Results of Israel’s and the United States’ War with Iran

Results of Israel’s and the United States’ War with Iran

Thomas Allen

Below are some dire prognostications resulting from Israel’s and the United States’ war with Iran.

Israel will cease owning Congress. More and more Representatives and Senators will turn against Israel or be voted out of office. Except for the Christian Zionists, Zionist Jews, the chicken hawks like Senator Graham, people who get rich off war, and dimwits, the American people do not want the United States to participate in this war. Additionally, as the number of Americans who have actually died and been wounded for Israel becomes public, Americans will become more vigorous in their opposition to the war and Israel.

After its defeat in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and now Iran, the world will no longer see the United States as the world’s dominant military power. Most, if not all, of America’s military bases in the Middle East will be abandoned. (Eventually, all will be because of a lack of funds.)

Iran will eventually get its nuclear weapons. Also, Saudi Arabia and Turkey will acquire nuclear weapons.

Moreover, American global hegemony and Israeli Middle Eastern hegemony are dead. Also, British colonialism is finally finished. A multipolar world will return.

Furthermore, the petrodollar (the US dollar) will no longer be the world’s reserve currency. As a result, prices in the United States will rise sharply as foreign central banks unload their excess US dollars. These dollars have nowhere to go except to the United States to buy goods and services. 

Moreover, prices will soar globally. Because of the petroleum shortage that this war has created, the prices of fuel, food, plastic products, circuit boards (which need a special coating, most of which comes through the Straight of Hormuz), and most other products will soar. As the COVID shutdown caused prices to soar globally, so will the petroleum shortage caused by this war cause prices to soar globally. The United States get hit with not only prices rising because of the death of the petrodollar, but also because of prices rising as a result of the global petroleum shortage.

With the death of the petrodollar and the concomitant rising interest rates, the federal government will be forced to curtail its spending; demand for federal debt securities will drastically shrink. The United States will have to withdraw from its overseas bases and cease its imperialism. Most likely, America will become like Russia with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Lacking the resources for foreign interventionism, the federal government will have to focus on the legitimate needs and priorities of the United States. Lacking the funds to fight unnecessary wars to make the warmongers richer, far fewer Americans will die in war, such as the Iranian war to make Israel great.

The ruling elite and their lackeys and toadies will fight vigorously to retain their power, privileges, and influence to control the people and extract wealth from them. Unfortunately, like the common Russians when the Soviet Union collapsed, the average American will suffer greatly from the changes that the war with Iran is going to cause. Hopefully, they will not witness what happened in Russia when many miscreants, reprobates, and unscrupulous people, a disproportional number of whom were Jews, plundered what little wealth the people had.

Zionism will receive a fatal blow, which means that Christian Zionism will die. With the death of Israel (Israel may cease to exist as a Jewish country), the current end-time religious teachings will be abandoned as just another false doctrine. Televangelists will lose so many of their followers that most will go out of business, and evangelical pastors will lose many in their congregations for teaching a false doctrine.

One of Trump’s arguments for attacking Iran and embargoing its oil exports was to weaken China. Ironically, as a result of this war against Iran, China will replace the United States as the world’s dominant economic power for decades to come. 

Because of Trump’s unconstitutional war with Iran for Greater Israel, the Democrats will regain control of the federal government. Once in control, they will amplify the economic disaster caused by the war by reinstituting the green energy programs and the woke agenda and by again flooding the country with legal and illegal immigrants. Thus, they will hasten the death of America.

The United States are destined to go the way of the British Empire and Soviet Union. Zionism and Israel have already brought down three great empires: the British Empire, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union. Now, they are bringing down the American Empire. (See “The Results of Supporting Zionism and Israel” by Thomas Allen.)

As Gorbachev oversaw the collapse of the Soviet Union, so Trump is overseeing the collapse of the American empire.

Fortunately, I am a mediocre forecaster. Hopefully, most of these predictions will not come to pass — especially those related to the economy and the dollar and the Democrats regaining control of the federal government. Yet, the demise of the American empire and hegemony is highly desirable. Furthermore, reducing Israel to insignificance is also highly desirable.

References

Baldwin, Chuck. “The World We Knew Is Gone Forever!” April 16, 2026. https://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/5014/The-World-We-Knew-Is-Gone-Forever.aspx. Accessed April 17, 2026.

Barton, Philip. “Bomber Trump’s Folly.” March 30, 2026. https://timesofgold.com/2026/03/30/bomber-trumps-folly/. Accessed May 2, 2026. 

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Allen.

More political articles.

Carthage and the United States

Carthage and the United States

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1988 for the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party.]

[Since this article was written, the roles have been reversed. The United States are now Rome, and Russia is Carthage. Unlike disarmed Carthage, Russia possesses a large arsenal of nuclear weapons against which the United States seem to possess no defense. While Russia has a large-scale civil defense system to protect its civilians, the United States have none except for the oligarchs and high-ranking politicians and bureaucrats — it was abolished to appease the Soviet Union.]

As post-World War II history demonstrates, the United States are following the path that Carthage followed more than 2100 years ago. If the United States go the way of Carthage, the South will too, if it remains part of the present union.

By the second century B. C., the primary foreign policy of Rome had become the annihilation of Carthage, for Rome envied the prosperity of Carthage. After Rome defeated Carthage in the Second Punic War, Carthage agreed not to engage in war with any ally of Rome. If a Roman ally attacked Carthage, Carthage was to appeal to Rome to settle the dispute. Numidia, which was an ally of Rome, took advantage of Carthage’s predicament and attacked her. Carthage appealed to Rome to end the conflict. Rome resolved the conflict unfairly in favor of Numidia. The next time Numidia attacked Carthage, Carthage defended herself instead of appealing to Rome. She knew that Rome would not provide any aid or justice. Carthage feared that Rome would use this conflict as a pretext for war, and events soon proved her right. Fearing reprisal from Rome, Carthage sought appeasement. She inquired of Rome about the conditions necessary to secure peace. Rome demanded and received three hundred children of noble birth to hold as hostages. With the hostages in hand, Rome then demanded that Carthage surrender all weapons of war. Hoping to win Rome to clemency, Carthage complied. After the weapons were surrendered, Rome then demanded the city itself. The inhabitants were told that they could march ten miles inland and build a new city, but Carthage had to be destroyed. With this demand, Carthage finally realized the perfidy and baseness of her enemy. Without weapons, she prepared for war. The Carthaginians were able to manufacture enough weapons to resist the Roman siege for four years. In 146 B. C., Carthage finally fell to the Roman army. Rome utterly destroyed her. The city was burned and leveled. Carthage was no more.

Just as Rome’s foreign policy was to destroy Carthage, so is the Soviet Union’s foreign policy to destroy the United States. Ever since the days of Lenin, the foreign policy of the Soviet Union has been the destruction of the United States. Just as Rome expanded and absorbed all those around her, so has the Soviet Union. Following the path of Carthage, the United States have met the Soviet threat with appeasement. They seek to appease their Rome, the envious Soviet Union. With rhetoric, the United States mildly object to Soviet expansion. With deeds, they restrain and hamper those who seek to defend themselves from Soviet imperialism. Whereas Carthage was forced to prostrate herself before Rome as a result of defeat in war and entered into a one-sided treaty that favored Rome, the United States have voluntarily entered into one treaty after another that favors their enemy, the Soviet Union. The United States have entered into several arms-control treaties with the Soviet Union. However, the Soviet Union abides by these treaties only as long as it suits its purposes and ignores them when convenient. The United States abide by these treaties even if they have never been ratified. Now, the United States are going down the road of disarmament with a known liar and deceiver. Whereas Rome held only three hundred Carthaginians hostage, the Soviet Union is rapidly approaching the point where she will hold 240,000,000 Americans hostage. The Soviet Union has an effective civil defense and antimissile system. Yet, the United States have neither and are determined to acquire neither. The day may soon come when the Soviet Union will demand that the United States disarm themselves completely or be destroyed. If the United States resist, most likely war will result. If they do as Carthage did and disarm, they will perish as Carthage did. (Envy is a powerfully destructive force.) However, the United States will not have the luxury of rearming and making a last stand as Carthage did. Just as an envious Rome achieved her objective of obliterating prosperous Carthage, so will an envious Soviet Union achieve hers of obliterating the prosperous United States.

If the Southern States wish to avoid the fate of Carthage, they must separate from the present union. To remain part of the United States is to die. The United States no longer have the will to defend themselves. They desire only to appease their enemy. Only in an independent South can Southerners ever hope to build a civil defense and antimissile system to protect themselves from Soviet blackmail. Only in an independent South can Southerners ever hope to live in peace. The time has come for a free and independent confederation of Southern States.

As paradoxical as it may appear, an independent South may be the only way that the United States can be saved from the Soviet Union. An independent South would seek to defend itself from Soviet aggression and thus retard that aggression. Not only that, but the trauma of losing their Southern colonies may destroy the lethargy of the United States, force them to recognize their vulnerability and cause them to defend themselves from Soviet aggression, which would totally thwart her potential threats and prevent war.

[Fortunately, under President Reagan’s leadership, the United States woke up and thwarted the Soviet threat so greatly that the Soviet Union collapsed. Now, the Marxist mantle of destroying the United States has passed to China. However, Marxists within the United States are giving China stiff competition, which is un-Marxist, to bring down America. Like good Marxists, these American Marxists are destroying the history of the country by starting with the removal of anything about the Confederacy or the antebellum era. They push disarmament of the people and other Marxist laws to enslave Americans — many in the name of the war on terrorism. Unlike the United States, at least, traitors within her gates did not control Carthage.]

Copyright © 1988, 2025 by Thomas C. Allen.

More history articles.

Some Observations on Israel, Iran, Russia, Islam, and Christianity

Some Observations on Israel, Iran, Russia, Islam, and Christianity

Thomas Allen

The following are some comments on the Israel-Iran War, especially concerning Islam, Christianity, Zionism, Jews, and Russia.

1– Israel knows that it cannot defeat Iran on its own. It planned for the Jewish lobby, the Jewish-controlled media, neoconservative Zionists, and the Christian Zionists to draw the United States into its war with Iran. That plan has worked.

2– A major problem that Muslim countries have in the Middle East is that their religious disagreements prevent them from uniting against Israel. Israel has used these disagreements to its advantage.

On the other hand, Zionists have no such problem. Christian Zionists, Jewish Zionists, and atheist Zionists unite against the Muslims. They value Zionism above their religion. Indeed, for many of them, Zionism is their religion.

3– Zionists and other pro-Israel people rant endlessly about the vileness of Islam and Muslims. Other than their claim that such vileness is innate in Islam and the Koran, they never try to discover the cause of Muslim hostility toward and hatred of Jews and, particularly, Israel. To them, Muslim hostility and hatred have nothing to do with Jews terrorizing the Palestinians and stealing their land.

After the Balfour Declaration (1917), Jews began moving to Palestine and terrorizing the Palestinians, both Christians and Muslims, and taking their land. (In 1920, 500,000 Muslims, 70,000 Christians, and 60,000 Jews lived in Palestine. In 1940, the population was 948,000, 121,000, and 464,000, respectively.) Before the Balfour Declaration, Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived peacefully in Palestine. 

Moreover, Muslim hostility and hatred of Israel and Jews have nothing to do with the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians. Nor do they have anything to do with the Suez Canal Crisis of 1956 or Israel’s attacks against its neighbors in 1967 (the Six-Day War), 1973 (the Yom Kippur War), 1982 (the 1982 Lebanon War), and 2006 (the Israel–Hezbollah War), and the almost continuous offensive assaults against its neighbors since 1948.

Furthermore, Muslim hostility and hatred of Israel, Jews, and the United States have nothing to do with Israel getting its vassal, the United States, to destroy Iraq and Syria for Greater Israel. Now, Israel is trying to get the United States to destroy Iran. (As a result of its subservient support of Israel, many Muslims consider America the Great Satan and chant, “Death to America.” Without the succor of its slave, the United States, Israel would collapse.)

All these ignored issues have much more to do with Muslims’ loathing Israel and the Jews than does the Koran or anything innate in Islam.

4– Many people who believe that Islam is an innately vile religion ignore many non-Christians viewing Christianity as an innately vile religion — and for many of the same reasons. Before Muslims arrived in the Middle East and North Africa, these regions were predominantly Christian, among whom Jews lived. After the arrival of Muslims, the population of Christians and Jews significantly declined over the years. The implication is that Muslims either killed them or drove them out of the Middle East and North Africa. What is often overlooked is that many converted to Islam to avoid paying the jizya, a tax levied on non-Muslims.

Islam is criticized for using the sword to force its religion on others. Once Christianity became the state religion under Constantine, Christians not only used the sword to convert others, but they also used it to settle theological disputes. The Catholic Church became notorious for using the sword against Christian sects that did not adhere to what the Catholic Church declared to be orthodoxy. An early example was the wars between the Trinitarians, who were usually the aggressors, and the Arians. Later, the Catholic Church used the sword to oppress Christian sects, such as the Waldensians, who refused to recognize the Pope’s authority. Perhaps the bloodiest conflict of Christian intolerance was the Thirty Years' War. 

Moreover, in Christendom, Jews were often persecuted. At various times, many European countries forbade Jews from living in them.

Before Bush the Younger destroyed Iraq for Israel, Iraq had a thriving Christian population. Now, the Christians who remain are struggling to survive.

Does this mean that the Bible and Christians are vile? (The Bible does contain stories where God orders his people to kill and genocide others.) If judged by the same standard that people who consider Islam innately vile, it seems to imply that Christianity is innately vile.

Furthermore, Islam has a much higher opinion of Jesus, who is the central figure of Christianity, than does Judaism. According to Islam’s holy book, the Koran, Jesus is a great prophet, second only to Mohammad. According to the Jewish holy book, the Talmud, Jesses is a blasphemer, a bastard, and a sorcerer. 

5– Iran is as much of a threat to the United States as Iraq was in 2001 — none. Like Iraq, Iran is mostly a threat posed by the propaganda of the Jewish and Zionist-controlled media, federal bureaucrats, and politicians of both parties. 

6– If Iran falls, Russia and China are in great danger. Iran serves as a buffer to Russia because it prevents the CIA from sending jihadists into Russia’s Muslim provinces. Also, if the United States gain control of Iran’s oilfields, China could lose a major supplier of its energy. How long will Russia and China stand by and let Israel and the United States have their way in Iran?

Russia and China may have prevented this war if they had a public defense pact with Iran and had placed it under their nuclear umbrella. However, it is unlikely that this action would have stopped Israel, but it may have slowed, if not prevented, the United States’ entry into the war. Now, Russia and China may have to enter the war directly.

7– Some wonder why Putin signaled his approval of an Israeli attack on Iran by announcing that Russia’s treaty with Iran did not include military support. 

What happened to Iran’s air defense? Russia had provided Iran with antiaircraft missiles. Did Russia prevent Iran from using them? Were they faulty, or were they inadequate for the job?

Putin and Russia seem to be continuing the extinct Soviet Union’s policy of aiding Israel surreptitiously by undermining its ostensible Muslim allies when they warred against Israel. President Sadat of Egypt realized this betrayal when he expelled Soviet agents from his country in 1972, several months before the Yom Kippur War.

The Soviet Union, which Jews founded, aided Jews in Palestine before 1948 and in Israel afterward. During the Zionists’ struggle to drive the British and later the Palestinians from Palestine, the Soviet Union, through Czechoslovakia, was a major supplier of arms to the Jews in Palestine. 

Furthermore, it joined the United States in partitioning Palestine and giving a large portion of it to the Jews. With Soviet-supplied weapons and aircraft, Israel won its war for independence. Later, Ben Gurion would thank the Soviet Union for providing Israel with the arms that it needed to win independence and for its support of Zionism in the United Nations.

President Truman gave Israel de facto recognition on May 15, 1948, the day that Great Britain’s mandate in Palestine expired. However, the Soviet Union extended de jure recognition to Israel on May 17, 1948, and, thus, became the first state to recognize Israel fully and officially. 

To win favor and influence over Israel’s Arab neighbors, the Soviet government instituted a campaign to suppress some petty Jews in the Soviet bloc. Also, it openly denounced Israel and supplied weaponry to Israel’s Arab neighbors. Later, the Soviet Union would use its influence over Egypt, Syria, and other Arab countries to aid Israel.

8– Iran is one of the seven Muslim countries that Israel and the Zionists have identified for destruction. Five have been destroyed: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, and Sudan. Iran and Saudi Arabia remain. Israel’s updated list now includes Pakistan. Turkey may soon be added; a small part of it falls in Greater Israel. Destroying Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and possibly Turkey for Israel will be an extremely expensive chore for the United States. Additionally, Egypt must be included since all of Egypt east of the Nile belongs to Greater Israel. Likewise, Jordan will need to be destroyed because it is also part of Greater Israel. China will be the real winner of such an undertaking because America will be so exhausted from these wars that it will fall into China’s hands as easily as an overripe plum.

9– In “US State Department Spokeswoman Says Israel Is Greater Than America,” Caitlin Johnstone makes some interesting and informative remarks about the Israel-Iran War (https://caitlinjohnstone.com.au/2025/06/23/us-state-department-spokeswoman-says-israel-is-greater-than-america/):

Top Ten dumbest things we’re being asked to believe about Iran:

1. That the Iranians want to be bombed.

2. That the guy bombing Iran wants peace.

3. That regime change interventionism is a swell idea this time.

4. That anyone who doesn’t want war with Iran hates Jews.

5. That this time the government and the media are telling us the truth about an American war.

6. That this time the neocons are smart and correct.

7. That bombing Iran makes it LESS likely to try to obtain nukes.

8. That Iran is trying to assassinate the US president when all US presidents have the same foreign policy.

9. That Iran (a country that never starts wars) cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons, but Israel (a country that starts wars constantly) can.

10. That attacking Iran benefits Americans.

10– Paul Craig Roberts writes, “Iran has done nothing to America. It has not attacked us, sanctioned us, frozen our bank reserves, forbidden trade with us, assassinated any of our leaders. These are things that Washington has done to Iran. Why? Because Netanyahu told us to.” (https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2025/06/19/is-trumps-constituency-netanyahu-or-maga-america/)

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles. 

Defending the South

Defending the South

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was written in 1989.]

    Many Southerners who might otherwise favor or be indifferent to an independent South oppose independence because they believe that the United States armed forces are the only thing stopping Soviet domination. Many Northerners, primarily conservatives, who might otherwise be indifferent to Southern independence oppose independence because they rightfully see the South as the bulwark of conservatism in the United States. They also see the South as a primary source of soldiers, officers, and materiel in the war against communism. (In spite of their platitudes about self-government, Northern liberals oppose Southern independence because they have an insatiable compulsion to rule, reform, rape, and rifle the South.) That the United States are defending the South from Soviet militarism and that the South needs the United States to defend her against the Soviet Union is one of the great myths of the latter half of the twentieth century.
    Ninety miles from Florida is one of the largest military camps in the world. Soviet bombers routinely fly along and occasionally over the coast of the eastern Southern States. What kind of defense does the United States provide the South against this threat? None! No effective anti-aircraft defense system is protecting the South. There are no anti-aircraft missile batteries. Very few fighters are available to intercept the Soviet bombers. The few available fighter squadrons are mostly part of the national guard, and only a few of them have the most recent fighters. There are not even any AWACS to observe this Soviet threat. If the Soviet Union were serious about dropping nuclear bombs on major Southern cities, they would meet little opposition. Would an independent South stand so naked before such an awesome foe? No!
    Coastal defense is perhaps even more dismal than air defense. With the largest Soviet base outside the Soviet Union just ninety miles from Florida, one would think that a significant part of the United States navy would be in the Gulf of Mexico and along the southeast Atlantic coast. But where is the bulk of the United States navy? It is in the North Atlantic, Mediterranean Sea, Pacific Ocean, South China Sea, and Arabian Sea. If the Soviets were determined, they probably could land several divisions along the Gulf Coast encountering nothing more threatening than a Coast Guard cutter or two hunting drug smugglers. Again, would an independent South stand so naked before such an awesome foe? Again, the answer is no.
    One of the most terrifying aspects of the latter half of the twentieth century has been the potential for nuclear war. What have the United States done to protect the South from nuclear war? Nothing! There is no civil defense system. There is no antimissile system. While the Soviet Union has built an elaborate civil defense system, the United States plan to rely on an untried, unworkable mass evacuation of panic-stricken city dwellers into the countryside where no shelter, food, or other provisions await them. While the Soviet Union has developed and placed in the field antimissile defense systems, the United States continues to draw elaborate schemes on paper. In short, the United States’ defense against Soviet missiles is to hold the South hostage to nuclear annihilation. Would an independent South have ever made herself so vulnerable? Of course not!
    The United States government is striving to turn Central America and Mexico into Soviet colonies. (Southerners will be fortunate if Congress prevails over the President. Perhaps then Southern blood will not have to soak the grounds of Central America before it becomes part of the Soviet Empire.) If (when?) Mexico were to become a Soviet colony, would the United States increase and improve their defense of the Mexican border? If it did, such increases and improvements would be mostly for a show with little substance. Most likely they would do nothing.
    The United States have virtually no control over their southern border now. There is little hope that they would be able to control it as millions of Americans from Central America and Mexico flee their Soviet conquerors. Along with the refugees will come Soviet agents, who will come as saboteurs, terrorist, and spies. Would an independent South have lost control of her border with Mexico as have the United States? No! Certainly, an independent South would put forth more effort to defend herself from a communist force in Mexico than the United States ever would. [Editor’s note. By substituting agents of drug dealers, Chinese Communists, and Middle Eastern terrorists for Soviet agents, one has a good description of what is happening today along the Mexican border.]
    History of the twentieth century has shown that the United States are no threat to communism in general and none to the Soviet Union in particular. The United States entered World War I to make Russia safe for communism. In World War II, the United States made Eastern Europe safe for communism. (One of the ironies of World War II is that one of the professed reasons for fighting the war was to rid the world of fascism. All of the noncommunist countries that fought Germany and Italy had already adopted a semi-fascist economic system and have since adopted a semi-fascist social system.) The Korean War and Vietnam War were fought to make China and Indo-China safe for communism. (These statements of fact are not intended to castigate the brave soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen who fought or thought that they were fighting to defend their homes and loved ones and for what they considered noble ideals. They are intended to castigate their political leaders, who knew that the real purpose of these wars was to advance communism.) Now it appears that the United States are trying to start a war to make the Middle East safe for communism. First, they tried to goad Lybia into war. Now they are trying with Iran. If they can succeed in getting Iran to sink one or two United States warships, they will have the old “Remember Fort Sumter, the Maine, and Pearl Harbor; they fired the first shot; we are innocent” battle cry that has been used so successfully so many times to dupe the gullible American into useless war.
    Even a cursory review of how the United States have treated in the past and continues to this day treat anticommunist governments shows that the United States have no animosity toward the Soviet Union or communism. The United States have tried to overthrow nearly every anticommunist government there is. They have probably overthrown more than the Soviet Union has. The more an anticommunist country has tried to be friendly with the United States, the harder the United States have endeavored to overthrow the government of that country and to turn that country into a Soviet colony or an impoverished socialist dictatorship allied with the Soviet Union.
    With such a record of defending against Soviet aggression and communism, can the South really depend upon the United States to defend her? Only a fool or someone oblivious to the history of the twentieth century could possibly believe that the United States would defend the South. The only hope that the South has of defending herself against communism and the Soviet Union lay in a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States.

Copyright © 1989 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern issues 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.

A Letter: Freedom American Style

A Letter: Freedom American Style

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1989 to the editor of The Franklin Times.]

    I hope that the amendments cited in Miss Simmons’ article, “Freedom, Our Most Precious Heritage,” was a misprint by the newspaper, and not in her original paper. The correct so-called “civil rights” amendments are the 13th, 14th, and 15th, which were adopted during Reconstruction. The latter two are hardly amendments to cite as expanding freedom considering that they were adopted at the point of bayonets. Such an adoption process is certainly not the substance of civil rights. Also, the legality of the 14th Amendment is highly questionable. The 15th Amendment expanded the franchise to Blacks, not the 24th, which eliminated the payment of taxes as a qualification for voting. [Contrariwise, the payment of a minimum direct tax should be a qualification for voting to assure that the voter is invested in the government.]
    Miss Simmons is correct in claiming that freedom is our most important heritage. However, she makes the common mistake of confusing freedom with voting. After all, the people in the Soviet Union voted. Only a true socialist would claim that they were free. Even the United States show that voting is no guarantor of freedom. The history of voting in the United States shows just the opposite. Freedom has declined as more people have been allowed to vote.
    If anyone doubts that freedom has been lost as more people have been given the vote, let him try to do the following:
    –    teach his children at home without doing it the way that the government approves,
    –    not support government institutions (public schools) that indoctrinate children with an ideology with which he disagrees,
    –    keep children without governmental approval,
    –    will his estate to his child if he never marries a person of a different race,
    –    divide his land among his children as he desires,
    –    use his land contrary to some governmental land use scheme (which has the effect of taking property without compensation),
    –    establish a scholarship fund for White Protestant males,
    –    buy a pistol without the government’s permission,
    –    carry a pistol in his pocket without governmental permission,
    –    put a mobile home on a lot in most towns,
    –    transport large sums of money out of the country without reporting it to the government,
    –    keep his financial affairs private,
    –    apportion representation in a State legislature on some basis other than representation of districts of equal population,
    –    make a living as a barber or doctor without the blessing of a government license,
    –    agree to work for someone for less than a governmentally fixed minimum wage,
    –    operate a business without one or more governmental licenses and permits,
    –    plant and sell more tobacco or wheat than some government bureaucrat allots,
    –    spend the 50 percent, which is five times more than God asks, of his income that the government taxes in the way that he thinks it should be spent.
And the list goes on ad infinitum. [This list was compiled in 1989. Today, the situation is even worse. For example, refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual “wedding” or having fewer rights than a common criminal when flying on a commercial airliner.]
    Our pre-civil rights amendment ancestors, with the obvious exception of slaves, enjoyed these and many more freedoms that we no longer have. As the history of the United States so adequately demonstrates, voting does not guarantee freedom. It does, however, show that after the privilege of voting extends beyond a certain point, it is extended at the cost of freedom. Freedom is no more secure in a democracy than it is in an autocracy or oligarchy.
    Freedom without the right to vote is infinitely preferable to the right to vote without freedom. Freedom is our most precious heritage, as Miss Simmons states, not voting.

Copyright © 1989, 2021 by Thomas C. Allen.

More political articles.

Zionism and the Middle East

Zionism and the Middle East

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1988 to the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party. Since this was originally written, nearly all changes in the US government’s policy in the Middle East have been for the worst.]

How long will it be before the South is sacrificed on the cross (or should that be the star) of Zionism? [The answer came soon after 9/11 when the US government declared a perpetual war against terrorism and in 2003 invaded Iraq — thus, began the US government’s war to protect Israeli imperialism.] The basic foreign policy of the US government in the Middle East has been that Israel can do no wrong. United States officials may occasionally scold Israel like a father scolding his child. On the whole, however, the US government treats Israel like a father trying to spoil his brat. Still, the US government does make a pretense of trying to create a balance of power in the Middle East by supporting some of the Arabic countries, primarily Saudi Arabia and Jordan. However, Israel has a veto over certain military aid to these countries, and Israel’s veto is seldom overridden. Israel effectively controls the foreign policy of the US government in the Middle East. With such Zionist control of the foreign policy of the United States, how long will it be before the South is crucified for Israel?

Zionist Jews (not all Jews are Zionists) have influence in the highest echelon of the US government far in excess of their number. But this is not their only source of power and influence. They are also aided by mainstream liberals and conservatives.

Liberals tend to support Israel because of Israel’s professed egalitarianism although they view Israel’s egalitarianism while wearing the typical liberal blinders. Moreover, most Jews are liberals. Also, Israel is a democratic state, if one ignores the disenfranchised Palestinians, in an area where nearly all other states are autocratic. To liberals, no form of government is superior to democracy — if the voters agree with them. No form of government is worse than an autocracy except of coarse when that autocracy is also a communist country in which instance it is a perfectly acceptable form of government. Israel is also a socialistic state, which is another virtue from the liberal point of view. In the area of social equality, liberals again view Israel favorably. The Jews express little objections to racial integration (except in Israel), which agrees with the self-destructive tendency of the liberals. Naturally, liberals generally overlook Israel’s discrimination against the Palestinians. This is partly because of the low value that liberals tend to place on religions other than secular humanism. Additionally, Jews are officially considered a minority. Palestinians are not. To the liberal mind, discrimination by an official minority against others is perfectly acceptable if not wholesome and desirable. On the other hand, discrimination by a nonofficial minority against an official minority can never be tolerated. Besides, Israel is the only country in the Middle East that personifies liberal equality. It has the unquestionable support of liberals.

That the Zionists have the support of liberals is not nearly as surprising as the Zionists having the support of conservatives. [This was written when the neoconservatives were beginning to capture American conservatism. For the neoconservatives, the most important values are Zionism, equality, and democracy. Many of their positions, especially on social issues, are almost indistinguishable from liberals.] After all, if it were not for those confounded Palestinians, Israel would come close to having the ideal egalitarian liberal society with democracy, socialism, and integration. In spite of the oxymoron “Judeo-Christian,” human secularism, the predominant religion of liberals, is closer to today’s Judaism than is Christianity, the religion of many conservatives.

There are several reasons for the conservative support of Israel. First, Israel has adopted an anticommunist foreign policy. The second reason, and this reason is the important one for the religious right, is Biblical prophecy. Israel also receives unquestionably support from both liberals and conservatives who fear being called “anti-Semitic” or who feel guilty about the Holocaust®.

Israel’s anticommunist foreign policy has more to do with the Soviet Union’s support of some of Israel’s Arabic neighbors than with any philosophical disagreement with communism or the Soviet Union. Israel’s economic and social policies have much more in common with the Soviet Union and Red China than do the economic and social policies of most of the surrounding Arabic countries and Egypt. [An anticommunist foreign policy carries little weight today. However, Israel’s economic and social policies are much closer to communism than most of the surrounding Arabic countries.]

The support that Israel has from the anticommunist element in America is primarily contingent on the fact that several of the Arabic countries in the region are allies of the Soviet Union [now Russia] in opposition to Israel. This element is also a strong supporter of the anticommunist Arabic countries, such as Saudi Arabia. If the military alliance in the Middle East were to shift, as they well could if the Soviet Union becomes serious about acquiring a port along the Persian Gulf or the Arabian Sea directly under its control, with the Soviet Union aligning itself with Israel against the Arabs, then most of the anticommunist, or at least those who are not fooled by the oxymoron “Judeo-Christian,” would become opponents of Israel. Israel’s anticommunist support in the United States is conditional. It is primarily predicated on the Soviet Union’s hostility toward Israel.

Although the religious right is anticommunist, its support of Israel is not based on communism or Israel’s relations with the Soviet Union. It comes from Biblical prophecy. A realignment of alliances in the Middle East would have little effect on their allegiance to Israel.

In spite of what Christ said about Jews and what Jewish rabbis have said about Him, the highly conservative religious right, surprisingly, is among the strongest supporters of Zionism. Much of this support arises, unfortunately, out of ignorance although the leaders should know better.

Most of the religious right believe that the oxymoron “Judeo-Christian” is not a contradiction of ideas, but are highly compatible ideas. (This misconception is also true of many other conservative and liberal supporters of Israel.) They believe that the principal difference between the two religions is that Christians look forward to the Messiah’s second coming while Jews look forward to the Messiah’s first coming. (Of course, they overlook the fact that the Christian Messiah comes to save or reward the Christians and destroy or punishing the non-Christians, which includes Jews, while the Jewish Messiah comes to save or reward the Jews and destroy or punish the non-Jews, which includes Christians.) This error apparently arises from both claiming the books of the Old Testament as part of their holy scriptures. However, this where their similarity ends. The Jewish Talmudic interpretation of the Old Testament differs more from the Christian New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament than a socialistic economy differs from a free market economy.

The religious right’s support for Israel arises out of a misinterpretation of Old Testament passages. It has adopted the interpretation that Zionists have used to justify their plunder of Palestine. In Genesis 15:18-21 and 17:8, God made a covenant with Abram (later called Abraham) and promised him that his descendants would possess the land from Egypt to the Euphrates. Some theologians believe that this promise has been fulfilled with the Empire of David and Solomon. Other theologians claim that God’s covenant with Abraham applies to his spiritual descendants, i.e., Christians, not to his physical descendants (Galatians 3:6-9 and 26-29). Zionists and the religious right interpret these passages to mean that Palestine has been promised by God to today’s Jews.

Even if the promise is intended to apply to Abraham’s descendants through Isaac, today’s Jews living in Israel do not fulfill the promise. Approximately 85 to 90 percent of today’s Jews are Ashkenazim. These Jews are descendants of the people of Khazaria, who were mostly Turanian Turks and Aryan Armenians and Alpines. They are not the descendants of the ancient Israelites, a Semitic people. The Sephardim, however, do have some claim to being Semitic. They are the descendants of the Jews of Palestine in the days of Jesus. If Jesus is to be believed, many of these Jews are not descendants of Isaac, for he told them that they were not of Abraham’s children (John 8:39-45 and Revelations 2:9 and 3:9). They were descendants of the Edomites.

Another error that the religious right and many others make is confusing Judaism as it is practiced today with Judaism described in the Old Testament. Most believe that these two religions are the same religion. They are not. Today’s Judaism differs as much from Old Testament Judaism as Christianity and Islam differ from Old Testament Judaism. Animal sacrifices offered to God in the prescribed manner in a properly built tabernacle or temple as described in the Old Testament is an essential and important part of Judaism. Today’s Jews do not offer God animal sacrifices. Therefore, today’s Jews are not practicing the same religion that the Jews practiced in the Old Testament or in the days of Jesus. God destroyed that religion in 70 A.D. when Titus destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. In summary, Judaism without animal sacrifices in a tabernacle [or temple] as described in the Old Testament is like Christianity without the crucifixion of Christ and the work that he accomplished on the cross. It is just not the same religion. This error along with the false belief that today’s Jews are of the seed of Abraham may cost many Southerners their lives.

Another tactic that the Zionists like to use is guilt. They are continuously reminding the world of the Holocaust®. (That the official government line throughout the world for the last four and a half decades [now 75 years] has been that the Holocaust® is a historical fact without question and even to the point of making statements that the Holocaust® did not occur [or even that less than six million Jews died in it] a crime, should make any person with any libertarian inclinations highly suspicious. When was the last time that a government consistently told the truth about anything for half a century? Governments can be consistent with lies for decades but not with the truth — a good reason to outlaw public education.) To the extent that Zionists can make people feel guilty about the Holocaust® and can make people, even those born after World War II, believe that the Holocaust® was somehow their fault, is the extent that the Zionists gain unquestionable support.

Another tactic enjoyed by the Zionists is name-calling. If anyone does not support Zionist extermination of the Palestinians, then he is guilty of antisemitism. (These name-callers ignore that Palestinians have a much stronger argument of being Semitic than do Jews, and, therefore, to persecute Palestinians is a true act of antisemitism.) To be called “antisemitic” is as horrible and terrifying as being called a “racist bigot.” Such a label will surely ruin a political career. With name-calling and through guilt, Zionists are able to control most political leaders and the gullible, ignorant masses.

With such support in the United States, how long is it before the Zionists are sacrificing American lives to fulfill the Zionist dream in the Middle East? Israel has nuclear weapons and missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Unlike the United States, it has the will and the desire to use them. How long is it before Israel uses these weapons against its Arabic neighbors in a surprise strike? Or more likely, to launch a surprise conventional attack while having nuclear weapons ready to use if the war does not go well? As it has in the past, Israel would naturally claim that it has acted defensively with a pre-emptive strike by attacking the Arabs before they attack Israel. Propaganda is already appearing in the American press about the Arabs acquiring nuclear weapons to use against Israel. [Iran has now replaced the surrounding Arabic countries as the big bugbear of nuclear weaponry.] Israel can rely on the government of the United States to support Israeli aggression with military materiel as they have in the past although the United State may publicly denounce Israel’s actions. The US government’s support of Israel in such a war would cause the Soviet Union [now Russia and maybe China] to provide more support to the Arabs. Then the US government’s support of Israel would become more open and aggressive as the US government would claim that Israel is the only anticommunist country in the region, and by fighting communism, it is defending the interest of the United States in the Middle East. If the war were to go badly for Israel, as it probably would if the Arabs were able to drag it out for several months, or if the Arabs were to retaliate with nuclear or chemical weapons, US troops may well be committed to the war in the name of democracy and freedom. If the war were fought as a war should be fought instead of the way the Vietnam War was fought, the joint Israeli-American forces would quickly defeat the Arabs. [The war in Iraq and Afghanistan are being fought more like the Vietnam War.] Then, the question would become one of Soviet [now Russian and possibly Chinese] troops entering the war. If they were to enter, the war would surely escalate into a global conflict. With the threat of Soviet troops becoming involved, presumably, Congress would press for peace [with the war hawks now controlling Congress, Congress would press for escalating war instead of peace, but without any backbone to declare war]. However, considering Zionist control of the US government, it might not. Claiming that God promised them the land from the Nile to the Euphrates, the Israelis would refuse to talk peace. Israel thus would seal its fate to perish. Then, the United States would face the choice of listening to the Zionists and going to war with the Soviet Union [Russian and possibly China] or ignoring the Zionists and abandoning Israel to the Soviet Union. If the United States were to listen to the Zionists, World War III and perhaps Armageddon would become a strong possibility. If the United States were to act rationally and abandon Israel, then the Jews in Israel would face the fate that the Jews faced when the Romans sieged and captured Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Can the likelihood of going to war with the Soviet Union to defend Israel in a war that Israel starts break the hole that Zionists have on the United States?

As long as the Southern States remain colonies of the United States, there is a high probability that the deserts of the Middle East will become soaked with Southern blood. There is also a good chance that Southern cities will be destroyed with nuclear blasts. The only way such destruction can be prevented is through a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States. Then the South would have a chance to adopt a sane policy of neutrality and nonintervention in the Middle East in which the rights of the Palestinians and Israelis are respected, a policy not controlled or guided by Zionism or antisemitism. Only then can the Zionist foreign policy of Israel first, which is the foreign policy of the United States, be abandon and numerous Southern lives saved.

Copyright © 1988, 2021 by Thomas C. Allen.

More political articles.

Basic Principles of the Modern Left

 Basic Principles of the Modern Left

Thomas Allen

In “The Modern Left Is Not Marxist, It’s Worse,” Chronicles, November 2020 (page 19), Paul Gottfried identifies four basic principles or practices of the modern left. The modern left rose after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

(1) Leftists are globalists or universalists. They find Western Christian White society revolting and seek its demise. Unlike the right that values particularity and the sanctity of local and natural traditions, the left rejects particularity and traditions.

(2) Leftists worship equality and endeavor to obliterate all human distinctions and differences. Nothing is more valuable than equality. Consequently, the ideal human is a unisexual (asexual, hermaphroditic, sexually fluid — any sex except male or female), motley, mongrel being — and all these humans have the same intelligence, beauty, talents, skills, and standard of living.  Thus, the ideal society consists of indistinguishable beings. (Since most rightists are racial nihilists, they agree with the leftist desire to create motley, mongrel humans, but they disagree on the sexual part.)

(3) Since “historically grounded natural rights do not advance equality or ‘human dignity,’” leftists promote the expansion of “human rights.” Human rights call for the extinction of social and historical distinctions. They want to replace “long established customs and conventions” with whatever “journalists and academics deem conducive to greater equality.”

(One equality that modern leftists shun is equality before the law, which is an equality that rightists accept. For leftists, anyone who promotes equality and other leftist agendas can violate all sorts of laws with immunity. Examples of lawbreaking leftists escaping punishment are the Clintons and members of Black Lives Matter or Antifa.)

(4) Leftists believe that humans are perfectly malleable. For example, any male  can become a female including replacing his male Y chromosome with a female X chromosome.  Likewise, any female can become a male including replacing one of her female X chromosomes with a male Y chromosome. Judges and other governmental officials should defend the right of a person to become any of the more than 100 current sexes, and everyone should accept such sex, even if it changes daily, and find it admirable and heroic. Consequently, leftists spurn the notion of the right that “human identities are rooted in tradition and nature.” Thus, the left believes that genetics do not influence a person’s nature (many rightists also hold this belief).

Therefore, the goal of modern leftists is to destroy sexual identity, the White race and other races (racial nihilism) if they are consistent, Western civilization, and Christianity — the last two because they are products of the White, Aryan, race. All distinction and differences are to be sacrificed on the altar of equality.

Gottfried notes that the old left of the Soviet-Union days focused on economic equality (socialism, communism, welfarism) and gave little attention to social equality except for the civil rights movement (which they orchestrated). The modern left focuses more on social equality. Nevertheless, modern leftists do not ignore economic equality. However, they prefer welfarism with a highly progressive income tax, expanded welfare programs, and other wealth redistribution programs. Instead of governmental ownership of businesses, industries, and farms as advocated by the old left, the modern left advocates a highly regulated economy. Thus, they prefer the fascist model of socialism where governmental central planning is through governmental control of privately owned businesses, industries, and farms.

Also, Gottfried observes that some of the biggest supporters and pushers of modern leftism are major multinational corporations. Could it be that these corporations promote the leftist agenda because it leads to a homogenous market? After all, the leftist lust for equality destroys diversity. The destruction of diversity would result in a homogenous market, and a homogenous market would reduce the cost of production and marketing because everyone would want the same things.

Whereas old leftists emphasized economic equality, modern leftists emphasize social equality. Thus, modern leftists advocate racial nihilism and the new morality with no sexual differences — that is, racial and sexual amalgamation. Moreover, they seek to annihilate the White race, Christianity, and Western civilization. They strive to nullify human nature and to remake mankind to be contrary to his natural genetic makeup. Individuals, races, and the sexes are naturally unequal and can never be made equal. Naturally low-quality people can never be raised to the level of naturally high-quality people. However, high-quality people can be suppressed. Consequently, leftists need to institute a totalitarian government to achieve equality by suppressing everything superior — except the ruling elite. Ironically and hypocritically, although they preach equality, leftists believe that they are superior to rightists and other deplorables — yet, most leftists may deny their superiority.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

States’ Right and Society

States’ Right and Society

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are States’ right and society. In this article, “state” is used in two different senses. In the first two sections on States’ rights, “state” refers to a territory and its body politic. In the section on society, “state” refers to an abstract, suprapersonal entity that is above all and is in all and exercises the supreme power.

States’ Rights
States’ rights mean that each State retains all political sovereignty individually and independently of all other States. Consequently, under the United States Constitution, each State retains for itself all political powers except the few powers delegated to their agent, the general government (also called the federal government and the US government) by the Constitution and the powers that they denied themselves by the Constitution. Moreover, the Constitution is merely a compact or treaty among equal sovereigns.

In Lane County vs. Oregon, the US Supreme Court declared in 1868:

The people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence. The States disunited might continue to exist. Without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.

Unfortunately, Lincoln and his war and the resulting fourteenth amendment destroyed the original constitution and subverted States into mere administrative provinces.

The Tenth Amendment
The tenth amendment is the States’ rights amendment. It affirms that each State and the people thereof have all sovereign powers not explicitly and particularly delegated to the US government by the Constitution or that it does not specifically deny the States. It reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

In “Conservatism and the South,” The Lasting South (1957, page 200), James Kilpatrick explains the tenth amendment as follows:

This amendment consists of a single sentence, only twenty-eight words long; it is in no way obscure. The powers (not rights, as in the Ninth Amendment, but powers) not delegated to the United States (the verb is delegated, not "surrendered," or "granted," or "vested in," but merely delegated) by the Constitution (not by inference, or by any notions of inherent powers, but by the Constitution alone), nor prohibited by it to the States (prohibited by the Constitution, that is, by its specific limitations, and not by mandate of any court or Congress or executive, but only by the Constitution itself), are reserved to the States respectively (not to the States jointly, but to the States individually and respectively), or to the people (because there may be some powers the people will not wish to entrust even to their States).

Chodorov on States’ Rights
In One Is Crowd: Reflections of an Individualist (New York: The Devin-Adair Company,  1952, page 158), Frank Chodorov gives a good description of States’ rights. About States’ rights he writes:

[States' rights] proceed from a philosophical axiom, that the individual is the only reality. He alone exists. Without him there cannot be a society, and without society there is no need of government. Society, in fact, is nothing but a convenient abstraction, a word describing an agglomeration of individuals cooperating for their mutual advantage. The character of society is but a composite of the characters of its components; it has no other. In short, society is nothing of itself.

A “society” is a convenient abstraction that describes “an aggregate of individual cooperating for their mutual advantage” (p. 158).

Society
In Rise and Fall of Society (New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1959, page 29), Frank Chodorov gives this definition of society: “Society is a collective concept and nothing else; it is a convenience for designating a number of people. . . . Society is different from these other collective nouns [family, crowd, gang, etc.] in that it conveys the idea of a purpose or point of contact in which each individual, while retaining his identity and pursuing his private concerns, has an interest. . . . Society . . .  embraces a host of people following all sorts of vocations and avocations, pursuing a variety of goals, each in his own way, and yet held together by a purpose which is in each of them.”

Thus, individuals come together to form a society to advance their mutual interest and to further their purposes and aspirations. To protect the lives, property, and liberties of the people forming a society, the people instituted a government. Unfortunately, governments degenerate into states, which proceeds to deprive the people of their property and liberty and at times their lives. (See “The Difference Between Government and State” by Thomas Allen.)

In other words, a state cannot exist without a government. A government cannot exist without a society, and a society cannot exist without individuals. None of these abstractions — society, government, and state — have a life independent of the individuals comprising them. None are greater than the sum of its parts. They are merely metaphysical persons with no life of their own. They are not suprapersonal.

God created man, and man established societies, governments, and states. None of these institutions can exist independently of man — just as man cannot exist independently of God. Philosophers, political scientists, economists, and others who treat society, government, and state as entities that are independent of or superior to the individuals comprising them deceive themselves. Moreover, they err when they give society, government, and state characteristics of an individual. Giving them such attributes led to the horrors of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Mao’s China.

In closing, an additional explanation of state and society is needed. The concept of the relationship between society and state has changed over time. In times past, the state was an entity that was completely outside society and existed independent of it. People had to reckon with this entity called a state and either feared it or admired it. They saw the state as advancing their agenda or taking their property and liberty. However, they never thought of the state as an integral part of society: It was apart from and above society.

Now, people conceive the State and society such that they are indistinguishable, either conceptually or institutionally. That is, the state is society and the social order has become an appendage of the state. Thus, society, i.e., the people, is dependent on the state as represented by the government for its health, education, communications, transportation, charity, and just about everything else. The people look to the state, the government, to solve their problems; consequently, the people are no longer self-reliant and have enslaved themselves to those who control the state. As a result, the state has become the society. Additionally, since people look to the state to save and deliver them instead of God and themselves, they have made an idol out of the state — therefore, they are idolaters.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Libertarians and Corporations

Libertarians and Corporations

Thomas Allen

Most libertarians seem to place great value on artificial collectives, such as associations and corporations (except municipal corporations), and little value on natural collectives, such as biological races and ethnicities. One thing that most libertarians ignore or fail to realize is that corporations are artificial entities created by governments; therefore, they are agents of governments.
Many libertarians seem not to disapprove of private corporations spying on their “customers.” (Are the real customers, the users of the ostensible services or the recipients of the information?) After all, they are private companies. Being private companies, they will never harm any of their users by suppressing the users’ inalienable liberties.
Likewise, many libertarians seem to condone, if not approve of, private corporations collecting an inordinate amount of information on people and profiting from that information. Yet, libertarians would scream in protest if the government were collecting half this amount of information. However, few would protest if corporations collect the information and then turn it over to the government.
Also, many libertarians seem to have no concern about corporations conspiring to defame and destroy people’s reputations and livelihoods or censoring and ostracize them. After all, these corporations are private companies, and private corporations can do no evil except overtly collaborating with a government.
All libertarians object to the social credit system that the Chinese government is imposing. However, few seem to object to the social credit system being imposed in the United States because private corporations are implementing it instead of the government. Besides, private corporations only act in the best interest of their users (customers?) — even if it means closing bank accounts and denying credit to a customer because of his politics.
Likewise, few libertarians seem to object to corporations applying in the United States, the European Union’s directives to stifle free speech. Thus, they let the European Union decided what speech will be allowed in the United State. Where are the libertarians objecting to such collaboration between governments and corporations?
Furthermore, few libertarians utter any protest against the ever-growing number of corporations promoting through advertisements and by other means antilibertarian, anti-White, anti-American, statist, miscegenational agendas. After all, corporations are just like ordinary people, except that they have governmentally granted privileges that ordinary people do not have, and, therefore, should enjoy the right to say whatever they want to say.
To all of this, the typical libertarian retort is that no one has to do business with these corporations, which is true. However, these corporations have a virtual monopoly in technology, communications, and services needed to function in today’s world. One cannot forgo being a “customer” of these companies unless he is willing to live a 1950s or earlier lifestyle.
The primary difference between liberals and libertarians on these issues is that liberals object to private corporation doing these acts, but not to the government doing them. (Actually, liberals are not really objecting to corporations undertaking these actions because the leaders of these corporations are political comrades of the liberals and their worst actions are directed toward conservatives and libertarians.) Contrariwise, libertarians object to the government doing them, but not to private corporations doing them.
Corporations allow two or more individuals to associate together and gain privileges that do not belong to them as an individual, such as the potential to live eternally and limited liability, i.e., the only liability of the owners is their shares in the corporation, while the other property of its owners is placed out of reach. Because of its special governmentally granted privileges, one would think that libertarians would lead the charge to condemn corporations instead of leading the charge to defend them.
Although corporations are manmade, they are treated as a natural person. Yet, they have no soul and are without ethics or morality. Nevertheless, they can pretend to act ethically or morally for financial gain, but they rarely act ethically or morally because such action is ethical or moral per se. Moreover, like sociopaths, corporations cannot sympathize or empathize. However, they can feign such emotions when it is financially beneficial.
To this condemnation of corporations, libertarians reply that humans run corporations, which is true. However, being soulless creatures without any moral or ethical identity, they do serve to absorb the personal responsibility of moral and ethical human beings. Corporations shield shareholders (the ostensible owners) from the morality and ethics of exploiting workers in foreign countries and other immoral and unethical acts, even criminal acts. (This claim of exploitation is made by Frank Chodorov, a libertarian, who unlike most libertarian held corporations, especially international corporations, in low esteem.) Moreover, the directors cannot be charged individually for criminal acts of the corporation because they act in a collective capacity. Collectives have no moral or ethical responsibility. Thus, a corporation absolves shareholders, directors, and usually those who run the corporation (CEOs, presidents, vice presidents, etc.) from culpability, while they commit all sorts of immoral, unethical, and criminal acts in the name of the corporation.
Today, corporations are essential to imperialism and oppression. In this respect, the Soviet Union was the ultimate corporation where the state corporation owned and controlled everything.
In 1840, Condy Raguet wrote the following about corporations in his book A Treatise On Currency & Banking: “[U]nfortunately experience has given too much reason to fear, that the moral sense of corporations cannot be relied upon for the protection of the public.” Unfortunately, what Raguet wrote about corporations in 1840 is still true today. Also, unfortunately, most libertarians refuse to acknowledge this well-known fact. (Many consider Raguet to be the greatest antebellum American political economist.)
Nevertheless, many corporations are concerned with providing their entrepreneurs, investors, managers, and workers with a decent return by providing their customers excellent products and services without spying on them or pushing the globalist agenda. However, the above flaws do apply to most, if not all, multinational corporations. Unfortunately, all the flaws described above are inherent in all corporations.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.