For Whom Is the Constitution Written?

For Whom Is the Constitution Written?

Thomas Allen

    For whom is the Constitution for the United States of America written? The answer is easy. The preamble clearly states for whom the Constitution is written. The preamble reads:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    “We the People of the United States . . . to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Who are “ourselves” and “our posterity?” They are the people who wrote and adopted the Constitution and their descendants. That is, they are Aryans, Whites. As Aryans wrote and adopted the Constitution, it is solely for Aryans. As almost all Aryans then abided by the Biblical prohibition against interracial mating, they expected their posterity to be Aryan. (If any Aryan sinned and had a child by a person of another race, that child was not considered an Aryan.)
    Therefore, the Constitution is not written for Negroes. It is not written for Melanochroi from India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Somalia, etc. Moreover, it is not written for Turanians from China, Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Southeast Asia, etc. Nor is it written for the Turanian Indians and mestizos from Latin America. Likewise, it is not written for Indo-Australians and Khoisans.
     Supporting the notion that the Constitution is written for Aryans is the first naturalization law, which was enacted in 1790. It restricted naturalization to free Whites. It excluded Blacks, American Indians, Muslims, and later Asians. Furthermore, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and other founding fathers declared that the United States was and should be a White man’s country. By the way, nearly every President, if not every President, held this sentiment until John Kennedy.
    In conclusion, Aryans wrote and adopted the Constitution for the United  States of America for Aryans. They did not write it for Negroes, Melanochroi, Turanians, Indo-Australians, or Khoisans. Until Whites in the United States realize and admit that the Constitution is written solely for them and for no other race, species of humans, the social, political, and economic problems affecting the United States will not be solved. Until ministers start teaching the Biblical prohibition against interracial mating, these problems will not be solved. Moreover, constitutionalists need to acknowledge that the Constitution is solely for Aryans and need to proclaim such. A necessary part of solving the social, political, and economic problems of the United States is returning to the Constitution in its original intent. Admitting that the Constitution is only for Aryans, Whites, is a necessary and essential part of this return. A return to Constitutional government cannot be made without this acknowledgment.
    The biggest hindrances to returning to Constitutional government are Christian ministers and constitutionalists. Because of political correctness, ignorance of the Bible, or fear of being called a “racist,” ministers fail to teach that the Scriptures prohibit miscegenation and interracial mating, that Adam was an Aryan, White, and only Aryans are created in the image of God, and that God is a segregationist and a racial separationist. (God confusing the languages of man as a result of constructing the Tower of Babel is perhaps the greatest act of segregation and racial separation ever experienced by mankind in recorded history.) Likewise, because of political correctness, ignorance of the Constitution, or fear of being called a “racist,” constitutionalists fail to identify the people for whom the Constitution is written and to teach that it is written solely for Whites.
    Before ministers and constitutionalists can return to the proper understanding of the Bible and the Constitution, they need to abandon the Deity of King. They need to cease the idolatry of bowing before his idol. To do this, they need to realize, acknowledge, and teach that Martin Luther King was a rabble-rouser, a scoundrel, a frontman for the Communist Party, and a leader of one of the most destructive movements that the United States have ever endured, the civil rights movement. (As a result of the civil rights movement, the immigration laws were changed to discriminate against Whites and to flood the country with non-Whites such that in a few years, Whites will be a minority in their own country. It also brought the war on poverty, racial and sexual quotas, affirmative action, effeminized and emasculated men, degraded women, homosexual marriages, legalized abortion, growth in out-of-wedlock children, genocide via interracial mating, etc.)

Appendix 1.
    Most people incorrectly refer to the Constitution for the United States of America as the Constitution of the United States of America. According to the preamble, the correct title is the “Constitution for the United States of America.”

Appendix 2.
    Most people refer to the United States in the singular: the United States is. However, the Constitution refers to the United States in the plural: the United States are. For example, Article III, Section 3, Paragraph 1 reads, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” The plural pronouns, “their” and “them” are used to refer to the United States.
    Some historians argue that Lincoln’s War to Suppress Southern Independence was fought over a verb. Lincoln and his supporters fought for “is” while the Southern States fought for “are.” Before the War, most people referred to the United States in the plural: they, them, their, are, etc. After the War, most people referred to the United States in the singular: it, its, is, etc.

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on politics.

Secession or Reform

Secession or Reform

Thomas Allen

    A major debate among Southerners who love liberty and who realize that liberty is all but dead under the present system is whether their lost liberty can best be regained by reforming the present union or seceding from it. The following describes the various positions Southerners take on this question and the effectiveness and economy of secession over reform.

    I

    If Southerners wish to regain their lost liberties and retard the erosion of their culture and heritage, they have but two choices. They can reform the present government of the United States, or they can secede.

    If they bother to think about the loss of their liberty at all, most people would shy away from secession.  Instead they would prefer to reform the present government of the United States.  They erroneously perceive this as being easier and less radical.  They fool themselves into believing that reform can be achieved without violence and bloodshed.  Most of them have the idea — a false idea — that secession would lead to civil war.  But is secession really more difficult, more radical, or more violent than reform? 

    Those who think that a decadent despotic democracy can be reformed deceive themselves.  Despots do not willingly yield their power. Democratic despotism is much worse.  At least with an autocrat, assassination may lessen the tyranny.  But how does one assassinate the majority? Civil war! 

    The reformers face almost insurmountable obstacles.  The United States have degenerated to the point of no return in the life of a democracy.  The people have learned how to vote themselves booty from the public treasury.  They are federal-handout junkies who are addicted to (perceived) “free” money.  If the United States remain intact, nothing short of Divine intervention, conquest by a foreign power, or civil war will prevent the United States from completing their evolution into an autocratic presidency or judicial oligarchy within the next generation or two. 

    The reformers may occasionally win on an issue.  But they lose more often than they win, and their victories are usually short-lived. Their only hope is to replace, i.e., overthrow, the rulers, the government.  This means civil war — more violent and bloodier than any successful secession movement.  If the reformers lose, the result is even greater tyranny. 

    Secession may also lead to war although war in this case is not as certain as it is in the case of the reformers. A successful war of secession would be less destructive and violent than the civil war of the reformers.  If the secession movement fails, the result would be about the same as if the reformers were to lose their civil war — ever more tyranny.

    A secession movement has one major advantage over a political reform movement.  The secessionists do not seek to overthrow any government.  They do not seek to rule the others.  The secessionists seek only to prevent the others from ruling them. 

    The reform movement suffers the disadvantage of having to overthrow a government.  The reformers seek not just to prevent the others from ruling them but also to rule the others.  

    Paradoxically, secession can be achieved more easily and with less violence than reform, especially during the latter parts of the democratic despotic stage. Apparently, the degenerative effects of democracy and despotism destroy the will to resist almost anything that does not directly interfere with the grants of special privileges that the politically powerful special interest groups have and “free” money from the public treasury.  By the time the oligarchic or autocratic stage is fully realized, change almost always requires bloodshed.  The time to strike for independence is now! 

    The reformers set out to abolish the grants of special privileges and “free” money from the public treasury and, therefore, run into stiff resistance.  The secessionists set out to abolish these only in a limited geographical area. Therefore, resistance is limited. The secessionists face much less resistance than do the reformers and, thus, have a much better chance of success. 

    Secessionists do face one problem that the reformers face. That is to persuade enough people in the equity of their cause so that they have an adequate base for the movement to succeed.  However, by operating in a limited geographical area, the secessionist does not have to convert as many people. The reformers need converts all across the country. Also, to proselyte people within a limited geographical area with similar culture, heritage, religion, philosophy, etc. is easier than to proselyte a population as diverse as that of all the United States. 

    There is another paradox of the reform movement.  Not only do reform movements usually lead to more tyranny when they fail, they usually lead to more tyranny when successful.  Secession movements do not suffer this paradox. When they succeed, the result is usually more freedom.  When they fail, the result is usually more tyranny. 

    Secessionists do tend to be more radical than reformers. Secession is not for conservatives since it requires breaking free from the established order. However, when liberty is on the deathbed, radical action is often demanded. 

    Reformers seek to pass a few laws, to repeal a few laws, or to attach an amendment or two to the Constitution.  They fail to realize that the government of the United States is no longer a government of law.  It is, like all democracies, a government of men.  The Constitution is now a meaningless piece of ancient paper.  The reformers must destroy the institutions that they seek to preserve and reform if their reforms are to have a chance to live. This is yet another paradox the reformers must face. 

    The secessionists are not concerned with preserving or destroying political institutions.  Of necessity, they must form a new government and new political institutions.  Their constitution and government may be radically different from the present constitution and government of the United States.  (They should because obviously, the present constitution is a failure in that it does not have enough chains to bind the government of the United States.)  However, their constitution and government will have what the present constitution and government of the United States no longer have.  They will be possessed by the spirit of the founding fathers.  Now that is radical! 

    The reformers are doomed to failure. They face only despair, defeat, violence, and more tyranny. Reform offers the South little hope. Liberty can only be found in secession.
 
    Now is the time for Southerners to regain their liberties through secession.  Democracy in the United States has degenerated to the point where independence can be achieved with little or no bloodshed.  Independence must be achieved before the judicial oligarchy or autocratic presidency is firmly established.  If this opportunity is lost, independence can then only be achieved by a long bloody conflict.
  

    II

    Contending for the Southern mind are the advocates of the status quo, which is nothing more than fascism American style, i.e., democratic fascism; the false reformers, who agree with the advocates of the status quo in principle but disagree with them on emphasis; the false secessionists, who seek an authoritarian or soviet state where they shall rule; the apathetic, who could care less about what happens, or if he cares, he does not care enough to act; and the true reformers and true secessionists, both of whom seek liberty but disagree on the approach to use in achieving this goal.

    The apathetic is the largest group. The apathetic group generally flows with the current no matter where the current takes him. If forced to choose, he usually chooses the status quo because that is the course of least resistance.

    The advocates of the status quo support the present system, which is democratic fascism. (Under fascism most property remains privately owned at least in name. However, the government controls the property and tells the owner what he may and may not do with his property. The government controls the economy by granting special privileges and subsidies to its favorites at the expense of the politically weak. In social matters, the government attempts to establish social equality by regimenting the population into a homogenized oneness.) The governments of the United States, States, and most of the counties and cities are controlled by the advocates of the status quo.

    There are two types of reformers: false reformers and true reformers. False reformers believe in the welfare state. Their argument with the advocates of the status quo is over emphasis, not over philosophy. Most establishment conservatives, such as Reagan, Will, and Buckley, are false reformers, if they are reformers at all, as are all liberal and socialist reformers. (If one hears a conservative who says that government should help the truly needy, who talks about improving public education [government schools] instead of abandoning it, who favors granting special economic privileges to certain classes, such as farm subsidies and protective tariffs, or who advocate foreign intervention and militarism, he should beware, for most likely he is listening to a false reformer.) False reformers should really be considered a subset of the advocates of the status quo. On the other hand, true reformers believe that the primary purpose of government is to protect life and property. Government should be minimal. They advocate returning to the basic principles upon which the United States were founded. Among the true reformers are libertarians for the most part, most John Birchers, many of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party, and most of the other so-called right-wing extremists. (The various Nazi and fascist groups and perhaps some Klan groups should really be considered part of the radical left, for that is where their philosophical kindred is.) False reformers are more numerous than true reformers. Almost all reform programs that have been implemented have come from the false reformers. Few, if any, of the programs of the true reformers have ever been implemented.

    Like reformers, there are two types of secessionists: true secessionists and false secessionists. Like false reformers, the disagreement that false secessionists have with the advocates of the status quo is not so much one of philosophy as it is one of who rules, who decides what statist programs are to be implemented, and who implements them. False secessionists believe that they are locked out of the present system, and, therefore, they seek to secede from it and establish a new country with a new government where they will be the gerents. Obviously, all left-wing secessionists are false secessionists. Unfortunately, so are many right-wing secessionists. On the other hand, true secessionists like true reformers desire to regain the basic principles upon which the United States were founded. Their basic disagreement with the true reformers is that they believe as George Washington believed in 1776 that the system cannot be reformed in the direction of liberty. The only hope for freedom lies in secession. True secessionists desire liberty while false secessionists desire to rule.

    In summary, Southerners tend to fall into one of these groups: the apathetic, advocates of the status quo, false reformers, true reformers, false secessionists, and true secessionists.

    III

    Southerners who love liberty tend to belong to one of two categories: those who believe that the system can be reformed and those who believe that the system cannot be reformed. The latter are secessionists and the former are reformers. The best hope that Southerners have to regain their lost liberties is through secession, not reform. If history is any predictor of the future, reform is almost certain to fail.

As difficult as the task is for the secessionists to achieve their goals, it is much more so for the reformers. The secessionists need only to persuade a significant number of people in one region of the rightfulness of their cause. The reformers must persuade a significant number of people throughout the entire country.

    The secessionists may have to resort to physical conflict in order to achieve their goals. However, war for the secessionists is not nearly as certain as it is for the reformers. The holders of power fight less diligently to retain their colonies than they do to retain their power base. (For example, the War for Texas Independence was less bloody than most Mexican civil wars in which the reformers tried to oust the rulers.) The secessionists seek only to remove themselves from the power base. The reformers seek to overthrow and replace the power base. Hence, the entrenched holders of power will, for self-preservation if for no other reason, fight the reformers, who seek to replace them, more tenaciously than they will fight the secessionists, who seek only to withdraw from them.

    Throughout the history of America, secession has been much more effective than reform at achieving liberty whereas reform has been much more effective than secession at achieving oppression. There are numerous examples to substantiate this statement. The British colonists gained back the liberties that they had lost and more when they successfully seceded from Great Britain. Just as the Mexicans lived freer after seceding from Spain in 1821 so did the Texans live freer after seceding from the United States of Mexico in 1836. If Southerners had succeeded in their secession, they would not have suffered the despotism that they have suffered in the present union. The people of a seceding country have nearly always lived freer than they did before they seceded or would have if they had not seceded. And they continued to live a freer life until they went down the road of reform as did Mexico.

    On the other hand, reform has almost always resulted in oppression. The abolitionist reformers have brought about the War Between the States, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Ku Klux Klan, and the present-day “civil rights” movement and laws. (Most reform movements in the United States since the 1830s have descended or spun off from the New England abolitionists.) The temperance reformers have brought prohibition, anti-drug laws, and anti-smoking laws. The populist reformers have brought the income tax, many of the alphabet federal agencies whose job is to intervene in the economy and thwart economic progress, and the abandonment of the gold standard and concomitant inflation. The economic reformers have brought the New Deal, the welfare state, and the economic chaos that has become the norm. The cosmopolitan reformers have brought World War I, World War II, and the United Nations. The educational reformers have brought an educational system that indoctrinates and socializes children rather than educates them, thus producing the worst educational system in the Western world and one that ranks behind some third-world countries. The political reformers have concentrated nearly all political power in Washington and have diluted the electorate until only the mediocre, who are more easily controlled by the power brokers than are the natural aristocrats (people like Washington, Henry, Randolph, Macon, Calhoun, Stevens, Lee, and Forrest), can be elected to office. The conservative reformers have brought about the largest budget and federal deficit in history, tax reform that increases taxes without simplification, the largest agricultural welfare program perhaps in civilized history, and a host of other programs that make them indistinguishable from liberal reformers. Throughout the history of the United States, the trend for reform has been towards despotism. There have been few, if any, significant reforms in the direction of liberty.

    Secession is a much more effective, economical, surer, quicker, and peaceful way of achieving liberty than reform. The time has come for reformed-minded Southerners to abandon their chimera of reform. The time has come for all Southerners who love liberty to join together and work for a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States. Only then will the South be freed from the domination of Yankeedom. Only then can liberty be achieved and preserved.

    Secession also has the advantage over reform in that by establishing an independent country, the identity, culture, heritage, etc. of the seceding people are better and more easily protected and preserved. Identifiable political borders aid appreciably in the identity of a people. For example, the Bretons have no independent country or readily identifiable political borders. (Their province was divided into several departments during the French Revolution.) They live under French rule. To most outsiders, they are considered French although they have a different language, history, and culture. On the other hand, Danes do not suffer from this identity problem. The Danes have their own country, Denmark, with its identifiable political borders where they can preserve their own language, culture, and way of life,

    Secession offers the only chance for the South to ever be free. Reform is a dead-end road to nowhere. Secession is the thoroughfare to life and liberty.

    In conclusion, Southerners tend to belong to one of several groups. The majority are indifferent. Of the remainder, most prefer the status quo, which is traveling the road to despotism. Of those who love liberty, some see reform as the solution and others see secession as the solution. History shows that liberty can be more easily gained through secession than reform.

Postscript: For progression towards liberty, secession is part of the natural order whereas reform is contrary to the natural order. One does not reform Satan’s kingdom into Chris’s kingdom; one secedes from Satan’s kingdom into Christ’s kingdom.

Copyright © 1983, 1987 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on the South.  

A Conspiratorial View of the War for Southern Independence

A Conspiratorial View of the War for Southern Independence
Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: To reduce the length of this article, the footnotes in the original have been omitted.]

Our story begins in 1845 when Giuseppe Mazzini, an Italian revolutionist, came to the United States and organized the Young American movement. The Young American society was modeled after his Young Italy, a secret society whose objective was to overthrow the established governments of Italy and unite Italy under a republican government.

Mazzini was an Illuminist of the highest degree, probably the highest Illuminist in the world at this time. He was a believer in violent revolutions and a forefather of Communism. He organized the Revolution of 1848, whose purpose was to overthrow the monarchs of continental Europe and replace them with a communist state. Lord Palmerston, the British Foreign Minister, backed Mazzini and his revolution with British diplomacy and money. After the failed Revolution of 1848, Palmerston replaced Mazzini as the head of the Illuminists. Mazzini went on, along with Garibaldi, to unify Italy 1860. (Lincoln offered Garibaldi command of the Union army.)

Illuminists are today’s globalists and supporters of world government and the New World Order. They include international financiers, Trilateralists, Bilderbergers, Communists; Talmudic Jews and Fabian Socialists; members of the Skull and Bones and the Council on Foreign Relations; and the inner most circles of the New Agers, Freemasonry, Rosicrucians, and Zionists.

In 1845, Mazzini organized the Young American movement in the United States, which he directed for some years afterwards. This movement was primarily active in rural areas as a farmer’s movement. It also was active in the abolitionist movement. Mazzini became the godfather of the antislavery campaign. The abolitionists became front men for the Illuminists, who wanted to destroy the United States and their Constitution. Years before the War for Southern Independence, the Young American Masonic conspiracy was active in the South promoting the abolitionist cause.

Also, involved in the founding of the Young America movement was Edwin DeLeon. DeLeon became an adviser to President Jefferson Davis and the chief propagandist of the Confederacy in Europe. While DeLeon led the expansionist wing of the Young America, William Lloyd Garrison, a spiritualist, led the abolitionist wing.

Garrison was a leading abolitionist and a friend of Mazzini. Garrison published the abolitionist newspaper The Liberator, which he started in 1831. Unnamed backers financed his paper, so it could be distributed free through the South.

The abolitionist movement was in effect an undeclared war against the Southern States. (Until the War for Southern Independence, most Americans viewed the United States as a "confederation of states associated under the provisions of a compact, the Constitution of the United States.")

Agitation over slavery, which many in the South had been working to eliminate, would be used to cause the war that the Illuminist wanted. This agitation was to conceal the drive for total control of the economy of the United States. Lincoln knew that the war was over the economy and not slavery, so did most Southerners. (Charles Adams goes as far as to describe the war as one large tax revolt by Southerners. They opposed the high protective tariff that Lincoln promised, which would make Southerners pay proportionally a much larger share, upwards to 80 percent of the total tariffs collected, than did Northerners while Northerners received proportionally a much higher benefit from federal expenditures.) Intelligent people in both sections knew that technological advances would end slavery. However, the Illuminists wanted war. They did everything that they could to cause war while remaining concealed in the background. They succeeded.

The abolitionist movement grew out of the Essex Junto of New England. (The Essex Junto was the New England secessionist movement that calumniated in the Hartford Convention of 1814.) Associated with the abolitionist movement were the pseudo religious cults of Unitarianism and Transcendentalism, which were often called "the New England religion." Both sects reduce Jesus to a mere human albeit an extremely good man. They also rejected the bodily resurrection of Jesus from death.

Transcendentalism was based on the Jewish Cabala. It invalidated the Bible by claiming that no final authority in any religious matter existed. Thus, the abolitionists like Garrison could deny any authority for slavery in the Bible in spite of the many passages to the contrary.

Fervently worked the abolitionists to thwart the Southern emancipation movement. They wanted a destructive war against the South. Emancipation was irrelevant except as an excuse for war.

In 1859 John Brown, the father of modern-day terrorism, led an armed invasion of the South. His objective was to promote a slave revolt. Prominent abolitionists financed his invasion: Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe, Rev. Theodore Parker, Franklin Benjamin Sanborn, Gerrit Smith, and George Luther Stearns. This group became known as the Secret Six. Other leading New Englanders who aided Brown were Samuel Cabot and John Murray Forbes.

Higginson was from a leading New England banking family and a national leader of American Freemasonry. He funneled money from British radicals to abolitionists in Massachusetts who agreed with his goal of abolishing the United States Constitution and dissolving the United States. Stephen Higginson, who had been involved in the Essex Junto, was his grandfather.

Howe was from a wealthy banking family and husband of Julia Howe, who wrote the anti-Southern song the "Battle Hymn of the Republic." Howe and his wife, Julia, founded The Commonwealth, an antislavery tabloid.

Parker was a leading Transcendentalist and Congregationalist minister and an activist in the Masonic tradition. He married into the Cabot family. He was the principal organizer of the Secret Six to finance John Brown’s raid.

Sanborn was a disciple of Parker and Ralph Waldo Emerson. In 1857 he became Brown’s chief agent in New York.

Smith was the first to finance Brown. He was the son of John Jacob Astor’s business partner. Holding more than a million acres, he was the largest land owner in New York. Smith was also a financial backer of Mazzini.

Stearns was the leader of the Free Soilers (the Free Soilers were antislavery agitators in Kansas). He provided Brown and his terrorist gang money and a farm in Kansas from which to operate.

Cabot paid for rifles for Brown to use in Kansas. Later his bank, Cabot Bank, lent Brown money for his terrorist operations. This loan was never repaid, and no attempt to collect it was made.

Forbes was a wealthy railroad builder and a member of the Republican National Committee. Forbes was also a financial backer of Emerson.

Plans for the Harper’s Ferry raid were laid at the Massachusetts State Disunion Convention, which Higginson called in 1857. Its objective was to split the United States. This convention was little more than a continuation of the Essex Junto. However, instead of New England States leaving the Union, the Southern States would be driven out of the Union.

After Brown was executed, he became a martyr of the abolitionists. Emerson, ideological leader of the abolitionists conspiracy, eulogized him and promoted him as a saint. Emerson was a Young America supporter and an agent of the British imperialists.

Years before the War for Southern Independence, Illuminists had sent agents to the South to take control of key positions and to agitate for secession. These agents included John A. Quitman, John Slidell, and Albert Pike. Thus, Illuminists were behind the abolitionists and others in the North provoking the Southern States to secede and the provocateurs in the South advocating secession.

Quitman, a New Yorker, moved to Mississippi and married into a prominent Southern family. He carried a warrant to form a Scottish Rite organization in Mississippi. By 1848 he had been inaugurated as Sovereign Grand Inspector General of the 33rd degree, and all lodges in the South were directed to obey him. Quitman became an outspoken leader of the secessionist movement in the South. (Freemasons controlled the secessionist movement.) He also promoted the annexation of Mexico and financed an invasion of Cuba, which was a goal of Young America. (For his involvement in the planned Cuban invasion, he was indicted.)

Slidell, an agent of the Rothschilds, led the secessionist party in Louisiana. He was from New York and a Masonic protégée of Edward Livingston, Grand Master of New York. (Livingston, who was President Jackson’s Secretary of State, was a coconspirator with Aaron Burr.) Slidell became a commissioner to Europe assigned primarily to the Court of France. After the War, he went to England. Here he became one of the Queen’s Counsels in London and lived the remainder of his life in luxury.

Slidell’s second in command in Louisiana was Judah P. Benjamin, a Jew. Benjamin and Slidell were partners in the same law firm. Like Slidell, Benjamin was also an agent of the Rothschilds. Benjamin became the Attorney General of the Confederate government. Later President Davis appointed him Secretary of War and then Secretary of State. After the War, he too went to England and became one of the Queen’s Counsel for Lancashire.

Albert Pike moved from New York to Missouri in 1831 and then to Arkansas in 1833. He received 4th through 32nd degrees of the Scottish Rite in 1853 and the 33rd degree in 1857. Pike was then tasked with organizing Freemasonry for the political leadership of secession. Pike, a brigadier general, became Indian commissioner for the Confederacy and was sent to Oklahoma. Here he raised an army of Indians, which was so barbarous that President Davis disbanded it. After the war, Pike was convicted of treason (war crimes), but President Johnson soon pardoned him. (Pike was also a speaker and an official at the Republican Party convention in 1855. Freemasonry organized the Republican Party.) After his pardon, Pike would climb to the very pinnacle of Freemasonry and eventually become the most powerful man on Earth as the head of the Illuminists.

Howell Cobb was the chairman of the convention held at Montgomery, Alabama, that officially established the government of the Confederacy. He was the Scottish Rite Supreme Commander.

After the North had pushed the South beyond any reasonable forbearance, the Southern States sought independence. The Northern States were determined to reduce them to provinces to be exploited for the benefit of the North—primarily the banking and industrial interest in the North. Finally war broke out. To provoke a war, Lincoln sent a fleet to reinforce Fort Sumter.

Lincoln was an agent of the Illuminists if not an Illuminist himself. The Illuminist wanted war, and Lincoln gave it to them.

Thus, the Illuminists maneuvered the people of the North and the South into a war that neither wanted. With this war, the Illuminists achieved much of their goal of destroying the United States Constitution. The Reconstruction amendments, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, especially the last two, overturned much of the original Constitution and reduced the States to administrative provinces subservient to the United States government. Perhaps more importantly in furthering the Illuminists’ goal was the precedence set by the imperial presidency of Lincoln during the war and by the Radical Republicans in Congress and the Johnson and Grant administrations during Reconstruction.

Some people claim that a goal of the Illuminists was to split the United States into two small, weak countries that the Rothschilds could easily control. However, Russia prevented such foreign intervention by sending two fleets to the United States, one to San Francesco and the other to New York. This maneuver by the Russians prevented the French and Spanish troops in Mexico from entering the war for the Confederacy. Thus, James de Rothschild lost his domain of Mexico and the Southern States, and Lionel Rothschild lost his domain of the Northern States. Because Russia spoiled this Rothschild dream, it was chosen for the communist revolution and decades of brutal communist rule.

A flaw in this claim is Great Britain. At this time the Rothschilds had as much influence over the British as they did over the French. If they had really wanted to split the United States in two countries, Great Britain would have entered the war as an ally of the Confederacy. The Russian fleet would have been no match for the British fleet, which ruled the oceans. Furthermore, with British rule of the seas, Russia could not send troops to the United States. It could have only aided the United States by marching across Europe. Such action would have been highly unlikely. That Russia could have defeated the combined armies of Prussia and the other German states, Austro-Hungary, and lesser European powers on its way to invade France is highly unlikely. Great Britain, France, Sardinia, and Turkey had just defeated Russia in the Crimean War.

More important, Lord Palmerston was Prime Minister of Great Britain during the War for Southern Independence. At this time, he was a member of the inner most circle of the Illuminists and probably was the highest ranking Illuminist in the world. If the Illuminists had desired an independent Southern Confederation, Great Britain would have come to the aid of the South in spite of any domestic opposition. After all, Lord Palmerston had recognized the government of Louis Napoleon in 1852 in spite of opposition from his party, the Prime Minister, Parliament, and the Queen. He did have the support of the press as his Masonic brothers control the press.

Contrary to what many conspiratorial historians believe, the War for Southern Independence was not fought to split the United States into two or more countries. Members of the Knights of the Golden Circle, Young America, and descendants of the Essex Junto may have believed division was the objective. The objective, however, was not division, but the consolidation of power. True, the Illuminists wanted war, but they did not want war to divide the United States into multiple countries. They wanted war to destroy the United States Constitution and the sovereignty of the States. They wanted war to consolidate political power in the federal government (one government is easier to control than many, which is why the Illuminists want to consolidate all political power into a one world government) and to make the United States a great military power that they would control. All these goals they accomplished. If division were the objective, surely the European powers, which the Illuminists controlled, would have guaranteed a division by direct intervention instead of relying on the Confederate army, which they knew was no matched for the Union army over time. (The Union army essentially had the resources of the world behind it. The Confederacy had barely more than the resources of the Southern States.)

The war ended, like all wars, as a great blood sacrifice to Lucifer. On the altar of Illuminism, 365,000 Yankees and 258,000 Confederates had been sacrificed. Most of them were Aryans.

Southerners had fought to preserve the God-given unalienable rights and liberties of mankind embodied in the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. They fought for the dispersal and decentralization of power as opposed to the illuministic goal of the concentration and centralization of power. The South had the highest concentration of anti-Illuminists of any place in the world. The great Christian revival and conversions that occurred among the Confederate soldiers during the war accented this anti-Illuminism. The Illuminists had to destroy the South. Destroy her they did.

When the War for Southern Independence concluded with the surrenders of Robert Lee, Joseph Johnston, Richard Taylor, Kirby Smith, and Stand Waite and the capture of President Jefferson Davis, Reconstruction began. Reconstruction was merely a continuation of the war on a different level. Reconstruction continued the plundering and destruction of the South.

During Reconstruction, the United States army occupied the South. State governments were not allowed to function without the consent of the federal government. While the newly freed slaves, who knew nothing of government, were allowed to vote, many Aryans were striped of their franchise. A coalition of Negroes, carpetbaggers, and scalawags backed by the United States army controlled the governments of the Southern States during much of Reconstruction. These antisouthern governments imposed ruinous taxation, acquired enormous debts, and in general improvised the South so greatly that more than one hundred years were needed to recover. Furthermore, the United States government undertook a policy to deny Southern Aryans justice.

For the Illuminists, the purpose of the war and Reconstruction was to punish Southerners because they had the audacity to oppose a basic principle of Illuminism—Oriental despotism. Southerners saw in Lincoln an Oriental despot, and his conduct during the war proved them right. Once in office Lincoln ignored the United States Constitution and establish a dictatorial central government. After his assassination, the Radical Republicans in Congress led by Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts and Representative Thaddeus Stevens (Stevens was a bachelor, who lived with a female mulatto) of Pennsylvania continued his and the Illuminists’ program of destroying the South.

How much involvement that the Radical Republicans had with Lincoln’s assassination may never be fully known. They certainly were not disappointed with his death. He showed that he would treat the Southern States much less harshly than the Radical Republicans desired. His death, which the Radical Republicans blamed on the South, was a propaganda victory for them. They used it to whip up popular support in the North and to squash any organized opposition to their draconian Reconstruction program. If high-level Illuminists did not actually order his association, they almost certainly consented to it.

The weapon that the Radical Republicans undertook to use to destroy Southern Aryans was the Negro. They promised Negroes social and political equality, which both President Lincoln and President Johnson opposed. White Northern scum was sent South to fraternize with Negroes in their shacks. Many freed slaves adopted the life of idleness—the United States government had become their new master and was supporting them, as it does even to this day. Many were vagrants, drunkards, and criminals. When the Southern States attempted to bring order by adopting antivagrancy work codes and laws proscribing immorality, miscegenation, and the like, Radical Republicans condemned them. Although these laws copied almost verbatim similar laws in the North, they were not appropriate for the South. The South needed destroying.

Furthermore, the United States government forced the Southern States to enfranchise Negroes while most Northern States did not allow them to vote. To increase the political power of the Negroes, and those who controlled them, many Aryans were denied the vote. Thus, Southern haters could easily manipulate ignorant Negroes to the disadvantage of the Southern States and Southern Aryans.

Negroes were organized into Union Leagues and Loyal Leagues. These societies had elaborate ceremonies, passwords, and solemn oaths. Members spent much time marching and drilling. Stern discipline was imposed. Members were intimidated and promised death if they voted for a Democrat. Negroes who deviated from the society’s directives were often whipped. Northerners filled them with inflammatory speeches promising them land owned by Aryans. Thus, racial hatred was instilled in Negroes.

The destruction of the South and the imposition of martial law on the Southern States were carried out, in part, through the Reconstruction Acts. Under the threat of military might, the Southern States were coerced into ratifying the three Reconstruction amendments to the United States Constitution. Samuel P. Chase, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, supported the Reconstruction Acts and resisted all challenges to them. He led the Court in declaring them constitutional.

Chase was a New York banker. Between 1830 and 1860, he actively aided fugitive slaves in Ohio. He was Lincoln’s Secretary of the Treasury. As Secretary of the Treasury, he developed the national banking system and issued the first paper money of the United States not backed by gold.

Reconstruction formally ended in 1877, but efforts to reconstruct the South into the image of Illuminism continue to this day. One of the most odious elements of Reconstruction still found in the South today is federal supervision of elections.

ReferencesAdams, Charles. For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization. Lanham, Maryland: Madison Books, 1993.

Allen, Gary. None Dare Call It Conspiracy. Seal Beach, California: Concord Press, n.d.

Allen, Thomas Coley. Albert Pike: A Brief Introduction to the Greatest Freemason of the Nineteenth Century. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co., 2007.

Chaitkin, Anton. Treason in America From Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman. New York, New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1984.

Cuddy, Dennis L. Now Is the Dawning of the New Age New World Order. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Hearthstone Publishing, 2000.

Dunning, William A. Reconstruction, Political and Economic 1865-1877. New York, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1907, 1935.

Fahey, Denis. Grand Orient: Freemasonry Unmasked as the Secret Power behind Communism through Discovery of Lost Lectures Delivered by Monsignor George F. Dillon, D.D. at Edinburgh, in October 1884. New and Revised Edition. Metairie, Louisiana: Sons of Liberty, 1950.

Henry, Robert Selph. The Story of Reconstruction. New York, New York: Grosset & Dunlap: Publishers, 1938.

Hoar, William P. Architect of Conspiracy: An Intriguing History. Belmont, Massachusetts: Western Islands, 1984.

Johannsen, Robert W. Reconstruction 1865-1877. New York, New York: The Free Press, 1970.

Kelly, Clarence. Conspiracy Against God and Man: A Study of the Beginnings and Early History of the Great Conspiracy. Belmont, Massachusetts: Western Islands, 1974.

Marrs, Jim. Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids. New York, New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2000.

Mullins, Eustace. The Curse of Canaan: A Demonology of History. Staunton, Virginia: Revelation Book, 1987.

Preuss, Arthur. A Dictionary of Secret and Other Societies. St. Louis, Missouri: B. Herder Book Co., 1924.

Roberts, Archibald E. Emerging Struggle for State Sovereignty. Fort Collins, Colorado: Betsy Ross Press, 1979.

Scott, Otto J. The Secret Six; John Brown and the Abolitionist Movement. New York, New York: Time Books, 1979.

Still, William T. New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies. Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1990.

Wardner, James W. Unholy Alliances: The Secret Plan and the Secret People Who Are Working to Destroy America. James W. Wardner, 1996.

Copyright © 2009 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on history.