that ruined him.”
    According to Mencken, “[g]overnment under democracy is thus government by orgy, almost by orgasm. Its processes are most beautifully displayed at times when they stand most naked — for example, in war days.” He uses World War I, which was then known as World War, to illustrate the use of fear to manipulate mob psychology. “[T]he World War is simply a record of conflicting fears, more than once amounting to frenzies. The mob, at the start of the uproar, showed a classical reaction: it was eager only to keep out of danger. . . . In 1916, on his fraudulent promise to preserve that boy from harm, Wilson was re-elected.” Then came the task of the demagogue to convert the people to warmongers. “The problem was to substitute a new and worse fear for the one that prevailed — a new fear so powerful that it would reconcile the mob to the thought of entering the war.” Right after the election, all agencies of the US government began clamoring for war. “No ship went down to a submarine’s torpedo anywhere on the seven seas that the State Department did not report that American citizens — nay, American infants in their mothers’ arms — were aboard. Diplomatic note followed diplomatic note, each new one surpassing all its predecessors in moral indignation. The Department of Justice ascribed all fires, floods and industrial accidents to German agents. The newspapers were filled with dreadful surmises, many of them officially inspired, about the probable effects upon the United States of the prospective German victory.” As a result, the mob became convinced “that a victorious Germany would unquestionably demand an accounting for the United States’ gross violations of neutrality.” Thus, the demagogue gave the mob a choice of fears. “The first was a fear of a Germany heavily beset, but making alarming progress against her foes. The second was a fear of a Germany delivered from them, and thirsting for revenge on a false and venal friend.” The second fear won. Soon the mob “was reconciled to entering the war — reconciled, but surely not eager.” Now the demagogues had the task “of converting reluctant acquiescence into enthusiasm.” A new fear was the solution. Thus, the government strove to throw “the plain people into a panic. All sense was heaved overboard, and there ensued a chase of bugaboos on a truly epic scale. Nothing like it had ever been seen in the world before, for no democratic state as populous as the United States had ever gone to war before.” By the end of 1917, the American people “were in such terror that they lived in what was substantially a state of siege, though the foe was 3,000 miles away and obviously unable to do them any damage.” Only the draft “gave them sufficient courage to attempt actual hostilities. That ingenious device, by relieving the overwhelming majority of them of any obligation to take up arms, made them bold.” Mencken continues, “Before it was adopted they were heavily in favour of contributing only munitions and money to the cause of democracy, with perhaps a few divisions of Regulars added for the moral effect. But once it became apparent that a given individual, John Doe, would not have to serve, he, John Doe, developed an altruistic eagerness for a frontal attack in force. For every Richard Roe in the conscript camps there were a dozen John Does thus safely at home, with wages high and the show growing enjoyable.” Mencken concludes, “So an heroic mood came upon the people, and their fear was concealed by a truculent front. But not from students of mob psychology.” [Today, the same use of fear is being used to manipulate psychology in the War on Terrorism with all agencies of the government and their collaborators in the media inciting war. President Bush’s inane remark that “if we do not fight them over there, we will have to fight them here” was an insult of the highest magnitude of the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy. How could anyone with no air force and no navy attack the United States, unless the Bush regime let them into the country?]

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Mencken on the Inferior Man

Mencken on the Inferior Man

Thomas Allen

    In 1926, H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) wrote Notes on Democracy in which he expressed his views on democracy and related issues. He was a journalist, satirist, and critic and a libertarian and one of the leaders of the Old Right. In his book, he describes the inferior man, pages 15-21, 31-32, 38-39. Below is an overview of his discussion on the inferior man; my comments are in brackets.
    About the inferior man, Mencken notes “that there is actually no more evidence for the wisdom of the inferior man, nor for his virtue, than there is for the notion that Friday is an unlucky day.” In the early days, testing this notion of superiority of the inferior man was difficult. “[W]hat cannot be tried and disproved has always had a lascivious lure for illogical man.” Recent knowledge about “the content and character of the human mind,” has disposed of “the old belief in its congenital intuitions and inherent benevolences.” [Studies during the past several decades show that genetics has a much greater influence on the human mind than suspected in Mencken’s day.] The functions of the mind are mostly “purely physical and chemical phenomena, and its development and operation are subject to precisely the same natural laws which govern the development and operation, say, of the human nose or lungs.” Thus, some “minds . . . start out with a superior equipment, and proceed to high and arduous deeds; there are minds which never get any farther than a sort of insensate sweating, like that of a kidney.” [Mencken is correct in that some minds are genetically superior to others. However, he ignores the spiritual or soul aspects of the mind, i.e., the mind is more than physical and chemical phenomena, a notion that he, most likely, would reject. In the last two chapters of Darwinism Refuted, Harun Yahya discusses this aspect of the mind. Being an evolutionist, Mencken would have rejected Yahya’s book as so much superstition.]
    Open-minded people can easily observe the difference between a superior mind and an inferior mind. When exposed to suitable training, a superior mind “acquires the largest body of knowledge and the highest skill.” On the other hand, “no conceivable training can move” the inferior mind beyond a certain point. “In other words, men differ inside their heads as they differ outside. There are men who are naturally intelligent and can learn, and there are men who are naturally stupid and cannot.” [Mencken is writing about intelligence, and what he writes is true. However, a person with high intelligence may be weak in wisdom, common sense, morality, and ethics. A person of low intelligence may be more endowed with these traits than many highly intelligent people. That is, a high I.Q. makes a superior mind, but it does not necessarily make a superior person. For example, university heads and professors have high I.Q. Most likely, Mencken would consider most of them “betters” and “superiors.” Yet, most of them show no more love for liberty than the typical inferior of the mob. For the most part, they are Puritans, cultural Marxists, who want to micromanage everyone’s thoughts and actions and mold everybody into their ideal. Thus, the relationship between intelligence and the desire for liberty seems weak.]
    “Liberals, whatever their defects otherwise, are themselves capable of learning, and so they quickly mastered the fact that MM. Simon and Binet offered the most dangerous menace to their vapourings ever heard of since the collapse of the Holy Alliance.” [Simon and Binet were pioneers in intelligence testing.] Liberals despise intelligence tests for two reasons.  “First, they provide a more or less scientific means of demonstrating the difference in natural intelligence between man and man — a difference noted ages ago by common observation, and held to be real by all men save democrats, at all times and everywhere. Second, they provide a rational scale for measuring it and a rational explanation of it.”
    Mencken continues, “An intelligent man is one who is capable of taking in knowledge until the natural limits of the species are reached. A stupid man is one whose progress is arrested at some specific time and place before then. . . . Some men can learn almost indefinitely; their capacity goes on increasing until their bodies begin to wear out. Others stop in childhood, even in infancy. They reach, say, the mental age of ten or twelve, and then they develop no more.” [This later group dominates Social Justice, Black Live Matter and Antifa. They are also predominant among the anti-Confederate crowd.]
    Naturally, the democrats [egalitarians] strongly object to this conclusion of the naturally inferior man. “Their objection to it is rather of a metaphysical character, and involves gratuitous, transcendental assumptions as to what ought and what ought not to be true.” [Not only do democrats dominate the Democratic party, they also dominate the Republican party and even the Libertarian party.] They claim that “believing such things would be in contempt of the dignity of man, made in God’s image.” [But God made people the way that they are.]
    Alas, democracy is “a form of theology, and shows all the immemorial stigmata. Confronted by uncomfortable facts, it invariably tries to dispose of them by appeals to the highest sentiments of the human heart.” Furthermore, the “anti-democrat is not merely mistaken; he is also wicked; and the more plausible he is the more wicked he becomes.”
    Mencken adds, “that man on the lower levels, though he quickly reaches the limit of his capacity for taking in actual knowledge, remains capable for a long time thereafter of absorbing delusions. What is true daunts him, but what is not true finds lodgment in his cranium with so little resistance that there is only a trifling emission of heat.” [The anti-Confederates support Mencken’s observation. They lack the ability to acquire knowledge, but they easily absorb delusion. The same type of person is also seen supporting Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama and to a slightly lesser degree George Bush.] Moreover, the inferior man “has a dreadful capacity for embracing and cherishing impostures.” Since the beginning of recorded history, priests, politicians, and all sorts of quacks have victimized him. “His heroes are always frauds. In all ages he has hated bitterly the men who were labouring most honestly and effectively for the progress of the race. What such men teach is beyond his grasp. He believes in consequence that it is unsound, immoral and of the devil.”
    Fear guides and controls the inferior man. “[E]ducation is largely a process of getting rid of such fears.” [Today, what passes for education teaches the inferior man to fear even more and tries to teach the superior man also to fear. One can see the operation of the inferior man in public education, which is nothing more than indoctrination in politically correct thinking. Parents who send their children to private schools are often looked down upon, even by the super rich who send their children to private schools. The worst heretics are parents who homeschool. They are accused of being pariahs who abuse their children and often have their children take from them.] “The ideal educated man is simply one who has put away as foolish the immemorial fears of the race — of strange men and strange ideas, of the powers and principalities of the air. He is sure of himself in the world; no dread of the dark rides him; he is serene.” Unfortunately, “the vast majority of men are congenitally incapable of any such intellectual progress. They cannot take in new ideas, and they cannot get rid of old fears.” Moreover, lacking logical sense, he is “unable to reason from a set of facts before [him], free from emotional distraction.” Furthermore, the inferior man is “incompetent to take in the bald facts” himself. Except at the most elemental level, words convey nothing to the inferior man. His mind “cannot grasp even the simplest abstractions.” [Perhaps, more than anything else, the ability to think in abstract terms is what separates the superior man from the inferior man.] All his thinking “is done on the level of a few primitive appetites and emotions.” [Although Mencken avoids mentioning race, some races seem to have more difficulty thinking abstractly and seem to “think” more on the primitive level of appetites and emotions.] Thus, ideas leave him unscathed; he is “responsive only to emotions,” and his “emotions are all elemental — the emotions, indeed, of  tabby-cats rather than of men.” Therefore, educating the inferior man is impossible.
    “[I]n all departments and on all planes the inferior man reduces it [love, which “runs from the erotic to the philanthropic,”] to terms of his own elemental yearnings. Of all his stupidities there is none more stupid than that which makes it impossible for him to see beyond them, even as an act of the imagination.” Moreover, he “cannot formulate the concept of a good that is not his own good.” From time immemorial, he has hated both sacred and secular heretics. “His first thought and his last thought, contemplating them, is to stand them up against a wall and have at them with musketry.” No record is found of him ever opening “his mouth for fairness, for justice, for decency between man and man. Such concepts, like the concepts of honour and of liberty, are eternally beyond him, and belong only to his superiors.” The inferior man is a natural coward. His “congenital fear is easily translated into cruelty.” His “deficiency in imagination” makes him incapable of projecting “himself into the place of the other.” When the inferior man’s “ betters stand before [him], asking for something that [he] may withhold — when [he is] thus confronted, though the thing asked for be only fair dealing, elemental justice, common decency,” he is a wolf.
    [Examples of the inferior man include supporters and members of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Social Justice, Antifa, and Black Lives Matter. Another example is the people who seek to remove and destroy Confederate monuments. They do not understand why the South fought for its independence, the purpose of the monuments memorializing the Confederate soldier, or the reason for erecting them. Moreover, they can never understand because they are incapable of understanding. It is beyond the capacity of their minds. Therefore, they fear them and want to destroy them. Still, another example is the supporters of Hillary Clinton. They do not understand Donald Trump’s supporters, and they will never understand them. Therefore, they fear them and want to bring Trump, who represents them, down. Blindly, they support Clinton because she is one of them; therefore, they understand her, although she despises them and spits on them.]

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Why Can’t We All Get Along?

Why Can’t We All Get Along?

Thomas Allen

    People often ask, “Why can’t we all just get along with each other?  Why can’t people just join hands and sing ‘Kumbaya’? Why is there such a great divide in the country — a divide that has not been seen since the War for Southern Independence?”
    The answer is simple. There are three groups of people: (1) the go-with-the-flow or go-along-to-get-along group, (2) the want-to-be-left-alone group, and (3) the determined-not-to-leave-them-alone group. As long as both of the last two groups exist, peace and harmony cannot exist. One or the other has to cease to exist before peace and harmony can exist.
    The go-with-the-flow group is by far the largest and is irrelevant. People in this group have taken the blue pill and remain in the Matrix. These people will march off to the concentration camps with hardly a grumble. They are the sheeple. No more needs to be said about this group.
    People in the want-to-be-left-alone group just want to live their lives and enjoy the fruits of their labor and their family and friends. People in the determined-not-to-leave-them-alone group are determined not to leave them alone or let them enjoy the fruits of their labor.
    Here is a short list, in no particular order, of what wearies people who just want to be left alone:
    –    They are tired of policies and programs being imposed on them that deliberately destroy their country (geographical territory) and nation (a people of common ancestry, origin, and heritage who have a common language, religion, and culture).
    –    They are tired of others telling them with the force of law how to use their property instead of allowing them to use their property as they see fit as long as they do not trespass against another.
    –    They are tired of the meddlers trying to disarm them so that they cannot resist the programs of the meddlers.
    –    They are tired of being forcibly medicated (water fluoridation, forced vaccination, etc.).
    –    They are tired of being denied medical treatment that the government does not approve even when these treatments have been shown to be superior to those approved by the government.
    –    They are tired of bureaucrats, who risk nothing, dictating to them how to operate their businesses, farms, etc.
    –    They are tired of being labeled “terrorists” because they love liberty.
    –    They are tired of being treated like criminals in order to fly and having their children molested so that they can board an airplane.
    –    They are tired of having the fruits of their labor taken from them via excessive taxation — especially when the revenue is used to control their lives, to impose on them agendas and dogmas to which they object, and to destroy what they value.
    –    They are tired of being forced to support programs with which they vehemently disagree — most of which they find inimical and detrimental to their welfare.
    –    They are tired of incompetent government agencies being rewarded for incompetence by increasing their budget when they fail to do their job, or, perhaps worse, agencies deliberately failing to do their job being rewarded with budget increases.
    –    They are tired of governments and big businesses spying on them.
    –    They are tired of their country and its people and resources being sacrificed for the benefit of other countries and multinational corporations.
    –    They are tired of governmental programs, policies, and agendas designed to reduce their standard of living — these programs and policies have been highly effective at doing this.
    –    They are tired of illegal aliens having more rights and privileges than they themselves have.
    –    They are tired of being forced to pay for a school system that propagandizes and indoctrinates the ruling elite’s dogmas and agendas instead of educating and teaching critical thinking.
    –    They are tired of judges, governmental agencies (usually child protection agencies), and the medical industry taking children from their homes because they disagree with the religion, politics, or medical decisions of the parents or because they merely disagree with the parents.
    –    They are tired of their language being corrupted in the name of political correctness.
    –    They are tired of being forced to take so-called tolerance-diversity courses where they are indoctrinated with the dogmas that people like them cannot be tolerated.
    –    They are tired of being indoctrinated with programs to effeminize men and destroy women with feminist dogma.
    –    They are tired of governments enforcing programs and policies against common sense and decency.
    –    They are tired of having a code of morality (immorality) forced upon them with which they not only disagree, but also find extremely noxious and destructive (a code of morality covers much more than sexual relations; it includes things like theft, murder, fraud, and lying).
    –    They are tired of being forced to participate in the delusions of mentally ill people.
    –    They are tired of being obligated for debts, especially without their consent, that because of their size can never be repaid and that will eventually destroy their country.
    –    They are tired of being laden with ever-increasing regulations and laws designed to control them.
    –    They are tired of governments and politicians lying to them.
    –    They are tired of governments siding with multinational corporations to oppress them.
    –    They are tired of governments serving shysters and special interests instead of the people in general.
    –    They are tired of the US Constitution being replaced with tyranny.
    In short, people who want to be left alone have become extremely weary of Washington bureaucrats and politicians and their owners and their toadies and lackeys in State and local governments imposing their agendas on them. They object to others, i.e., the people who are determined not to leave them alone, claiming that they (the others) know how the want-to-be-left-alone people ought to live their lives and then imposing that lifestyle on them.
    The do-not-want-to-leave-them-alone people have been coercing every item in the above list and much more. Moreover, they are determined to continue to impose these and more.
    To use the Matrix as a metaphor, people who want to be left alone are like Neo and Morpheus. People who are determined not to leave them alone are like Agent Smith; like him, they are driven to cleanse the world of the likes of Neo and Morpheus.
    Many people support Donald Trump because they see him as speaking for and defending people who just want to be left alone. They also see Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders as not wanting to leave them alone. They see these two only continuing and expanding control of their lives. Most supporters of Clinton and Sanders have the same view of Trump, Clinton, and Sanders.
    As long as these two antagonistic groups, i.e., people who want to be left alone and people who are determined not to leave them alone, exist, peace and harmony cannot exist. One of these two groups has to perish to achieve peace and harmony.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

More articles on politics.