Republican Form of Government

Republican Form of Government

Thomas Allen

Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution, guarantees each State a republican form of government.  Ty Bodden describes the attributes of a republican form of government in “Restoring a Constitutional, Republican Form of Government: States Push Back Against Direct Democracy and Bureaucratic Rule,” January 16, 2026 (https://thenewamerican.com/us/restoring-a-constitutional-republican-form-of-government-states-push-back-against-direct-democracy-and-bureaucratic-rule/).

Each State should be a constitutional republic with a republican government. A republican government is “grounded in constitutional limits, representative lawmaking, and the rule of law.” It “requires clear lines: Legislatures make the law, executives execute it, courts interpret it.” Moreover, a “republican government demands transparency and public accountability — not self-perpetuating appointment systems.”

A constitutional republic is governed “by law, exercised through elected representatives, with safeguards that protect God-given rights against both mob passions and unelected bureaucrats.” Thus, States “ have a duty to structure their institutions in ways that preserve representative lawmaking, checks and balances, and protections from majoritarian tyranny.”

Under a republican government, “major policy decisions remain accountable to the people through their elected representatives.” Legislators cannot evade their responsibilities by delegating legislative authority to executive boards and commissions. Consequently, unelected rulemaking boards and commissions are incompatible with a republican government. If they exist at all, rulemaking “administrative bodies must remain subordinate, not function as a fourth branch.” 

The purpose of a constitution is “to restrain government and protect rights.” Bodden notes, “A constitution is not meant to be a running policy notebook, rewritten whenever a slim majority is persuaded by slick advertising.” Thus, it should not be changed on a whim of a bare majority, or else “liberty becomes temporary and rights become negotiable.”

Consequently, amending State constitutions should require a supermajority, e.g., 60 percent. State constitutions should not allow amendments through ballot initiatives. Furthermore, the amendment process should require more than just a statewide majority. It should also require majorities in various districts throughout the State, e.g., congressional districts. Such requirements ensure that the amendment has broad support. If both of these approaches are combined, which Bodden does not do, before an amendment becomes part of the constitution, it would need 60 percent of the vote statewide and would have to receive a majority vote in each congressional district or, alternatively, in two-thirds of the districts.

Bodden concludes, “Will states be governed as republics, under the rule of law, or as democracies, under the whims of shifting majorities and unelected managers? A republic restrains power to protect the people. A democracy too often unleashes power — first against the minority, and eventually against everyone.”

Bodden fails to address two important issues. One is that today the States are not republics and cannot become republics; therefore, they cannot have a republican form of government merely by making the changes that he recommends. The other is the electorate.

As a result of Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, no State today is a republic (See “Before and After” by Thomas Allen). Although the governments of the States appear to be republican in form, they are not. Only a republic can have a republican form of government (see “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen).

For a State to have a republican form of government, a State must be a republic. Before a State can be a republic, it must be sovereign, and as a sovereign, it is the final judge of the constitutionality of acts of the federal government. In other words, before a State can have a republican form of government, it has to have the right, duty, and power to nullify any federal act that it finds unconstitutional and has the right and power to enforce the nullification, including jailing any federal agent trying to enforce the nullified law, as Vermont did when it nullified the fugitive slave law (see “Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws” by Thomas Allen). Until States regain their sovereignty, they cannot have a republican form of government.

Who is the electorate of a State? It is “we the people” of that State, i.e., it is the body politic that ultimately wields political power (see “Meaning of ‘We the People’” by Thomas Allen). Today, almost anyone more than 18 who breathes is part of the electorate. (As Landslide Lyndon in 1948 and Biden in 2020 have shown, even dead people are part of the electorate.)

When the US Constitution and the constitutions of the original States were ratified, the electorate was limited to people who had a vested interest in the community. That is, only White males who owned a minimum amount of real property were members of the electorate. During the Jacksonian Era, most White males more than 21 received the vote. The Fifteenth Amendment extended voting to Black males, and the Nineteenth Amendment gave women the vote. The Twenty-fourth Amendment removed the requirement to pay taxes, and the Twenty-sixth Amendment lowered the voting age to 18. (Every time suffrage was expanded, liberty declined.)

An important component of returning a republican form of government to the States is to restrict suffrage to people who have a vested interest in the community. Only people who own a minimum amount of real property or pay a minimum amount of direct taxes (property, income, and capitation taxes) would have the right to vote and be part of the body politic.

Most States already have the governmental structure in place to have a republican form of government. What they are lacking is the sovereignty of “we the people” and restricting “we the people” to those who have a vested interest in the community.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Allen.

More political articles.

Democracy

Democracy

Thomas Allen

In The United States Unmasked: A Search into the Causes of the Rise and Progress of These States, and an Exposure Of Their Present Material and Moral Condition (London, Ontario: J. H. Vivian, 1878), pages 131–132, 134, G. Manigault gives an accurate description of democracy. His description not only depicts the democracy of his day but also describes the democracy of today. His description follows:

But the ultimate control of government and of its officials is not now in the hands of those who have a direct and obvious interest in the economical, honest, and unperverted exercise of its powers. That class has but a very small voice in the matter, and no power to protect themselves or other people, except by bribing the multitude of needy and mercenary voters, and paying exorbitantly for their votes.

By the theory of the government, in the States and in the United States, all power is in the hands of the majority of voters on the basis of universal manhood suffrage; and nothing but some forms of an effete political organization, termed the “Constitution of the United States” stand between the sovereign majority and their absolute despotism. The minority are nothing. This sovereign majority consists chiefly of men who have no direct and obvious interest in the honest and economical administration of the powers of government. So far from its burdens apparently falling on them, they feel a direct and obvious interest in its expenditures being not only liberal but extravagant. It is their aim that it should multiply offices, undertake great public works, give out great contracts, embark in every kind of undertaking, assume every duty that can be forced into the sphere of government operations, to swell its patronage and multiply the paid dependants on its bounty. It is their government, and ought to be their servant, bound to do their work in securing to them prosperity in the shape of good employment at high wages at least, if not a fat office, or a profitable contract.

The vast majority of this sovereign people derive all their political notions from the harangues of the demagogues of the platform and the press, men seeking their favour and vote for office, or their support to some measure in which the orator has a direct but unseen interest. The vast majority of the sovereign people have most confused and false notions as to what the best and most powerful government can do, and cannot do for those who live under it. In commenting on the conduct of public affairs there are many unwelcome facts to be dealt with, many unpleasant truths to be told. But the telling of unpleasant truths is not the way to win the mass of voters. Those public men whose good sense, foresight and honesty lead them to raise a warning voice and utter unwelcome truth, to point out obstacles that obstruct the people’s wishes, or evil consequences that will follow their wilful course — these men, one after another are dropped out of public life. The more adroit courtiers of the people, those “flattering prophets who prophesy smooth things, prophesy deceits;” who pander to every passion, prejudice, and animosity, and every extravagant and groundless hope — nay the very jesters and buffoons that divert the crowd, become the chosen counsellors of the mob; and the mob is king.

The lower the stratum of population on which you lay the foundation of political power, the more mixed the ingredients of that stratum in race and character, the more completely you throw the government into the hands of demagogues, and the more unscrupulous these demagogues become.

This description fits today’s governments of the States and the United States. Only, today’s governments are far worse because they have had almost 150 years to develop further. During the Jacksonian era, White male suffrage became almost universal. Following Lincoln's War, the franchise was extended to Black males. Next, women gained the right to vote. Finally, a person was no longer required to pay taxes to vote, and the age for voting was lowered to 18. With each expansion of the franchise, governments grew and liberty shrank.

Continuing, Manigault notes that democracy prevents the best people from holding office. Except for Tyler, Cleveland, and Coolidge, nearly every US president since Monroe has been mediocre, roguish, or demagogic. The same is true of most US Senators and Representatives and most State officeholders. He writes:

It has already come to this, that the sovereign popular majority can never again be represented by any considerable number of decent and honest men. Men who respect truth, fair dealing, and themselves, cannot go through the training necessary to secure the favour and support of the local constituency of a section of this sovereign mob. And he, who has successfully gone through that training, is not fit to be trusted by any honest man, or in any honest transaction. The direct effect of this basis of government is to fill all offices with the most artful and unscrupulous demagogues. It is only by a rare combination of chances, or by the influence of very great abilities that an honest man can get into a post of importance; and then he is quite out of countenance, on looking into the faces of his brother officials around him.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Why I am not a White Nationalist — Where They Are Wrong Politically

Why I am not a White Nationalist — 

Where They Are Wrong Politically

Thomas Allen

The following are some key political areas where White Nationalists err.

– Populism. White Nationalists are populists. Populism claims to champion the common man and to protect him from the oligarchs and plutocrats. The government governs for the common good. (What is the common good, and who decides it?) Populists oppose big business and financial interests. (So do I.) To thwart subversion by special interest, governmental deliberations should be public and transparent. (Can transparency really exist under the authoritarian version of populism? If so, how?) Generally, populists favor fiat money, inflation (to cheat creditors by paying debt with less valuable money), graduated income tax and other “soak it to the rich” schemes (which usually backfire by soaking it to the middle and working classes), governmental ownership of utilities, labor regulations that greatly favor workers, and heavily regulated transportation systems if not outright governmental ownership. Also, they favor immigration restrictions and welfare programs for the working and middle classes. While some populists favor an authoritarian government, others favor direct democracy through popular initiatives and referenda. Popularism gave the United States the Sixteenth Amendment (the graduated income tax) and the Seventeenth Amendment (direct election of Senators).

– Statism. White Nationalists are statists and seem to have little use for libertists. (For a description of the two, see “Statists Versus Libertists” by Thomas Allen.) Under statism, its priesthood, the government, grows until the state consumes all and becomes a god and the decider and provider of everything. Although statism is the cause of most of the social problems that they identify, White Nationalists do not want to abandon statism; they want to use the state to impose their economic and other policies and programs. Communist China, North Korea, and the Soviet Union are examples of the fruition of statism. The love of statism is one of the most egregious problems with White Nationalism. (For more details on statism, see “The State” and “The Difference Between Government and State” by Thomas Allen.) 

– Common good. Except where it conflicts with the common good, White Nationalists support private liberty. However, who decides what is the common good? According to White Nationalists, the state decides the common good and has unlimited powers to achieve it. And who or what is the state? The state is the oligarchs (the ruling elite) through bureaucrats and politicians. (The difference between pursuing the common good under White Nationalism and pursuing it under communism, socialism, fascism, and the current US regime is hard to distinguish although what they consider the common good may differ significantly.) Like all statists, White Nationalists believe that rights and liberties come from the state.

Although White Nationalists support free speech, presumably in the name of the common good, some governmental authority can declare that free speech, freedom of worship, the right to bear arms, and all the other rights and liberties identified in the Bill of Rights conflict with the common good and, therefore, prohibit them.

Many left-wingers believe that the common good requires censorship. Governmental bureaucrats should decide what people read and hear, i.e., what political views to which they are exposed. Since “democracy” is the great common good, censorship is necessary to protect it. Do White Nationalists believe that censorship is a common good? They seem ambivalent; free speech is a common good when it benefits them, while censorship is a common good when some bureaucrat or governmental leader declares it to be a common good.

On the other hand, many right-wingers also believe that democracy is the common good. Yet, they believe that free speech is essential to protecting democracy and is, therefore, a common good. — not censorship. (Nazis and fascists are not right-wingers; they are left-wingers.)

Additionally, left-wingers assert that banning the private ownership of firearms serves the common good because fewer people will be shot (and because disarmed people resisting tyranny is much more difficult). Do White Nationalists agree? Presumably, they do because banning privately owned firearms serves the common good. Or does a common good depend on who decides what it is?

Moreover, many White Nationalists believe that people should be forcibly injected with an experimental gene therapy drug if some bureaucrat finds that it is for the common good. The common good of society always trumps individual liberties.

Furthermore, White Nationalists criticize right-wingers for denying that a common good exists. They are wrong. Right-wingers merely disagree with White Nationalists on what is the common good. For most Right-wingers, individual liberty is the paramount common good.

As shown above, the common good depends on who wields political power.

– Constitution. Being statists, White Nationalists prefer the constitution that Lincoln gave the country to the one that the founding fathers gave it. (For the difference between the two, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen. Also, see “More on the US Constitution”  and “More Thoughts Related to the US Constitution” by Thomas Allen.) Additionally, as statists, they prefer a centralist society to a decentralist society. Centralists emphasize the larger community: the state, a puissant central government, the collective, big businesses, central banks, and even the utopian world state. (White Nationalists object to a world state because it conflicts with their policy of each race having its own independent countries. Although many may object to a central bank, their economic program requires a central bank.) Decentralists emphasize the smaller community: the individual, the family, voluntary associations, small businesses, and local and State or provincial governments. (For a more detailed discussion of the two, see “Centralism Versus Decentralism” by Thomas Allen.)

– Lack of trust in the people. Like progressives, liberals, socialists, and fascists, White Nationalists do not trust the people. However, like them, they do trust politicians and especially bureaucrats implicitly — despite politicians and bureaucrats being the cause of most of the problems to which White Nationalists object. Like progressives, liberals, socialists, and fascists, White Nationalists seem to believe that sinful humans become angels when they become government employees. If they do not believe this, why do they want them to have so much power?

– Prefer bureaucratic rule. White Nationalists prefer the rule of bureaucrats to politicians governing because politicians think no further than the next election. However, the democratically unaccountable bureaucrats (the “Deep State”) can engage in long-range planning. Thus, White Nationalists believe that a governmentally bureaucratically controlled society — which is a fascist, socialist, and communist idea — is superior to a laissez-faire society.

– Prefer the rule of men. White Nationalists prefer the rule of men to the rule of law. (What the United States enjoy today is the rule of men clothed in the rule of law.) In making decisions, they prefer a strong leader like the Fuhrer or Il Duce, who is held responsible for his decisions, to a legislative body. (Who is going to hold the leader accountable for his decisions?) Moreover, they oppose the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution and State constitutions. Thus, they seem to oppose constitutional government or at least a constitution that is intended to protect the rights and liberties of the people — even White people. Perhaps, this is the main reason that they prefer Lincoln’s constitution since it places little restraint on the federal government.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 Part 1 Part 3

More political articles.

Why I am not a White Nationalist — Where They Are Right

Why I am not a White Nationalist — 

Where They Are Right

Thomas Allen

The following is based primarily on the works of Greg Johnson, who presents himself as a spokesman for White Nationalists and White Nationalism. First, I note where I agree with the White Nationalists. Then, I will comment on issues with which I disagree with them.

Not all White Nationalists agree with the political and economic policies and programs discussed below, but many, perhaps most, do. Nevertheless, all believe that countries should be monoracial. Also, being White separatists, White Nationalists should not be confused with White supremacists. (For the differences between the two, see “Views on Race” by Thomas Allen.)

Where White Nationalists Are Right

Correctly, White Nationalists support and advocate:

– encouraging truth and justice;

– limiting immigration to Whites;

– repatriating all illegal immigrants and all nonwhites who are not citizens;

– developing a program to encourage the repatriation of citizens who are nonwhite.

– following the example of the first naturalization law, which granted citizenship only to Whites;

– promoting ethnonationalism;

– promoting monoracial countries, i.e., every race should have its own independent countries, which means that one race should not rule over other races — consequently, imperialism is abhorred; (This follows Biblical teachings.)

– preserving the diversity of the races by giving them their own countries;

– accepting that democracy does not work in a multiracial society;

– recognizing that races are real and differ biologically and, therefore, are not social constructs, i.e., biological differences exist between the human races, and these differences are more than a few physical features that no sane person can deny (see “Nonphysical Racial Differences,” “Of One Blood,” and “Skeleton Differences of Human Races” by Thomas Allen) — these differences lead to different outcomes; consequently, unlike all left-wingers (liberals, progressives, socialists, and communists) and libertarians and most conservatives, White Nationalists are racial realists;

– acknowledging that the current system creates hatred between the races; 

– recognizing that unconditional surrender to Black Lives Matter has caused a significant increase in crimes by Blacks and more Black victims of Black criminals;

– encouraging Whites to breed to reverse the White demographic decline;

– strictly prohibiting miscegenation and interracial mating (this agrees with Biblical teachings — see “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” and “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” by Thomas Allen);

– recognizing collective property of race and Western Civilization, and believing that such collective properties are worth protecting (so did the founding fathers) — unlike most libertarians, left-wingers, and neoconservatives, who do not recognize them as collective property worth protecting;

– acknowledging that Neo-Nazism is not a solution, although White Nationalists propose some of the same economic and welfare programs that the Neo-Nazis propose; both are statists;

– adopting an American-first foreign policy and ending foreign interventionism;

– acknowledging that Whites built and made America unlike left-wingers, nearly all libertarians, and many conservatives, who do not think that they did;

– accepting that both the Democratic Party and Republican Party serve the oligarchs; and

– possessing a more realistic view of America than does the typical conservative (the America that conservatives venerate died decades ago).

Further, White Nationalists correctly oppose:

– racial hatred;

– violent acts done in the name of White Nationalism or by White Nationalists;

– the oligarchs, who are disproportionately Jews, who rule the country primarily through frontmen in the federal government;

– the government serving the ruling elite, i.e., the oligarchs, at the expense of the rest of society;

– elitism;

– the acceleration of the decline of the present system;

– globalization;

– so-called “free trade” agreements but for the wrong reasons; they believe that these “free trade” agreements promote free trade, which they do not; (These so-called “free trade” agreements have little to do with free trade. Their objective is to manage trade for the benefit of multinational companies.)

– the parasites who are killing America, e.g., Zionists, but apparently not welfare recipients since they support the welfare state;

– immigration of nonwhites being used to replace Whites (see “Black Replacement” by Thomas Allen);

– the genocide of Whites (see “The Genocidal War Against the White Race” by Thomas Allen);

– DIE (diversity, inclusion, equity), political correctness, and wokeism;

– multiracial societies (Unlike most libertarians and many conservatives, White Nationalists know that multiracial societies cause alienation, hatred, conflict, and violence, which is why God ordained monoracial societies. However, left-wingers know that multiracial societies cause these problems and, therefore, promote multiracial societies. They want to destroy the existing society so that they can build a new society in their image on the ruins — just as the Yankees did following Lincoln’s War.);

– misogyny and misandry;

– political universalism, which is the fundamental cause of multiracialism, multiculturalism, cultural assimilation, and miscegenation;

– neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, and most other conservatives because they suffer from the same principles of egalitarianism and universalism as the left, which gives the left a great advantage over the right;

– Antifa and its tactics;

– the Democratic Party ardently working to destroy America and genocide the White race;

– voter fraud and corrupt election;

– the faux morality of racism being the greatest sin of all (with at least 800 definitions, “racism” is a meaningless term; see “Are You a Racist?” by Thomas Allen.); however, it is a sin that only Whites can commit; racism by nonwhites is not racism; and

– a false morality that blames Whites for all of the world’s problems even when Whites are innocent.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 Part 2

More political articles.

Five Yankee Authors

Five Yankee Authors

Thomas Allen

In To the Victor Go the Myths & Monuments: The History of the First 100 Years of the War Against God and the Constitution, 1776 - 1876, and Its Modern Impact (Appleton, Wisconsin: American Opinion Foundation Publishing, 2016), Arthur R. Thompson provides some interesting, but little known, facts about five well-known Yankee authors: Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Henry D. Thoreau, and Walt Whitman. All five were anti-Christian Transcendentalists and proponents of the Illuministic New World Order.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Emerson (1803-1882) was a Phi Beta Kappa at Harvard and a Unitarian minister who used the Unitarian Church to promote socialism. Also, he was a leader of the Death of God movement. Moreover, he worked to change the sacraments and to reduce the essence of Christianity to something called God but without Christ.

Furthermore, he was an early leader of Transcendentalism and participated in the Transcendentalist Club. (Transcendentalism substitutes spiritualism for Christianity and provides an intellectual side to socialism. Although it appears to be a rational, reason-oriented philosophy seeking the truth, it is really a transformation from Christ to antichrist.) 

Emerson went to Europe during the Revolution of 1848 and met with many of its leaders. He was a socialist and a radical revolutionist, who praised Mazzini and  Kossuth, both of whom were revolutionary leaders.

Further, Emerson was a contributor to the Democratic Review and the Dail. (The  Democratic Review promoted the agenda of Young America. The Dail was the journal of the Transcendentalist movement in New England. Young America was a movement that advocated social reform, territorial expansion [American imperialism], national unity [nationalism], American exceptionalism, democracy, democratic participation [expansion of suffrage], free trade, and economic interdependence. Also, it supported republican and anti-aristocratic movements abroad and opposed European hierarchical society. [Young America appears to have been the forefather of today's neoconservatives.])

Additionally, Emerson was a speaker for the Boston Lyceon Bureau. (The Boston Lyceon Bureau sought to indoctrinate people to support a socialist new world order.)

Also, he was a founder of the Radical Club, which he later left, and the Free Religious Association. (The Radical Club sought to influence the arts, letters, publishing, etc. Consisting of the most radical of the Unitarians, the Free Religious Association promoted social Darwinism, rejected Christianity, and promoted rationalism theology.)

Emerson also was involved in the Brook Farm, a communist commune.

Nathaniel Hawthorne

Hawthorne (1804-1864) was a Transcendentalist Fourierist, a member of Emerson’s study group, the Saturday Club, and Young America, and was involved in the Brook Farm. (The Saturday Club was a club of free thinkers and socialists whose objective was to dominate American intellectual and publishing pursuits.)

Hawthorne was appointed an assistant collector of customs in Boston. Later, President Pierce, whose biography Hawthorne wrote, appointed him the consul to Liverpool.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Longfellow (1807–1882) was an early leader of Transcendentalism, a member of Emerson’s study group, and a member of the Saturday Club.

Henry D. Thoreau

Thoreau (1817–1862) was an early leader of Transcendentalism and a member of Emerson’s study group and was involved in the Brook Farm. Also, he was a contributor to the Democratic Review and the Dail.

Walt Whitman

Whitman (1819-1892) was an early leader of Transcendentalism and a member of Emerson’s study group. Also, he was a contributor to the Democratic Review.

Further, he was a leader of the Equal Rights Party. (The Equal Rights Party came out of the radical wing of the Democratic Party. It was strongly egalitarian and opposed banks, paper money, and monopolies.)

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More historical articles.

Some Republican Views of the Negro

Some Republican Views of the Negro

Thomas Allen

On pages 265–267, in Facts and Falsehoods Concerning the War on the South 1861-1865 (Memphis, Tennessee: A. R. Taylor & Co., 1904), George Edmonds gives the views of several leading Republicans on the Negro during Lincoln’s War.

He writes, “It is known to all that the Creator has implanted in the very atoms of the human being, as well as in the being of animals, certain instincts for the preservation of life and the perpetuity of the race. Among these instincts is that of kinship. Our affections first go out to our parents, our children, our relatives. Next they go out to the people of our own country, our own color and blood. The white race loves white people more than it does the yellow, the red or the black. Negroes prefer their own color; they naturally affiliate with negroes in preference to whites, Chinese or Japanese. This is the law of kinship. [This law of kinship, most Whites today have forgotten or condemned. Most Blacks believe and accept this law.] Any reverse of this law is perversion — perversion is species of insanity. We have shown that in the year 1796 certain New England Federalists, to attain a certain object they had in view, set themselves to work to promulgate the gospel of hate toward the people of the South. By dint of teaching hate the teachers developed that feeling in their own hearts. As the teaching went on, the feeling increased in intensity until it became an insanity, a monomania utterly beyond the control or the influence of reason. Finally it came to pass that from this insanity of hate there sprung an insanity of love. The former was directed toward the white people of the South, the latter toward the negroes. Without evidence from the papers and publications of that day, the white men of this generation will not be able to believe that New England, as well as large numbers of the Republican party, came to admire and respect the negro race as morally and mentally superior to the white. At first this strange insanity only held that the negroes in the South were far superior in every way to Southern whites; but as time passed the insanity took on a more violent form, and those so afflicted believed and taught that as a race the negro was greatly superior, morally and mentally, to the whole Caucasian race, and not only this, they came to admire every peculiar quality of the negro, the blackness of their skins, their woolly hair. Their whole makeup New England orators and writers dwelt on with a sort of worshiping rapture and urged intermarriage between blacks and whites, not to elevate the former, but the latter.” (pp. 265-266.) The only thing that has changed since Edmonds wrote his book is that many Southerners have become inflected with this Negrophilic-Dixiephobic perversion.

To support his claim, Edmonds quotes several New England Republicans. First, he quotes Wendell Phillips, a leading abolitionist. Edmonds writes, “In the early stages of his insanity Wendell Phillips was fond of announcing to his audiences that ‘negroes are our acknowledged equals. They are our brothers and sisters.’ As time went on Mr. Phillips’ distemper became more heated. He was not satisfied with asserting that ‘negroes are our equals;’ he made the startling announcement that — ‘Negroes are our Nobility!’ And began to clamor that special privileges be granted to ‘our nobility.’ He wanted all the land in the Southern States divided and bestowed on ‘our nobility’ and their heirs forever. What ‘our nobility’ had done to deserve this rich reward Mr. Phillips did not explain. Perhaps he thought the fact that negroes had been brought from Africa in a savage state, and had acquired in the hard school of slavery some of the arts of civilization, fitted them to become a noble class.” (p. 266.)

Next, Edmonds quotes Governor Stone of Iowa. Edmonds writes “in a speech made at Keokuk, August 3, 1863, [Stone] was certainly in the first stages of this insanity when he said to his audience, ‘I hold the Democracy in the utmost contempt. I would rather eat with a negro, drink with a negro, and sleep with a negro than with a Copperhead’ (meaning a Democrat).” (pp. 266-267.) 

Then, he turns to Morrow Lowry. Edmonds writes, “The disease certainly had struck Mr. Morrow B. Lowry, State Senator of Pennsylvania, when at a large meeting in Philadelphia, in 1863, he said to his audience: ‘For all I know the Napoleon of this war may be done up in a black package. We have no evidence of his being done up in a white one. The man who talks of elevating a negro would not have to elevate him very much to make him equal to himself.’” (p. 267.)

Next, Edmonds cites the New York Independent. He writes, “The faithful old New York Independent sorrowfully wailed over the long delayed coming of the Black Napoleon, which all the insane negro-worshipers confidently looked for. ‘God and negroes,’ said the Independent, ‘are to save the country. For two years the white soldiers of this country have been trying to find a path to victory. The negroes are the final reliance of our Government. Negroes are the keepers and the saviors of our cause. Negroes are the forlorn hope of our Republican party.’” [One primary reason that Republicans promoted the Negro in the South was to establish Republican dominance in the South through the Negro. Now Republican racial nihilists complain that Blacks have double-crossed the Republican Party by supporting the Democratic Party. Another primary reason for promoting the Negro in the South was to genocide the Southerner.]

Then, Edmonds quotes James Parton. He writes, “James Parton, the noted biographer, was strongly touched with the prevailing disease — insane love of negroes. ‘Many a negro,’ wrote James Parton, in 1863, ‘stands in the same kind of moral relation to his master as that in which Jesus Christ stood to the Jews, and not morally only, for he stands above his master at a height which the master can neither see nor understand.’” 

Finally, he cites General Phelps. He writes, “J.W. Phelps, General in the Republican army, thought the negro race much better adapted to receive Christianity than the white. ‘Christianity,’ said Phelps, ‘is planted in the dark rich soil of the African nature. Negroes are as intelligent and far more moral than the whites. The slaves appeal to the moral law, clinging to it as to the very horns of the altar; he bears no resentment, he asks for no punishment for his master.’” (p. 267.)

If the people cited by Edmonds believed what they said, they had not spent much time around Blacks. To disprove their assertions, they needed only to look at Haiti.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern 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.

More Political Thoughts

More Political Thoughts

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are official papers, socialism and democracy, the wrong question, and a credibility test.

Official Papers

Our ancestors who fought the National Socialists (Nazis) and the Fascists in World War II would be proud of what has happened to the United States. They fought the National Socialists and Fascists to rid the world of their despotism and tyranny. Thus, they would be overwhelmed with the joy of knowing that people need officially governmentally issued papers called Read ID to travel within the United States — as the National Socialists and Fascists required official papers to travel. So, why did our ancestors fight the National Socialists and Fascists?

In other words, propagandists inculcate us with the notion that their ancestors fought the National Socialists and Fascists to keep us free. They did such a great job of keeping us free that we are now free to be required to have governmentally issued papers, Real Id, to travel — just as the people in National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy needed official papers to travel. So much for freedom.

President Bush said that the terrorists attacked the United States because they hated our freedom. Then, he proceeded to suppress the few remaining freedoms that Americans had. President Obama extended Bush’s police state of suppressing freedom, and President Trump did nothing to end and reverse this police state. Since Americans have lost their freedoms, the terrorists have won. So, why are the United States still fighting a war that has been lost? Why not admit defeat and bring the troops home and repeal all the police state and antiterrorist laws?

Socialism and Democracy

Socialism is economic democracy. Democracy is political socialism. Under democracy, each person, in theory, has an equal say in society’s political affairs.  Under socialism, each person, in theory, has an equal say in society’s economic affairs. In both socialism and democracy, each person has an equal say.

Wrong Question

Paul Harvey said, “They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here?” This is a good question, but it is the wrong question.

The question should be: Why are not progressives, liberals, and socialists moving to Cuba? Cuba is already offering what they want: gun control, universal healthcare, and much more. Certainly, Cuba would welcome them with open arms — especially if they bring their wealth with them.

The reason that progressives, liberals, and socialists do not move to Cuba is that they are Puritans. They have seen the light and are compelled to force their utopia on everyone — especially on those who know that their utopia is really a dystopia.

Credibility Test

A three-step test can be given to find out if a person has credibility. (1) Does he believe or claim to believe the official governmental conspiracy theory of 9-11? (2) Does he believe or claim to believe that the Democrats and their supporters, promoters, and owners did not steal the 2020-presidential election? (3) Does he believe or claim to believe the official explanation of the Kennedy assassination? If he answers one or more of these questions “yes,” then he has no credibility.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Why I am not a Republican

 Why I am not a Republican

Thomas Allen

I am not a Republican for many of the same reasons that I am not a Democrat. Both promote destructive policies — only the Democrats generally promote them with more alacrity and vigor and are more successful.

The comments that follow are directed at the Republican and Democratic leaders and their spokesmen and apologists in the media. Although they are not directed at the rank-and-file Republicans and Democrats, most of the rank-and-file do adhere to and follow their leaders in the matters discussed below.

Republicans and Democrats are proponents of “American Exceptionalism.” This exceptionalism is the creed of equality, democracy, and universal natural rights, which both promote. This creed is the defining principle that makes America America. However, they disagree somewhat about what constitutes “natural rights” and especially what equality means.

Both Republicans and Democrats prefer the constitution that Lincoln (as furthered developed by Presidents Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and carried to fruition by the Warren Court and especially Justice William Brennan), which is the current constitution, to the constitution that the founding fathers gave the country.

While Democrats only give constitutional government lip service, Republicans claim to believe in constitutional government. Yet they have done nothing to reduce the size of the federal government. As under Democrats, the federal government continues to grow under Republicans — perhaps, not as fast, but it still grows.

An example of the hypocrisy of the Republican support of constitutional government is the unconstitutional Department of Education. When Republicans controlled the federal government, it did nothing to abolish the Department of Education despite their promise to abolish it. Instead of abolishing the Department of Education, they have used it to consolidate federal control of education in the United States, which is why the Democrats established it. Thus, the Republicans have collaborated with the Democrats to give the federal government control of education in the United States.

Republicans and Democrats both revere Father Abraham (Lincoln) and St. Martin Luther King the Divine — only Republicans more so than Democrats. Republicans have even elevated them to Deity.

Like Democrats, Republicans are racial nihilists and promote a multiracial and multicultural country and society. Both are globalists. Neither have any objections to miscegenation, and both promote other policies that eventually genocide the American Negro.

Both Republicans and Democrats promote diversity as a strength and great virtue. Therefore, both ignore Madison’s warning about too much diversity, which plutocrats use to transfer ever more wealth and power to themselves. Thus, plutocrats control both parties.

Although Democrats ardently support abortion, Republicans do not oppose abortion — their rhetoric to the contrary. In spite (or because) of abortion being a highly successful weapon in the genocide of the American Negro, Democrats have ardently promoted abortion for more than a half-century. Except for their rhetoric, Republicans stopped seriously opposing abortion decades ago.

Both are Lincolnian-Hamiltonians. Nonetheless, Democrats prefer much more governmental intervention in the economy than do Republicans. Thus, Democrats are much more fascistic than are Republicans. Whereas Democrats are proponents of a command-and-control economy, Republicans favor a market economy — at least in rhetoric. (Republicans claim that they support a free-market economy, which they do not. Otherwise, they would move to abolish all the regulatory agencies, which are unconstitutional anyway, of the federal government.)

Contrary to their assertion otherwise, Republicans support the welfare state. Democrats strongly promote the welfare state for the same reason that Bismark, the archconservative German chancellor, did. (Bismark instituted the welfare state in Germany: The welfare state makes governmental control of the people easier because people who receive benefits from a welfare program are less likely to object to other governmental programs.) The primary difference between the Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans want to make controlling people more cost-effective.

Like the Democrats, Republicans like to create problems and then like the Democrats express outrage at the consequences. Many of the problems that both Republicans and Democrats rail against result from the welfare state, which both endorse and support.

Despite their rhetoric during political campaigns, both support the warfare state. They prefer war to peace. Neither object to using the United States military to bully other countries and to interfere with their internal affairs. After all, war is necessary to impose the American creed of equality, democracy, and universal natural rights on everyone. More important, war transfers ever more wealth and power to the rich and powerful, who control the federal government.

Both the Republicans and Democrats support the police state. Moreover, with the Transportation Security Administration, secret warrants and arrests, indefinite detention, and torture centers, Republicans have led the charge. All this has been done in the name of the war on terrorism, which is really a war on the American people. (Terrorism results from the foreign intervention and meddling policies of the Republicans and Democrats.)

Just as the Democrats accept the thief of the 2020 presidential election, so do the Republicans. Without Republican succor, Democrats could not have stolen the election. Even the Republican-controlled Supreme Court abandoned its constitutional duty to rectify the illegalities of the election — and so did Republican-controlled State legislatures.

Both Republicans and Democrats reject intergenerational duty to ancestors and posterity. If they cared about their posterity, governmental debt would not be exploding. If they cared about their ancestry, they would not promote conditions that lead to racial and cultural genocide, yet they promote programs and policies that lead to racial and cultural genocide. 

Neither Democrats nor Republicans want to dismantle the leviathan federal government and return to the constitutional government of the original Constitution. Both want to use it to advance their agendas. They consider the Constitution to be so elastic that they make it a worthless scrap of paper.

Neither supports the doctrine of States’ rights except when they can use the States to oppose a policy that the other party advances with which they disagree. 

Republicans and Democrats are hostile to traditional conservatives, who are the true conservatives. In marginalizing traditional Southern conservatives, both parties have been highly effective.

Nevertheless, Republicans and Democrats do differ in some aspects. Democrats are more vindictive and spiteful than Republicans. On the other hand, Republicans are recreants. While Democrats are bold, Republicans are timid.

Democrats are Dixiephobic, Confederaphobic, and albusphobic. Except for neoconservatives and establishment conservatives, Republicans are generally not Dixiephobes or Confederaphobes. Moreover, not all Republicans are albusphobes.

While Democrats are fervent supporters of gun control even to the point of disarming the American people, Republicans are hesitant in imposing more gun control. Nevertheless, Republicans are always ready to comprise and support more gun control. Furthermore, Republicans have not removed any restrictions on gun ownership when they controlled the presidency and Congress.

While Democrats favor restricting energy production and usage, Republicans favor cheap and abandon energy. However, as with its other principles, Republicans are always willing to compromise away cheap and abandon energy.

As for COVID-19, the Republican approach has been much less authoritarian than has been the Democratic approach. Moreover, Republicans who did take an authoritarian approach to COVID-19 have been much more eager to relinquish their control than have been Democrats.

Most Republicans favor lower taxes, and Democrats favor higher taxes. Nevertheless, both favor exploding federal budgets.

Republicans are eager to compromise and abandon their principles (if they have any). Perhaps, Republicans compromise their apparent principles so easily and quickly is because their real principles differ little from those of Democrats. Contrastingly, Democrats resist compromise and abandoning their principles as evil as they may be. 

Democrats are on the left and so are the Republicans. Both are socialists (mostly of the democratic fascist variety) at heart; only the Democrats are more open and honest about being socialists.

Another major difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats are about a decade ahead of Republicans. (The homosexual agenda evidences this conclusion. For years, Democrats have promoted homosexual marriages and finally succeeded in legalizing them over the objections of Republicans. Now most Republicans accept homosexual marriages.)

Most of the time, arguments and disagreements between Republicans and Democrats are about details and strategies and not about principles. 

The above description of Republicans explains why most establishment conservatives and neoconservatives loath President Trump. Trump deviated from too many of these Republican standards. Yet, many people supported Trump because he did deviate from some of these positions that Republicans had stolen from Democrats.

For the most part, Republicans are imitation Democrats; they just lack the courage to become full-fledged Democrats. The reason that I am not a Republican or a Democrat is that Republicans are too much like Democrats and Democrats are too much like Republicans.

Governor George Wallace once said that there was not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democrats and Republicans. That is still true, and a dime is worth only a fraction of what it was when he made this remark.

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.

Zionism and the Middle East

Zionism and the Middle East

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 1988, 2021 by Thomas C. Allen.

More political articles.