Muslims and Jews

Muslims and Jews

Thomas Allen

The host of a radio program to which I listen harshly condemns Islam as a vile, evil, satanic religion and Muslims as vile, evil people. Also, he condemns woke Protestantism, which, unfortunately, includes most of today’s mainline denominations. However, I do not recall him ever condemning woke Judaism, although evidence suggests that Jews are behind much of the apostate corruption of Christianity. What follows are emails that I sent him with some modifications and additions.

If I understand him correctly, he says that the Jews did not kill Jesus. If so, he is calling Paul a liar (1 Thessalonians 2:14-15). Here, Paul expressly states that the Jews killed Jesus. Also, Peter says that the Jews killed Jesus: Acts 2:36, Acts 4:10, and Acts 5:30.  In his reply, he states that the Jews did not do the deed (his reply is given below). They may not have been the ones who physically hung Jesus on the cross, but they terrorized and manipulated the Romans into doing the deed for them. Regardless, both Paul and Peter give the Jews the credit for killing Jesus rather than the Romans. (See “Who Killed Jesus” by Thomas Allen.)

Islam may be as evil as the host describes it: more evil than sin. The nefarious acts of Muslims in Europe support his claim. (However, since most of these aliens are nonwhites, could their motivation be race and not religion?) Even more iniquitous are the acts of the European leaders, who are surely disciples of Lucifer. They let, even encourage, Muslim males of military age to enter their countries in vast numbers. Not only do they allow these Muslims to destroy European cultures, rape European women, and commit other hideous crimes, but they also protect them while they do these despicable acts, and they also arrest those who object to what these Muslims are doing.

Nevertheless, when I hear the host’s description of Muslims, I think of Jews. Muslims may be liars, connivers, thieves, killers, destroyers, etc. So are Jews — even more so. (This misbehavior has caused many countries to expel Jews throughout history; they did not expel them because of their religion.) The difference between the two is that, because of their small numbers, Jews manipulate others, like Americans, to do their killing and conquering.

Moreover, which Jews are we talking about? (1) The descendants of the Old Testament Israelites, especially Judah, i.e., Jews with all of their chromosomes coming from the Old Testament Israelites, of whom few, if any, exist today. (2) The people of Persia who became Jews for fear of the Jews at the time of Esther. (3) The Edomites or Idumaeans, who accounted for a large percentage of the Jews in Judea and surrounding areas during the time of Jesus. (4) The Ashkenazim, who originated in Europe (or in the Khazar Khaganate, as some claim) and who account for most of the Jews today. (5) The Sephardic Jews of the Iberian Peninsula. (6) The Mizrahi Jews of the Middle East and North Africa, who are a mixed breed of people. (7) The Jews of the Khazar Khaganate. If the Israelites are God’s chosen people, only the first group qualifies. The others are either amalgamated mongrels or not descendants of the Israelites. (There are people who call themselves Jews but are not [Revelation 2:9 and 3:9].)

Furthermore, if Islam is a satanic religion, so is Judaism. If it were not, why would Jesus call the Pharisees children of the devil: John 8:44? Today's Judaism is a direct descendant of Pharisaic Judaism.

Anyway, one’s religious book (the Koran) teaches that Jesus is a great prophet. The other’s religious book (the Talmud) teaches that Jesus is a blasphemer, a sorcerer, and a bastard. Which is more compatible with Christianity?

Additionally, at the behest of Jews, the US House of Representatives adopted a definition of antisemitism that outlaws the New Testament (the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023). (See “Christian Zionists” by Thomas Allen.)

Peace will not exist in the Middle East until one of two things happens. One, Israel ceases to exist or is reduced to insignificance. Two, all the Muslims and Christians who live in Egypt east of the Nile, in Jordan, in Lebanon, in Turkey south of the Euphrates, in Syria west of the Euphrates, in Iraq west of the Euphrates, in Kuwait, and in northern Saudi Arabia leave their homes and let the Jews have their lands. (Does Israel have a right to all the territory that I name? Israel claims that it does. It claims all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates — from the river to the river.)

In closing, although I despise the acts of many Jews, such as Soros, I do not hate Jews. I wish that they all would come to Christ and receive his saving grace.

Replies

First reply: “Then you are calling God a liar. I have zero time with people of a Hitler mindset [sic]. Goodbye.” My comment: Although I cite several Bible verses, I did not mention God, the Bible, or theology, so how and where did I call God a liar? At worst, I described the stereotypical Jew as he described the stereotypical Muslim. Apparently, he considers today’s Jews as God’s chosen people (I always thought that Christians are God’s chosen people), although they act like Satan’s chosen people — especially the Zionist Jews in Israel. As for Hitler, I see Hitler and his followers as similar to the way this radio host sees Muslims: very evil people.

Second: “People make a big mistake when they claim God broke has [sic, His]  promise to the Jews. I’m sorry you feel the way you do, but this unprecedented rise in anti-Jewish sentiment is of biblical proportion. God’s promise is eternally binding, if it isn’t then neither is His promise of salvation to the Gentile. The Church did NOT replace God’s chosen, we were grafted onto that tree. I apologize for bring [sic, being[ so curt in my prior email. This morning has been physically rough on me, plus I just went through a pile of typical writings from leftists. As to my point about the Jews not being the one to kill Jesus, my point is they were not the ones who did the deed. While they wanted Jesus gone, because He was a threat to their corrupt institution, it was the ‘institution’ not the actual people who were threatened. That is still the issue to this day; a corrupt leadership. I always remind people of the word ‘Remnant.’ That is true among both Christians and Jews.” My comment: Although I do not know for sure, he seems to agree with those Christian Zionists who believe that Jews are saved merely by being Jews and without believing in Jesus for salvation. Moreover, are the Jews who live in Israel today the Jews to whom the promise was made? There are Jews, and there are Jews. Today, many people call themselves Jews, but are not Jews. (See my comment above on what Jews we are talking about.) Moreover, how can antichrist be God’s chosen people? In 1 John 2:22 and 4:3,  John writes that those, including and especially Jews, who deny that Jesus is Christ and do not confess Jesus Christ are the antichrist. (Since Muslims deny that Jesus is Christ and do not confess Jesus Christ, they are also antichrist.) Furthermore, most of the rise in anti-Jewish sentiment comes from Israel acting like a bully, Jews manipulating leaders, especially in the United States, to support Israel’s hostile and bullying actions, Jews promoting the suppression of freedom of speech in the United States (Muslims are doing likewise, but they have not been as effective), and other nefarious acts of Jews.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Aryans Compared with Melanochroi

Aryans Compared with Melanochroi

Thomas Allen

The two races, more correctly, species, of humans most commonly confused are Aryans and Melanochroi. Many people lump the two together as Caucasian, which makes Caucasian a poor racial name that leads to confusion.

Aryans are also known as Whites, White Caucasians, Europeans, and Homo albus. Aryan racial types include Nordics (a.k.a. Cymric, Aryans, Teutonics), East Baltics (a.k.a. East Europeans, Orientals), Alpines (a.k.a. Celts, Celto-Slavs, Ligurians, Arvernians, Cymric), Mediterraneans (a.k.a. Iberians), Dinarics (a.k.a. Adriatics, Illyrians), Armenians (a.k.a. Assyrians, Anatolians), Southern Mediterraneans (a.k.a. Northern Hamites, Libyans, Atlanteans, Libyo-Teutonics), Pamiri, Northern Semites (a.k.a. Northern Arabs, Chaldeans), Iranians (a.k.a. Irano-Mediterraneans), and Indo-Afghans. In the Eastern Hemisphere, Aryans are the predominant people in Europe, Lebanon, Syria, northern and central Iraq, Iran (except Khuzistan, the coastal regions, and Baluchistan), eastern Afghanistan, northern Pakistan, northwest India, western Kashmir, Maghreb coast, Tunis, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica.

Melanochroi are also known as Brown Caucasians and Homo brunus. Melanochroic racial types include Saharan-Hamites (a.k.a. Moors, Saharan-Berbers), Eastern-Hamites (a.k.a. Ethiopians), Egyptians, Orientals (a.k.a. Arabs, Southern Arabs), Indo-Iranians (a.k.a. Hindus), and Dravidians (a.k.a. Asiatic Negroes, Melano-Hindus). In the Eastern Hemisphere, Melanochroi are the predominate people in and around the Sahara Desert (central and southern Morocco, central and southern Algeria, Mauritania, northern Mali, Niger, northern Chad, and southern and central Libya), Egypt, eastern Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, the Arabian peninsula, southern Iraq, Khuzistan, the coastal regions of Iran, Baluchistan, central and southern Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka.

Physical Description

Skin color

Aryan: light with reddish or pinkish tones; reflectivity of 50–64 percent, Luschan’s Hautfarbentafel of 1–17 (except 4–6).

Melanochroi: light yellowish brown to reddish brown to dark brown; reflectivity of 23–41 percent, Luschan’s Hautfarbentafel of 18–29.

Hair color

Aryan: varying in color from dark brown to light brown, light chestnut, reddish brown, flaxen; relatively high frequency of blondness; grays early.

Melanochroi: dark brown to black.

Head hair

Aryan: soft; fine texture; wavy or straight, sometimes curly; elliptic cross-section; tendency to baldness.

Melanochroi: curly or fizzy in the Hamitic branch; straight or wavy in the Indian branch.

Facial hair

Aryan: often highly developed.

Melanochroi: moderate beard development; some full, some scant.

Body hair

Aryan: medium to strong development.

Melanochroi: usually scant.

Face

Aryan: orthognathous; middle region of the face projects rather strongly, but cheekbones and jaws are not prominent; relatively narrow with slight cheekbones and few or no angles; typically oval in outline.

Melanochroi: orthognathous; elongated, oval; jaws not projecting.

Forehead

Aryan: straight to slightly sloping; medium to high.

Melanochroi: high.

Eyes

Aryan: corners at one level.

Melanochroi: straight, almond-shaped.

Eye color

Aryan: brown, but many with green, grey, light blue, and dark blue.

Melanochroi: light brown to dark brown or black.

Eyelids

Aryan: fold of eyelid weakly developed; conjunctiva bluish to pearly white.

Melanochroi: —

Nose

Aryan: leptorrhine; narrow with fairly high bridge; long axes of the nostrils are placed in an almost straight line from back to front.

Melanochroi: generally prominent; straight or arched; round at the points; delicate nostrils.

Lips

Aryan: medium to thin; do not project.

Melanochroi: medium or thick; some thin; never protruding.

Mouth

Aryan: —

Melanochroi: moderate size.

Teeth

Aryan: microdont; small to medium; mildly and uniformly concave upper incisors on the lingual side.

Melanochroi: white; regular; a little projecting.

Chin

Aryan: medium to strongly developed.

Melanochroi: fairly prominent; often pointed.

Ears

Aryan: medium size; relatively narrow and long; lobule does not hang low.

Melanochroi: —

Head shape

Aryan: all three types (dolichocephalic, mesocephalic, and brachycephalic) are widespread.

Melanochroi: dolichocephalic, some mesocephalic; oblong; round-domed skull.

Body characteristics

Aryan: mesomorphy; upper arm and leg generally longer than lower arm and leg; legs and torso medium to long in length; legs shapely and full; in women legs stout and in apposition when standing; buttocks sometimes with a slight over-development of fat; long sitting height.

Melanochroi: ectomorphy; slender; symmetrical; legs shapely with calves well developed.

Female breast

Aryan: generally hemispherical; small areola.

Melanochroi: hemispherical.

Feet and hands

Aryan: feet small to large, well arched; hands small to large.

Melanochroi: feet small with high instep.

Stature

Aryan: average to tall.

Melanochroi: average to below average; some tall.

Reference

Allen, Thomas Coley. Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 1999.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More anthropology articles

Some Observations

Some Observations

Thomas Allen

The following describes the ideal state and its government and comments on Europe’s lust for war with Russia.

The Ideal State and Its Ideal Government

What follows is a description of the ideal state and its ideal government according to most left-wingers, especially progressives, socialists, fascists, and many nationalists.

In an ideal state, bureaucrats rule. Bureaucrats are isolated from special interests — so they believe. However, as COVID-19 and the Black Lives Matter riots illustrate, special interests have as much control over bureaucrats as they have over politicians. Nevertheless, statists are correct that bureaucrats are more difficult to replace than elected politicians. For statist, difficulty in replacing bureaucrats is a good thing and, therefore, bureaucratic rule is the ideal government for the ideal state.

Bureaucrats are supposed to be guided by the common good, which is what is best for the community. Yet, the concept of the common good is highly subjective. For example, some believe that a disarmed citizenry is for the common good, while others believe that a heavily armed citizenry is for the common good. In the end, personal prejudices and biases, the lust for power and wealth, and ideology guide most bureaucrats, especially those at the higher levels, in deciding what is the public good. Many lower-level bureaucrats are guided by the notion of doing their jobs.

The state is an abstraction that cannot exist without people. What is the state? The people who control the government. (See “The State” by Thomas Allen.) When bureaucrats rule, the state is the high-ranking bureaucrats and the people who own or control them, i.e., the oligarchs, who are ultimately the state.

Of course, people who promote the bureaucratic-ruled state are convinced that the bureaucrats who control the government think like they do. The bureaucrats will promote policies and agendas with which these promoters agree and suppress those with which they disagree. While progressives, socialists, fascists, and other statists find the bureaucratic-ruled state desirable, traditional conservatives, constitutionalists, libertarians, and other libertists find it deplorable.

Unfortunately, the United States are close to achieving the ideal state and its ideal government.  As the statists rejoice over their coming victory, the libertists are mourning the death of their country and its Constitution. (For the differences between a statist and a libertist, see “Statists Versus Libertists” by Thomas Allen.)

Europe’s Lust for War with Russia

Many of the European political leaders are working diligently to start a war with Russia. Following the example of most modern belligerents, they are trying to provoke Russia to fire the first shot so that they can blame Russia for starting the war and, thus, draw the United States into another useless European war. (The leadership of the United States either is stupid enough or controlled enough to carry the United States into another no-win war, but this war will totally destroy the United States.)

These European leaders are beginning to prepare their countries for war with Russia. Several countries are increasing their production of war materials and increasing the size of their armies. Moreover, they are telling their citizens to prepare for war. Some are considering reinstituting the draft.

With whom or what do they plan to fight such a war? They have completely demobilized their native White ethnicities. Whites have been taught that they are the cancer of the universe and do not deserve to exist. Their political leaders have relegated them to second-class citizens in their own countries. Such a demoralized people make a poor army that can be easily defeated.

Do these European leaders plan to use the immigrants from the Middle East, South Asia, and Northern Africa who have flooded Europe over recent decades? These immigrants owe Europe no allegiance. Most came to plunder and conquer. Why should they risk their lives to defend Europe?

Consequently, Europe cannot rely on these immigrants or the demoralized native Whites to fight Russia. Additionally, Europe has depleted much of its war materials by sending them to Ukraine.

Apparently, using Russia’s war with Ukraine as their model, some of these European leaders act as though they will fight Russia for months, if not for years. If the war goes nuclear, which it most likely will, Russia could utterly destroy all major cities in Europe in less than 10 minutes. (If Russia thought that the United States would retaliate, it could destroy the US missile silos before they could fire and take out most of the bombers on the ground. Moreover, it could destroy many major cities, airports, and military and naval bases in less than 30 minutes. Its hypersonic missiles can travel from New York to Los Angeles in less than half an hour. Neither Europe nor the United States have any defense against Russia’s hypersonic missiles. Moreover, Russia also has nuclear torpedoes that can flood much of coastal Europe.)

Do these European leaders believe that they can defeat Russia? Probably not. However, defeating Russia is not the objective. It will not be fought to defeat Russia but to annihilate the Whites of Europe.

Being possessed by Satan’s demons, these European leaders seek to obliterate the White race from the planet because the White race (species) is the race created in God’s image. (See “What Race Was Adam?” by Thomas Allen.) Eradicating the White race with massive nonwhite immigration is taking too long. What better way to achieve their goal than a nuclear war?

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

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.

More Observations on the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

More Observations on the Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Thomas Allen

    These observations are directed mostly at Biden, who is more of a communist than Vladimir Putin, and his administration, the presstitutes, and neoconservatives. When we need adult leadership, all that we have leading us are mental midgets. Whatever they say is most likely a lie. The opposite of what they say is most likely the truth.
    The presstitutes including the neoconservative press have done an effective job in creating irrational hysteria toward everything Russian. People vandalize Russian restaurants even when the owners and workers are not Russian and even express their support for Ukraine. Russian conductors, singers, musicians, and other entertainers are fired and denied employment. Thus, people lose their jobs because their ancestry is Russian. Moreover, the works of Russian composers who died more than a century ago are banned. Even children are bellying children with Russian ancestry. Yes, the media have done a great job of stirring up hate. Hate makes duping gullible sheeple into a senseless war much easier — a war that only transfers ever more wealth and power to the rich and powerful while enslaving the people.
    Moreover, the presstitutes have so thoroughly brainwashed the American people that about one-third want a nuclear war over Ukraine so that Ukraine can shell the Donbas Russians by maintaining a corrupt puppet government in Ukraine and the United States can operate bioweapon laboratories in Ukraine.
    The United States retaliate against Russia by shutting down fast-food restaurants, internet entertainment sites, and some consumer goods exports. Over time, these embargos will make Russia healthier and stronger. Because of Russia’s lack of foresight, many countries have stolen Russia’s foreign exchange reserves, which Russia foolishly left in hostile countries. Fortunately for the United States and Europe, Russia has not yet placed a total embargo on its major exports: energy and minerals. If it does, it will economically destroy Europe and greatly damage the United States’ economy. Furthermore, the United States cannot get to the space station without Russia.
    American politicians and presstitutes promote Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as a great defender of democracy. Is the reason that Americans consider Zelensky a great defender of democracy because the Ukrainian government rivals the US government in corruption? Ukraine is a center for laundering money, sex trafficking, drug trafficking, developing biological weapons, and the like for American political and business leaders.
    Although Biden and the presstitutes present Putin as a dictator, he is the duly elected president of Russia. His election was less corrupt than Biden’s. Unlike Biden, Putin did not steal his election; he did not have to steal it.
    Further, Democrats and Republicans are always preaching the virtues of democracy. However, Crimea illustrates their true love of democracy. More than 95 percent of the Crimeans voted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia with a plebiscite that was more honest than the 2020 American presidential election. Nevertheless, both Democrats and Republicans reject this vote — so much for their love of democracy. They only love democracy when the vote goes their way. Otherwise, they have no use for democracy. Hypocrites all!
    Moreover, Zelensky is portrayed as the “free” world’s last hope against the great dictator Putin. Zelensky is advanced as a saint, yet he wears the NAZI iron cross.
    Freedom has not existed in the so-called free world since World War II. Many countries in the so-called free world have acted more despotic than Russia in their approach to COVID-19. The West’s approach to COVID-19 proves that it is not the free world. A free world would not have forcibly locked down businesses, forced people to wear masks, forced people to be vaccinated with a deadly experimental gene-therapy drug to work, or forced people to have a vaccine passport to travel or enter places of business. Moreover, a free world would not have forced churches to close, nor would it suppress opposing views or facts. (Here are two articles describing freedom in America: “Freedom” and “A Letter: Freedom American Style.”)
    Biden expresses support for the Ukrainian people. He feels their pain. If he really cared about the Ukrainian people and their country, he would have negotiated with Putin when Russia was begging the United States and NATO to negotiate and, by that, spared Ukraine of this war. Instead of negotiating with Russia, Biden spate in Putin’s face.
    If Biden had wanted to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine, he would have entered an enforceable agreement to keep Ukraine from becoming part of NATO. Moreover, he would have pressured Ukraine to cease shelling Donetsk and Luhansk and to keep its agreement to make these two oblasts autonomous. Biden has a great deal of influence over Ukraine. He can prohibit Americans from using Ukraine for money laundering, sex trafficking, drug trafficking, bioweapons laboratories, and other illegal activity. Moreover, he can end military and financial aid to Ukraine.
    Biden does not want peace because he benefits from the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Now, Biden can blame Putin for the energy problems, inflation, and other disasters that he (Biden) has caused in America. Consequently, Biden is not man enough to accept responsibility for his disasters. Is this why Biden kept insulting Putin in hopes that Putin would invade Ukraine and, thus, distract the sheeple’s attention from inflation and other crisis that Biden has created? Is this why he continues to verbally attack Putin? Biden needs this conflict to last at least until the November election.
    By letting the war drag on, Putin has under impressed Europe and has encouraged European governments to remain puppets of the United States. Moreover, he encourages NATO to remain an offensive alliance that does the bidding of the United States in maintaining and expanding their imperialistic hegemony. Worse, he has encouraged the United States and NATO to initiate future wars.
    What is saving Ukraine is that Putin and the ruling class in Russia may be as stupid as Biden and his administration although in different ways. Putin is fighting the war the way that wars were fought before Lincoln’s War instead of the way that wars have been fought since 1861 where rules and humanity do not exist. As a result, instead of the war lasting a few days, it has lasted long enough for the United States and NATO to conduct highly successful psychological warfare against Russia. If he had followed Lincoln and the allies in World War II, he would have ignored civilian causalities and utterly destroyed Ukraine in total war. He would fight the Ukrainians the modern away with shock and awe and consider civilian casualties as necessary or even deliberate collateral damage.
    Saber-rattlers express concern about Russia’s attacking military targets near the Polish border to prevent military supplies from reaching the Ukrainian army. For the United States to condemn Russia for these attacks is extremely hypocritical. The United States are notorious for attacking targets in other countries that may be supporting hostile forces in countries where the US military is operating. Cambodia and Syria are good examples. To prevent Cambodia and Syria from supporting those with whom the United States were fighting, they invaded both countries. Thus, the United States do not stop at the borders of the countries in which they are fighting. They also invade any adjacent country that may be supporting the enemy. When one is the biggest bully in the world, one can get away with things that the lessers cannot.
    Why are the Biden administration and neoconservatives so eager to have a war with Russia? Is destroying evidence in Ukraine of the Biden family’s and other American politicians’ corruption the reason? Is transferring taxpayers’ money to the military-industrial complex the reason? Is it to turn the world over to China, which will be the winner of a war between Russia and the United State?
    Why are most American political leaders and NATO countries eager to turn Europe into a battlefield far more destructive than World War I and World War II combined? Why are they so eager to incinerate America with nuclear explosions? Is it to finish genociding the dying White race?
    Furthermore, those who control the US government are like the Pharisees of the New Testament. Like the Pharisees, they manipulate the people into doing what is beneficial for the ruling elite and harmful to the best interest of the people.
    Everything that the United States condemn Russia for doing, the United States have done worse. Before condemning Russia, the United States need to cleanse themselves first.
    Please remember; just about everything that the presstitutes and the federal government are telling you about the Russia-Ukraine conflict is a lie!
    (When his enemies are considered, Putin is not the bad guy in the Russian-Ukraine conflict. Klaus Schwab, one of the evilest men on the planet, has ended all relations with Russia and has expelled Putin from the World Economic Forum. Schwab is the founder and chairman of the World Economic Forum. The World Economic Forum is promoting “the Great Reset.” Under the Great Reset, no one except the global billionaire elite will own anything. A global social credit system similar to the one in China will be instituted, and all money will be replaced with a global cryptocurrency managed by the global elite. Moreover, the Great Reset implements the climate-change-green-revolution-sustainable-development-social-justice agenda; it essentially promotes wokeism. The Great Reset is a global totalitarian regime run by the global elite. Other enemies of Putin include Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Schumer, both Clintons, Bush the Younger, and Obama — all evil people.)

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.

Questions on Israel Identity

Questions on Israel Identity

Thomas Allen

The following looks at the responses of an Israel Identity advocate to three questions. He identifies the United States as Ephraim (presumably, he believes that most Americans are descendants of Ephraim or at least the Israelite tribe named after him). However, he admits that he is not conducting a class. (Israel Identity, also called British-Israelism, Christian Identity, and Kingdom Identity, claims that the lost tribes of Israel became the Germanic and Celtic tribes that invaded Europe and settled in Western Europe.)

The questions and responses on Israel Identity are in the appendix below. Basically, his answers claim that genetics are irrelevant.

The first question notes that Ephraim and Manasseh had an Egyptian mother, and, therefore, they were not pure Israelites. He responds that the mother’s race and ethnicity, i.e., her genetics, are irrelevant. He uses Ruth, David’s great-grandmother, as an example. As do most people, he claims that Ruth was a Moabite. She was not; she was an Israelite (see “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” by Thomas Allen).

Moreover, according to him, a person can become an Israelite by adoption. Thus, a Negro, Turanian, or Melanochroi can become an Israelite, who were originally Aryan (White), merely by adoption. Accordingly, a Turanian Korean can become an Aryan Israelite by adoption and, presumably, can intermarry with the Aryans without violating God’s law prohibiting miscegenation — how absurd (see “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” and “One Thing Your Pastor Will Not Tell You”). (Does this Israel Identity person believe that God forbids miscegenation?)

Following his reasoning, if the Ephraimites had migrated to Ethiopia instead of Europe and settled among the Melanochroic Gallas where they are absorbed into the Gallas or the Gallas are absorbed into them through interracial marriage, then, according to this Israel Identity person, the offspring of the male Ephraimites are also Ephraimites because the mother’s genetics do not matter. Furthermore, the offspring of these Galla-Ephraimite-mixed males would also be Ephraimites, and likewise all the following generations. Additionally, the Ephraimites could have adopted all the Galla males, and, thereby, making all the Gallas Ephraimites. After many generations when all the Ephraimite chromosomes, except perhaps the male Y chromosome, have been bred out of this gene pool, these people would still be true Ephraimites. Consequently, what was once an Aryan people is now a Melanochroic people. (Is it possible that the Ephraimites in the United States are not from Europe but are from Ethiopia and Somalia?)

The second question inquires about distinguishing Israelites from non-Israelites. Since he cannot make such a distinction, he gives a hazy answer. However, he seems sure that he is an Israelite of the tribe of Ephraim. How does he know for sure? According to him, only God can tell an Israelite from a non-Israelite. However, this does not help the Israel Identity people. They place great importance, not only on distinguishing between an Israelite and a non-Israelite, but they also place great importance on identifying the tribes of the Israelite. (I have yet found an Israelite Identity person who can distinguish a real Israelite from a mixed Israelite from a non-Israelite White based solely on physical features.)

The third question asks about what happened to the people of the land to which the Israelites migrated. He answers that the Israelites absorbed them and, by that, amalgamated the two people into one people. (This answer applies to the European migration and not to the Palestinian migration. When the Israelites entered Palestine, the Promised Land, they either killed or expelled most of the inhabitants.) Thus, that any pure Israelite exists today is highly unlikely. So, why this concern about identifying the Israelites, even down to the tribe, when they may no longer exist?

To summarize his responses, genetics do not matter. Yet, identifying Israelites, even down to the tribe, is of great importance, even if today’s Israelites have few if any genetic connection with the Israelites that entered the Promised Land. Accordingly, Israelites can be of any race — at least that is what this Israel Identity person implies.

Appendix
Questions
First, Ephraim and Manasseh were not pure Israelites because their mother was an Egyptian.

Second, you are telling me that if we lined up a thousand Whites who are the same size, age, dress, etc., and you know nothing about them except what you see, you can tell me which ones are descended from which tribe of Israel and which ones are not Israelites.

Third, what happened to all the White people who inhabited Europe before the Israelites arrived?

Response
First, the male line is always what determines tribe. A Moabite was King David's great grandmother but no one would accuse him of not being a fully Jewish Israelite. And Jesus is considered a Jew even though His literal male line is pure Divinity, not Jewish. He was adopted by a Jewish father, Joseph. (His mother was a Levite, not a Jew.) Not only were Ephraim & Manasseh fathered by Joseph but were also adopted directly by Jacob, doubling the lineage.

Second, I am not saying that at all but nations have characteristics that define them as a people otherwise there wouldn't be nations. We're seeing the polarization now between the true Americans (both physical and spiritual) and the pagan parasites. That separation will continue until the parasites are purged by God Himself.

Third, the same thing that happened to people who inhabited the areas where the original tribes took over. And no nation is ever completely homogeneous, least of all Ephraim. In fact, one of Ephraim's identifying hallmarks is all the foreigners he invites in that sap his strength and overwhelm him. No nation ever did that before the American "melting pot".

Study Ephraim and ask Jesus to teach. There is lots of material out there. I am just pointing at a line of study, not conducting the class.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

For more religious articles.

A Look at a Libertarian Theory on Economics and Immigration

A Look at a Libertarian Theory on Economics and Immigration

Thomas Allen

One reason that some libertarians give for supporting open borders and unrestricted immigration is that it results in an economic boom for the country receiving the immigrants. That massive unrestricted immigration is economically beneficial is questionable. Most of the time it benefits most of the immigrants until they become so numerous and diverse that they bring the country down. That unrestricted immigration benefits the natives is questionable. To the extent that it benefits the natives, its benefits are more on the macro-level (economics on the national and global level) than the micro-level (economics on the individual and family level). Ironically, libertarian economists generally prefer the micro-level while the statist and central planning economists generally prefer the macro-level.

Libertarians assert that unrestricted immigration of aliens is a great economic benefit for the United States. Is it a great benefit to the natives who are not hired because the aliens will work cheaper? Doubtfully, the natives who are not hired would consider it a great economic benefit.

When the employees of Disney had to train foreigners, who worked for less pay, to do their jobs or forgo severance pay, did they consider the importation of these foreigners an economic benefit? Doubtfully, any of them replaced considered it a great economic benefit.

Some workers do not receive a pay raise or even receive a pay cut because of the large supply of workers resulting from unrestricted immigration. Do they consider unrestricted immigration an economic benefit? Doubtfully, any of these native workers would consider the large influx of aliens as a great economic benefit. (Henry George, whom Edward Harwood, the founder of the American Institute of Economic Research, esteemed, argued that Chinese immigrants during the nineteenth century pushed wages down.)

(Objecting to the great economic boom resulting from massive immigration just proves that these native workers are racists [but who is going to call a Negro racist when he objects to a Mexican replacing him], short-sighted, and selfish. Yet, according to the Randian Objectivist libertarians, selfishness is a great virtue.)

To these objections, libertarians counter that a growing population leads to an increase in demand for goods and services, which results in driving up wages and the standard of living. If a country were an autarky, this argument may have merit. However, since most goods are imported into the United States and many services are outsourced, this argument is weak.

If the libertarian theory that a large and growing population equals economic prosperity and, thus, a large per capita income and per capita wealth, then China and India should have the largest per capita income and per capita wealth. Yet, they do not. Many countries with much smaller populations have much higher per capita income and per capita wealth. (To the common man, per capita income and per capita wealth are more important than the country’s absolute income and wealth.)

Also, if the libertarian theory that immigration equals economic prosperity is true, then the opposite must also be true: A declining population reduces the demand for goods and services and, thus, reduces wages and increases poverty. Yet, the Black Death, which killed 30 to 50 percent of the population of Europe, greatly reduced the workforce and cause wages to rise sharply instead of devastating wages. Wages rose so much that governments fixed maximum wages.

Based on its theory of immigration equaling economic prosperity, libertarians must hate third world countries because they want to transfer a large number of their people to the United States. As a result, these third world countries become ever more impoverished. (This is especially true if the immigrants are highly educated and skilled.) Based on the libertarian argument, if libertarians really cared about the economic well-being of third world countries, they would be at the forefront demanding the prohibition of third-world immigration.

If the libertarian assertion that immigrants are a great economic benefit for the country to which they migrate, and if they really cared about nonwhite countries, then libertarians should be in the forefront demanding that all nonwhites be deported and repatriated to the countries of their ancestors. This great influx of immigrants should greatly improve the economies of these countries. Moreover, if the libertarian assertion is true, the mass exit of people (about 40 percent of the population of the United States) would cause an economic collapse of the United States and, consequently, giving the despicable, evil Whites left behind their comeuppance. Such a mass exit of people from the United States would plunge the economy to such a low level that even Haiti would look like the land of prosperity as the United States become a fifth world country. Moreover, if nonwhites left the United States and other White countries, they could quarantine the horrible, debilitating disease of whitism and protect themselves from it while bringing White countries to economic ruin.

Libertarians are not the only ones who preach that unrestricted immigration is a great economic benefit for the United States. Neoconservatives also use this economic argument to support unrestricted immigration.

Liberals and progressives do not believe this libertarian malarkey about unrestricted immigration being economically beneficial. Unlike libertarians, they are well aware of its destructive effects, which is the primary reason that they support unrestricted immigration. Moreover, as a side benefit, liberals and progressives use these immigrants to enhance their political power — just as the Republicans used freedmen to enhance their political power. (For the most part, Blacks supported the Republican party until Franklin Roosevelt and, especially, Lyndon Johnson bought them with the welfare state and civil rights.)

Many libertarians object to political borders. Consequently, they are globalists at heart. Therefore, they support the objective of the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Bushes, the Clintons, Kissinger, Brzezinski, and other globalists to destroy political borders and, by that, reduce the world to one. However, libertarians do oppose the political and economic policies of these globalists.

Although many libertarians object to national borders, they do not object to all collectives controlling their borders. If one collective can take action to control its territory, then why cannot other collectives do likewise? Libertarians have no problems with corporations, which are governmentally created collectives, a fact that most libertarians like to ignore, taking action to prevent outsiders from entering their territory. Yet, most libertarians object to countries, which are also collectives, from taking action to prevent outsiders from entering their territory.

Addendum
Nearly all economists believe in the economic law of supply and demand: If supply increases faster than demand, prices decline. However, some economists make an exception with labor. They argue that as the supply of workers rises, wages, the price of labor, rises because workers are also consumers. These additional consumers increase the demand for goods and services and, by that, the prices of goods and services, which increases their supply. This increasing supply of goods and services leads to an increase in wages.

When labor is scarce, more capital is invested in machine to do the work of labor. Thus, productivity rises. With the rise of productivity, wages and the standard of living of workers rise.

When labor is plentiful, little incentive exists to substitute machines for labor. More labor is used to increase the supply of goods and services. To substitute machines for labor is not economical. Thus, wages and the standard of living stagnate. If wages do rise, they rise much more slowly. However, they are likely to decline because of the high competition for jobs resulting from the large supply of labor.

Consequently, a small labor pool or a decline in workers leads to a rise in wages and the standard of living of workers. Machines are substituted for labor, which increases productivity per unit of labor and, by that, increases the wages of labor. A large labor pool leads either to a decline in wages or to no increase in wages, and therefore, a decline or stagnation in the standard of living for workers. For example, where labor is plentiful, hiring more workers to dig a canal with shovels is more economical than paying a worker ten times as much as a man with a shovel and hiring his capital, a power shovel, to dig the canal. Yet, the power shovel operator may do the work of 100 or more workers with their shovels.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Allen.

More economic articles.

Israel Identity

Israel Identity

Thomas Allen

Israel Identity, also called British-Israelism, Christian Identity, and Kingdom Identity, claims that the lost tribes of Israel became the Germanic and Celtic tribes that invaded Europe and settled in Western Europe. The following presents Charles Weisman’s version of the Israel-Identity doctrine as it relates to salvation as given in Is Universalism of God? In this book, Weisman refutes the doctrine of the Universalists that all humans are eventually saved regardless of race or merit.

Weisman appears to be a Calvinist — only more so. Calvin believed that God arbitrary chooses whom to save to everlasting life and whom to condemn to everlasting torment without any foreknowledge of merit. (Thus, Calvin declared that God is not omniscient.) Unlike Calvin, who seems to believe that people of every ethnicity and race have a chance of salvation, Weisman seems to argue that only the unmixed descendants of Israel are saved. However, he is somewhat fuzzy about non-Israelite Whites. Sometimes, he seems to allow the descendants of Abraham (except the Arabs) and possibly Heber a chance of salvation. At other times, he seems to include non-Hebrew Whites in the salvation lottery, but, at other times, he excludes them.

Like all Israel Identity adherents, Weisman includes all Israelites and their modern-day descendants in the salvation lottery. Nevertheless, he is unclear about which Israelites are saved. Does God save nearly all, most, many, or just some? (Israel Identity adherents run the gamut from nearly all to just some.) According to Weisman, if a person is saved, he is merely a robot whom God has programmed to believe in Jesus — although he is not this blatant. As mentioned above, Weisman is hazy about whether God chooses any non-Israelite White for salvation, although he seems inclined to believe that God does not choose any non-Israelite White for salvation. However, he is certain that God chooses no nonwhites for salvation, and, by that, He condemns all nonwhites to eternal damnation.

At the time of Israel’s birth, circa 1844 or 1837 B.C., and the Israelite migration to Egypt around 1715 or 1706 B.C., Whites inhabited most of the Middle East, and much of Egypt and North Africa. Whites also inhabited Europe then. Consequently, Whites vastly outnumbered the Israelites, who were probably less than 100 persons. (Pure Israelites were 13.)

As far as known, none of Israel’s sons married their sisters. Thus, none of Israel’s daughters-in-law were true Israelites. According to the Bible, Joseph married an Egyptian by whom his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, were born. (According to most Israel Identity adherents, the descendants of Ephraim inhabit England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Manasseh’s descendants inhabit the United States.) How can the descendants of Israel’s sons be pure Israelites if their mothers were not genetic Israelites?

Since the Israelites settled in lands, such as Mesopotamia, Syria, Asia Minor, North Africa, and Europe that already had a population of Whites greater and often much greater than the Israelite immigrants, what happened to these non-Israelite Whites? The Israelites did not kill all of them or even most of them. Apparently, the Israelites lived among these other Whites or alongside them.

Moreover, how does one distinguish between an Israelite White European and a non-Israelite White European? Like other Israel Identity adherents, Weisman does not satisfactorily answer this question. The closest that he comes to an answer is to declare that the people of the Nordic racial type are true Israelites. If true, this suggests that other Whites are either non-Israelite Whites or a mixture of Israelite and non-Israelite Whites.

As God saves only true Israelites, then He condemns these other Whites to eternal death. Consequently, since only a small number of Europeans are Nordic, God condemns most Whites to eternal death. (Exposure to the sun is the easiest test to determine if one is a Nordic. While most Whites tan when they expose themselves to the sun, Nordics redden.)

That most Israel Identity adherents are Nordic is highly unlikely. Moreover, that most Israel Identity adherents are some pure descendants with no admixture of non-Israelite Whites is even more unlikely. Therefore, if Weisman is correct, few, if any, Israel Identity adherents qualify for God’s salvation lottery.

In his book, Weisman exposes the error of the doctrine of the Universalists that all humans regardless of race or merit are eventually saved to everlasting life in heaven. He does so by arguing that God chooses only Israelites for salvation to everlasting life. Nevertheless, at times, Weisman suggests that some non-Israelites Whites are saved, while at other times, he suggests that no non-Israelite Whites are saved. Like other Israel Identity adherents, he fails to explain how one distinguishes between an Israelite White and a non-Israelite White. However, he is certain that God chooses not to save any nonwhites.

In part, Weisman condemns the Universalist salvation doctrine because it reduces the need for repentance and salvation and removes the fear of judgment; thus, it creates a false sense of security. Such notions encourage licentiousness and otherwise unchristian, unholy lifestyles. Yet, the salvation doctrine of Weisman does the same thing — even more so. As God has already decided whom He will save, then how a person behaves or what a person believes is irrelevant. If behavior and belief are important to salvation, then God programs the person to be saved how to behave and what to believe.

Since God never saves nonwhites, then their behavior and beliefs do not matter. They may as well live by their passions and appetites. Likewise, the same is true for Whites. Since no one knows for sure whether he is an Israelite or whether God has chosen him — although, like all other Israel Identity adherents, Weisman is convinced that he is an Israelite whom God has saved — he may as well act the way that he wants to act and believe whatever he wants to believe. God’s choice and his ancestry decide his salvation and not his behavior or beliefs.

However, Weisman is correct in that Universalism is an egalitarian doctrine that  leads to and encourages the sin of miscegenation. Moreover, Universalism is a false doctrine. Nevertheless, the Israel-Identity doctrine that Weisman substitutes for it is highly questionable.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Some Thoughts on Gun Control

Some Thoughts on Gun Control

Thomas Allen

    The following appeared as a letter-to-the-editor:
    A friend of mine told me that when he was in school, the boys carried their rifles and shotguns to school so that they could hunt after school. Also, he said that a girl in his class brought her pistol to school for him to repair and gave it to him in the classroom. Several days later, he returned it to her in the classroom. There were no shootings in the school. Thus, the problem is not guns; it is people.
    Could prescribed psychiatric drugs be behind most of these mass shootings? Nearly all, if not all, the mass shooters were or had recently been taking these drugs. These drugs are known to cause violent behavior. However, since big pharma controls the old media (look at how the old media pimps vaccines), the old media ignores the drug issue. Besides, drugs do not fix the antigun agenda of the old media.
    Because of previous gun control laws, most schools are now gun-free zones. Gun controllers promised that no one would carry a gun into a gun-free zone. However, gun-free zones are safe places for killers to hunt because no one can shoot back.
    Many antigun progressives believe that President Trump is Hitler incarnated. Still, they want him to disarm them. Disarmed Jews did not fare well under Hitler. Why do disarmed progressives believe that they will do any better under Trump? If every Jew were heavily armed, Hitler would not and could not have sent them to concentration camps. To protect themselves from Trump, progressives should be demanding that gun laws be relaxed so that they can more easily arm themselves to defend themselves from Trump.
    There was a time when mass shootings were unheard of. What has changed between then and now? We need to find out and eliminate the change. The difference is not the availability of guns. Guns were much easier to obtain then than they are now.

✽✽✽✽✽✽✽

    The following is a summary of “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?” (Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 30, No. 2, pages 649-694) by Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser. They show that the antigun, gun-controller dogma of “fewer guns, fewer homicides, suicides, and violent crimes” is false — a propaganda lie. Fewer guns are associated with more homicides and violent crimes.
    According to Kates and Mauser, the murder rate in the 1960s and 1970s of the gunless Soviet Union equal or exceeded that of the gun-ridden United States. While the murder rate in the United States declined, the murder rate in the Soviet Union rose. By 1998-2004, the murder rate in Russia was nearly four times higher than it was in the United States. Furthermore, the suicide rate in Russia was about four times higher than in the United States.
    In Europe, countries with relatively high gun ownership have relatively low murder rates. Generally, where guns are more concentrated, violent crime rates are lower.
    Studies done by the U.S. National Academy of Science and the U.S. Center for Disease Control show that gun control laws did not reduce violent crimes, suicides, or gun accidents. If anything, the strict gun control laws may have contributed to the rising crime rate.
    Before gun control laws were enacted in Great Britain, little violent crime occurred there. Now with extremely strict gun control laws, violent crime have grown. Even violence using firearms has increased. Although handguns are banned, criminals have no problem in obtaining them and are more willing to use them. With handguns and many types of long guns banned, violent crime in England and Wales is the highest in Europe and even exceeds that of the United States.
    Since 1990, in the United States, as gun ownership has risen, violent crimes have declined. In Great Britain, gun ownership declined drastically and violent crimes soared. Thus, overall, more guns equal less crime. (Other contributors to the decline in the United States are the large number of Black babies aborted, more executions, and a drastically growing prison population.)
    Criminologist Hans Toch, who once favored the prohibition of handguns, but later recanted, notes that “it is hard to explain that where firearms are most dense, violent crime rates are lowest and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest” (p. 675).
    As for demographics, Kates and Mauser write:

Contrary to what should be the case if more guns equal more death, there are no “consistent indications of a link between gun ownership and criminal or violent behavior by owners;” in fact, gun ownership is “higher among whites than among blacks, higher among middle-aged people than among young people, higher among married than among unmarried people, higher among richer people than poor” — all “patterns that are the reverse of the way in which criminal behavior is distributed” (p. 676).

    Historically, in England, as firearms became more efficient and more widely owned, the murder rate seemed to have fallen sharply until gun control laws began restricting ownership. Then gun violence began to rise.
    In colonial America, nearly every household was required to own guns. During this time, murders were few. The homicide rate only began to rise when the universal ownership of guns disappeared. In the decades following the War for Southern Independence, guns glutted the market, and homicides fell sharply.
    Areas in the United States, Canada, England, and Switzerland where gun ownership is the highest have the lowest rate of violence. Thus, fewer guns in private hands equal more violent crime and more violent deaths.

✽✽✽✽✽✽✽

    The following are some random thoughts, in no particular order, about gun controllers and anti gunners.
    – Alcohol is responsible for more deaths than guns, even among school children. If saving lives is the real objective, then outlawing alcohol will save more lives — assuming that prohibition works this time.
    – One should beware of the mental health issue in the gun control debate. President Obama wanted to declare all veterans de facto mentally ill and by that deny them of their inalienable, God-given right to own the means of defending themselves. Nevertheless, he did succeed in declaring everyone on social security mentally ill if he had someone else manage his money and, therefore, ineligible to own a gun. Fortunately, for liberty, President Trump revoked this order. For this action, liberals, progressives, and other gun controllers and anti gunners accused him of allowing all mentally ill people to own guns.
    – One should always remember cui bono. Who ultimately benefits from a disarmed America? The beneficiaries are the statists: The Puritans who want to micromanage everyone’s life. The losers are those who love and cherish liberty.
    – Chicago proves the idiocy of gun-free zones. In Chicago, only people with the political influence can legally possess a firearm. Yet, Chicago has the highest murder rate in the country.
    – If eighteen-year-olds are old enough to vote for their enslavement and to go to war and kill people, they are old enough to buy and own handguns, rifles, and  other firearms, including real assault weapons.
    – Gun control is nothing more than people control, which is why liberals and progressives adore it. Liberals and progressives are Puritans who have an uncontrollable, nay, a necessity, to micromanage the lives of others. Naturally, they believe that such control is for the benefit of the enslaved victim.
    – Why do celebrities who preach disarming the American people surround themselves with armed bodyguards? Obviously, they are hypocrites who know that firearms save lives. When in the hands of civilians, firearms save more lives by orders of magnitude than they take.
    – Gun control is really people control. Inanimate objects that cannot move unless someone moves them cannot be controlled. However, people can be controlled and denied their God-given inalienable right of possessing the means of defending themselves.
    – Before people start their irrational ranting to ban assault rifles, which are extremely difficult to acquire legally, they should know what an assault rifle is. The Free Dictionary by Farles defines “assault rifle” as “a rifle that has a detachable magazine and is capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, designed for individual use in combat” (emphasis added).
    – Why do the old matrix media only present one side of the gun debate — the antigun side? If they do have anyone to speak for the other side, the speaker is usually a stereotypical, inarticulate red neck who speaks like he has marbles in his mouth with tobacco juice dripping down his chin and who has difficulty in speaking in sentences of more than three words. Moreover, why do the old matrix media hate liberty, including freedom of the press, so much that they lead the charge to destroy the only liberty that can guarantee freedom of the press and all other freedoms?
    – If people really want to reduce death by firearms in the broadest sense, they would disarm governments. Since 1900 governmentally owned or controlled firearms have killed around a half billion people — probably more. Stalin and Mao Zedong account for about a fourth of this number by themselves.
    – When a policeman shoots someone, the policeman is blamed — not the gun. However, when someone else shoots several people, the gun is blamed — not the shooter. Why the difference? Should not the blame be placed on the shooter in both incidents?
    – Why do liberals and progressives want to give young, strong males a decisive advantage over women, old men, children, and the handicap? Outlawing firearms, or even restricting their availability, gives the criminal a great advantage.
    – Liberals and progressives claim that they are for the little man. Yet, they do the bidding of billionaires like Soros and Bloomberg by pushing their disarmament agenda. Why do these billionaires want to disarm the American people? Is it because armed Americans thwart the agenda of these billionaires to establish a one world government that they plan to control and use to transfer ever more wealth and power to themselves?
    – These few notables have favored gun control and a disarmed citizenry: King George III, V.I. Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Gorbachev, and Castro. They are the philosophical brethren of the anti gunners and other who clamor for gun control. They all agree with the criminal who said, “Any gun in the hands of citizens is a menace as far as I am concerned.” All of them agree with this criminal because they themselves are criminals in their heart. They want to steal, and the gun owner and the presence of guns hinder their theft. Otherwise, they are dupes, stooges, ignoramuses, useful idiots, lackeys, and the likes.
    – According to Jesus, peace and safety exists in a household of a fully armed man (Luke 11:21-22). Jesus also notes that the first thing an enemy seeks to do is to disarm the household. Furthermore, Jesus commanded his followers to arm themselves with military weapons (Luke 22:36).
    – Whenever the communists take over a country, the first order of business is to disarm the people so that they cannot resist the tyranny, theft, and slaughter that follow.
    – Anti gunners imply that guns kill people and, therefore, people do not kill people. Thus, they imply that if people did not have guns, they would not kill others or themselves. The first murder recorded in the Bible was done without a gun. Moreover, of all the killings recorded in the Bible, a firearm was used in none of them. Until a few hundred years ago, no one ever used a gun to kill another. Therefore, people kill people.
    – Progressivism is a mental disorder and, therefore, progressives should be denied the ownership and use of firearms. Progressivism is merely a political version of Puritanism. Progressives have an uncontrollable desire to force other people under the penalty of death to live the way that progressives want them to live.
    – More guns are in the United States than are cars, yet cars kill more people than guns. Moreover, drivers are required to have a license, and cars are required to be registered.
    – If the objective is to save lives, then beaches, pools, streams, lakes, and bathtubs should be outlawed. Outside war zones, more people die of drowning than of gunshots. Moreover, if it will save one life, vaccines should be outlawed,using the gun controllers reasoning.
    – Gun controllers should disown and condemn the Clintons. Even with the elimination of Bill’s killing of thousands in Serbia and Hillary’s killings of thousands in Lybia and the Middle East, the number of people whom they have murdered may well exceed several dozen.
    – Why do not the anti gunners disarm themselves and then post a sign in their yards that their home is not defended by firearms?
    – Those who advocate banning guns need to reflect on how well prohibition worked and how well the war on drugs has worked. The prohibition of guns will fare no better.
    – Nearly all murders have a history of violent crime. Why do liberals and progressives believe that these people will obey gun laws when they are already disobeying laws against violent crimes?
    – If no one less than 21 is allowed to own or use a firearm, then on one less than 21 should be allowed in the armed forces. Moreover, no one less than 21 should be allowed to drive because one hundred times more teenagers die of automobiles than of gun. Further, no child should be allowed in a motor vehicle of any kind — if it will save one life. Such are the logic and reasoning of progressives, anti gunners, and gun controllers.
    – Nothing exceeds a firearm as an equalizer.
    – A government that cannot trust a heavily armed citizenry is a government that cannot be trusted.

Copyright © 2018 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social articles.