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. 

Four Comments on Political Issues

Four Comments on Political Issues

Thomas Allen

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

Two Ways of Addressing Secession

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

  According to the Wilsonian principle, all nations capable of maintaining their own country should have their own country. (A nation or nationality is a people who have a common genetic ancestry, culture, language, and history; who have common traditions and customs; and who are capable of forming or constituting an independent country.) Since the people of the Donbass region are capable of maintaining their own country, they should have their own independent country, which they have done with the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic. (Through a plebiscite, the people of these two countries voted to join Russia, and Russia accepted them.)

According to the Lincolnian principle, once a region is part of a country, it can never secede and form an independent country unless it wins that right with war. Thus, being part of Ukraine, the two oblasts of Donbass can never be independent countries unless they defeat Ukraine in war. Furthermore, under the Lincolnian principle, Russia has the right to annex Ukraine because Ukraine seceded from Russia and did so without defeating Russia in war. 

Under the Wilsonian principle, the Ukrainian people deserve their own countries. However, under the Lincolnian participle, they do not unless they defeat Russia in war. 

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

“Saving our Democracy”

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

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

Difference Between Progressives and Conservatives

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

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

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

Inalienable vs. Unalienable

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

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

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

– "unalienable," adj. See INALIENABLE.

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

Webster’s 1828 dictionary gives the following definitions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– “inalienable” – Merriam Webster.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

The Threat to America

The Threat to America

Thomas Allen

The following identifies several threats to the United States. The threats are listed in order of importance.

1. America’s leaders. American leaders, which include political, business, religious, and academic leaders, are the greatest threat to the United States. They are destroying the country with wokeism, political correctness, multiculturalism, and multiracialism and with a growing police state and welfare states. Further, they are deliberately destroying the economy. Also, America’s leaders promote policies that genocide the White race.

2. China. Second is China. America is rapidly becoming an economic colony of China. With America’s leaders destroying the country from within, China will soon become the world’s sole superpower. Then, following the US post-cold-war example, China will impose its will on the United States and establish Chinese hegemony. 

3. Latin Americans. Third are the nonwhite Latin American immigrants. Nonwhite Latin American immigrants, both legal and illegal, are flooding the country. These nonwhite Latin Americans, people of color, cannot be assimilated, and many do not want to assimilate. These nonwhite immigrants cannot truly and fully assimilate without destroying themselves biologically. (White Latin Americans can assimilate and most want to assimilate.) These nonwhite immigrants are changing the demographics and culture of the United States.

4. Zionist Jews. Fourth are Jews, especially Zionist Jews. Their control of and influence on politics, the economy, academia, entertainment, and the media far exceed their numbers. Moreover, Jews have captured and control most of the Christian Churches in the United States. Consequently, America has an Israel-first foreign policy. Thus, America’s leaders willingly destroy America for the benefit of Israel. (Although they lack the power and influence of Zionist Jews, Christian Zionists are almost as destructive as Zionist Jews. If they had the power and influence of the Zionist Jews, Christian Zionists would be as destructive as the Zionist Jews.)

5. Asian Indians. Fifth are Asian Indians, nearly all of whom are people of color, Melanochroi. Their numbers and influence are growing rapidly, and they are given advantages not available to most White immigrants and even White Americans. Like most Latin Americans, Asian Indians cannot truly and fully assimilate without destroying themselves biologically. Moreover, next to the Jewish Cabala, India is the source of most of the cults in the United States. Because it is the most subtle threat, it is one of the most dangerous.

6. Muslims. Sixth are the Muslims. They are a threat because American leaders have made them a threat and in the process enriched the military-industrial and security-industrial complexes, which control America’s leaders. With no navy worthy of the name and an air force that cannot cross the Atlantic, they cannot attack the United States from without. Muslims can only threaten America when they are allowed into the country. (Muslims did not plan, organize, orchestrate, or carry out 9-11. They were just the patsies. The primary purpose of 9-11 was to establish a police state, protect Israeli imperialism by destroying its enemies, and, most important, transfer more power and wealth to the rich and powerful.)

7. Russia. Seventh is Russia. The only real threat that Russia offers is its nuclear arsenal. If America does not threaten Russia, Russia is no threat to the United States. If America makes Russia believe that its only choice is to surrender to the United States and die, it may strike with its nuclear weapons. Such an attack would utterly destroy the United States, which many of America’s leaders seem to want.

The second through the seventh threats depend on the first threat. America’s leaders have built up China’s economy while dismantling America’s. American leaders have allowed massive immigration of nonwhites from Latin America, India, and other nonwhite countries. They have even imported these people to replace White American workers. Moreover, American leaders have surrendered to the Zionist lobby. Further, American leaders continue to threaten Russia. Worst of all, American leaders have brainwashed many Americans to promote and even demand their own annihilation.

Copyright © 2022 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.

More on the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

More on the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Thomas Allen

This article reveals more hypocrisy of Biden’s and, by that, America’s approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Furthermore, these hypocrites are habitual liars. When Biden, Congressmen, federal bureaucrats, and presstitutes tell half-truths, they are telling a whole lie. As J.I. Packer said, “A half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth.” Nevertheless, as one evangelist said, “People love being lied to.”

The Russia-Ukraine conflict is very simple to understand: Russia is bad; Ukraine is good. Putin and Russia are totally depraved and can do nothing good even if they wanted to, which they do not. Like America and Israel, Ukraine is sinless and can do nothing evil even if it wanted to, which it does not.

Russia attacks its neighbor, and that is bad. Israel attacks its neighbors, and that is good. Russia attacks Ukraine, which is a potential threat to Russia, and that is bad. The United States attack Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya, which are on the other side of the world and of no threat to the United States, and that is good.

Biden claims that he wants peace in Ukraine. Yet, he continues to fund Ukraine’s war efforts and to make insulting belligerent remarks toward Putin. Moreover, Biden urges Zelensky to continue to fight the Russians. His deeds do not match his claims. How much of Biden’s urging Zelensky to fight the Russians to the last Ukrainian relates to preventing evidence of the Biden crime family’s crimes from falling into Russian hands?

Both Biden and Zelensky seem to want a nuclear war. Zelensky would rather have the world destroyed by a nuclear war than loses his power over the people within the borders of Ukraine as they were in 2010. Is Biden’s desire for nuclear war on purpose or from stupidity? 

Antichrist

Some rapture-is-imminent futurists identify Putin as the latest Antichrist after Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and other recent candidates have failed to be the Antichrist. John defines the Antichrist as one who denies Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:18, 2:24, and 4:3). When John wrote this definition, he had Jews in mind. Being a Jew, Zelensky meets this definition of the Antichrist while Putin, who seems to be a believer, does not. (Being Antichrist may explain why Zelensky is trying to persuade Biden, who is also Antichrist, into militarily attacking Russia and, by that, precipitating a nuclear war. What a sacrifice they can offer to their master Satan.)

Petrodollar

Moreover, Biden and his administration and their controllers, the oligarchs, are on the verge of destroying the petrodollar, the US dollar. Biden and NATO’s embargo against Russia and their thief of Russian financial reserves have led Russia to sell its natural gas in Russian roubles instead of US dollars. Because they are losing trust in the United States, both China and India are moving toward buying oil and other imports with the yuan and rupee. Even Saudi Arabia is considering selling its oil in currencies besides the US dollar. If countries start buying and selling oil in currencies other than the US dollar, the value of the dollar will collapse and inflation in the United States will soar. Is this destruction of the US dollar being done deliberately, or is it being done out of stupidity?

Fascism

Russia accuses Ukraine of being a neo-Nazi country. Americans accuse Russians of being neo-Nazis. Both are correct. Nearly all countries today have a fascist political economy. (Corporatism, business-government partnershipism, classical fascism, socialism, national socialism [Nazism], and communism are merely different forms of fascism.)

Under fascism, the government heavily regulates businesses primarily for the benefit of its favorites — the business-government partnership. (Communism is the ultimate form of business-government partnership since business and government become the same entity.) Often the government subsidizes favored businesses, such as bailing out banks. Moreover, the government may own some types of industries and businesses, but such ownership is not necessary because regulation and taxation can achieve the same purpose as governmental ownership. Accompanying the economic system is the welfare state.

Moreover, fascist countries are authoritarian in various degrees; some approach totalitarianism, such as Canada and Australia, or even become totalitarian, such as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Communist China. True liberty exists in none of them. Nevertheless, the governments of most fascist countries are democratic in that the people elect the principal governmental leaders in elections that are at least as honest as the 2020 US presidential election.

Although not a necessary component of fascism, a common component is a racial or ethnic extermination policy. Under Germany’s national socialism, it was the extermination of Jews, Gypsies, and other “undesirables.” Under the fascism of Western Europe, the United States, White Anglophone countries, and South Africa, it is the extermination of the White race. For Ukraine, it is the extermination of Russians, especially in Donbas. For China, it is the Tibetans and Uyghurs who are being exterminated. The Israeli fascist government seeks the extermination of the Palestinians. Nevertheless, not all fascist countries have racial or ethnic extermination policies.

Another component of fascism is militarism. Many fascist countries today have not adopted this component. However, the United States have incorporated militarism. They have been the most militaristic country in the world since World War II.

Crimea

Some claim that Russia has no right to incorporate Crimea into Russia because it entered a treaty that recognized Crimea as part of Ukraine. Apparently, Crimeans are not allowed to have a say in their political status. Only foreigners have the right to decide Crimea’s political status. That a plebiscite of more than 95 percent voted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia does not matter. This plebiscite was at least as honest, probably more honest, than the 2020 US presidential election. So much for democracy!

Conclusion

What America needs is more humility and less arrogance. It needs to purge itself of Yankee Puritanism. America needs to stop patrolling the world and imposing its views, i.e., the views of the oligarchs who control the US government, of proper behavior and forcing countries who deviate from America’s standards and ideals to conform with American standards and ideals.

Hopefully, Americans will wake up before it is too late and see the matrix of lies erected around their lives since at least World War II and throw off their chains. If they do not, they will live the worst of the horrors of Moa’s China — even worst than those depicted in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles. 

More Observations on the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

More Observations on the Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Thomas Allen

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

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Some Comparisons of Bidenites with Deplorables

Some Comparisons of Bidenites with Deplorables

Thomas Allen

The following compares Bidenites with Deplorables. (Bidenites are the supporters, promoters, and owners of Biden  the Usurper and include left-wingers, most Democrats, RINOs, many neoconservatives, presstitutes, the Deep State, big business, and Chinese Communists.) As these comparisons show, Bidenites and Deplorables live in different worlds. Overall, Bidenites are inclined to be statists and centralists and want to impose themselves on others and tell them what to do. Consequently, Bidenites do not want to leave the Deplorables alone. Conversely, Deplorables are generally inclined to be libertists and decentralists and want to be left alone.

While Deplorables want to make America great, Bidenites want to make China great. Moreover, Bidenites want to make America in the image of China. Unlike Deplorables, who place the United States first, most Bidenites are globalists and, therefore, prefer foreigners ruling the United States.

Deplorable are producers and favor independence and freedom. Bidenites are parasites and favor dependency and enslavement. While Deplorables prefer making their own decisions, Bidenites prefer having presstitutes, politicians, and bureaucrats making their decisions.

Deplorables seek a rising standard of living. However, Bidenites seek a declining standard of living — at least that is the result of the policies that they promote.

Moreover, Deplorables favor the people possessing the means (arms) to defend themselves from an oppressive government. However, Bidenites prefer standing disarmed before a Hitlerian Trump. They like the idea of people lacking the means to defend themselves from a dictator like Trump.

Furthermore, Bidenites are big promoters of censorship; they want to suppress all speech with which they disagree. Most notable is their demand that neither Trump nor any of his staff be allowed to write any book for publications. Also, they want all Deplorables who write or have written anything favorable about Trump removed from all social media platforms. On the other hand, Deplorables favor free speech — even for Bidenites.

Honest and fair elections are what Deplorables want. Contrastingly, Bidenites want to win elections at all cost — even with massive cheating and stealing if necessary. Thus, they are moving forward to institutionalize election cheating and stealing so that they will never lose another election. While stealing elections, Bidenites preach democracy —they must save democracy by stealing elections.

Whereas Deplorables want justice, Bidenites want vengeance. Deplorables want people like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden tried for the crimes that they have blatantly committed — a justice that has yet to come. (In the case of Biden, he has publicly admitted to a crime.) That the Bidenites want vengeance is evidenced by the impeachments of Trump for crimes that he did not commit and their vindictiveness toward Deplorables.

Many Bidenites want to send Deplorables to concentration camps to be deprogrammed and reeducated and indoctrinated in proper left-wing thought using torture if necessary. Bidenites must resort to such horrific methods because they know that truth, logic, history, and argument is on the side of the Deplorables. Yet, most Deplorables prefer to convert Bidenites with reasoning, logic, and argument although they know that most Bidenites are incapable of reasoning and thinking logically and that Bidenites are incapable of understanding why any sane person would oppose their enslaving, impoverishing, dehumanizing agenda.

Although Bidenites like to brag that they believe in science, the only science in which they believe is politicalized science. Unlike most Deplorables, Bidenites do not accept real science. Most Deplorables act like true scientists: They question the science and know that, with few exceptions, nothing is finally settled scientifically. Contrary to the beliefs of Bidenites, Deplorables know that a consensus does not decide science (the consensus is often wrong). 

When compared with Deplorables, Bidenites generally have a much less sense of humor and a much lower threshold for negative criticism. Also, Bidenites are more narcissistic and fearful than Deplorables.

Moreover, Deplorables typically live more joyful lives than Bidenites, who are typically unhappy and miserable. Whereas Deplorables want Bidenites to “see the light” and recognize and accept the truth, Bidenites want to annihilate the Deplorables. Thus, Deplorables show more compassion and love than Bidenites.

Most Deplorables adhere to the constitution that the founding fathers gave the country. Also, they cherish traditions. On the other hand, nearly all Bidenites prefer the constitution that Lincoln gave the country, which is the current constitution of the United States. Moreover, Bidenites hate traditions and seek to destroy them. (Unfortunately, most Bidenites and Deplorables do not understand the difference between the two constitutions because they look similar. Under the constitution of the founding fathers, the federal government has few specifically delegated powers; all other powers are reserved to the States and the people [bodies politic] thereof. Also, under the constitution of the founding fathers, there were 13 “we the people” (now there are 50 “we the people”). Under Lincoln’s constitution, all power is vested in the federal government, and the States have only those powers that the federal government condescends to grant or allow them. Moreover, there is only one “we the people.”)

While Deplorables want to save what little is left of American and recover what has been lost, Bidenites want to destroy what is left. They want to deliver the coup de grace.

As shown above, the United States are divided into two camps: one that wants freedom, the Deplorables, and one that wants oppression, the Bidenites. Can the two camps be reconciled? Probably not because Bidenites go out of their way to alienate Deplorables. Bidenites do not want to unify the country. Their ultimate goal is the annihilation of the Deplorables and to turn the country over to the globalists under Chinese control.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Biden the Unifier

Biden the Unifier

Thomas Allen

Biden pledged to be a unifier as President. So far, he is not acting as a unifier. He and his disciples and supporters, the Bidenites, hurl extremely vehement, vicious, venomous, vindictive diatribes, tirades, condemnations, and revilings at half the population of the country — the deplorables. Moreover, the Bidenites want to censor the deplorables and to deny them access to the internet, the right to travel, and even their jobs and access to their bank accounts. With Biden’s approval and support, the Bidenites urge the dehumanizing and making the deplorables nonpersons. They want to treat the deplorables worst than the Nazis treated the Jews.

Biden’s first step as a unifier is condemning Senators who supported Trump in objecting to the stolen election as Nazis. Then he proceeds to declare war on the deplorables by declaring them to be terrorists. How long will it be before he declares martial law and begins rounding up deplorables and imprisoning them indefinitely if not just murder them outright?

(What Biden means when he says that is a unifier is that he will eliminate everyone who disagrees with the globalist plan to destroy Western Civilization, to genocide the White race, and to turn America into another China. Then everyone will think alike, act alike, and be alike — so much for diversity being our strength.)

Also, Biden says that our darkest days are ahead of us. Will he fulfill his prophecy? So far, he has been striving to fulfill it with his rhetoric and lack thereof — that is, so far, all that he has done has been to instill fear and strife and to stifle hope and reconciliation. If Biden keeps half his promises, then the half of the population who love liberty, the deplorables, will face dark days. However, those who love oppression, i.e., his disciples and supporters, will have great joy as their dreams come true.

Trump is merely the figurehead who represents the deplorables, which is why Biden and the Bidenites are viciously attacking him. As much as Biden and the Bidenites hate Trump, they utterly disdain and absolutely loathe the deplorables. Biden’s and the Bidenites’ treatment of Trump shows what they want to do to the deplorables.

If Biden really wanted to unify the country, he would seek reconciliation with Trump and the deplorables. Instead, Biden the unifier and his disciples and supporters seek unification by destroying Trump and annihilating the deplorables.

All indications are that Biden will continue Obama’s work for the globalists. Thus, we will witness further destruction of America and Western Civilization and the genocide of the White race. If Biden is successful, by 2024, America will become like China. It will become a two-class country with a few elite living in luxury and feeding their lust for power at the top and the rest, including nearly all of the Bidenites, living like proletarians and peasants on the bottom — and almost no one in between.

The election: All the proof that a rational person with a functioning brain cell needs to know that the Democrats cheated and stole the election is their attitude toward Trump’s allegations of voter fraud. If Trump’s allegations were false, the Democrats would be in the forefront of demanding a thorough, open, transparent, impartial investigation into voter fraud to prove that Trump is wrong and, thus, embarrassing him. Instead, they object to and block any investigation.

The Capitol Building riot: In discovering the real culprits behind the Capitol Building riot, one needs to use the cui bono principle, for whose benefits. Trump and his supporters did not benefit. The riot greatly harmed them and seriously damaged their cause. However, the riot immensely advances the cause of the Democrats, globalists, and Chinese by devastating Trump and his supporters. Besides, Democrats are notorious for accusing Republicans of crimes of which the Democrats are guilty.

Copyright © 2021 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.

A Look at a Libertarian Theory on Economics and Immigration

A Look at a Libertarian Theory on Economics and Immigration

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Allen.

More economic articles.