King on the World House – Part 2

King on the World House – Part 2

Thomas Allen

To solve international poverty, King writes “The rich nations must use their vast resources of wealth to develop the underdeveloped, school the unschooled and feed the unfed.” (P. 189.) (In other words, reverse colonialism: Instead of Whites countries exploiting nonwhite countries, nonwhite countries exploit White countries. This exploitation has been extended to allow nonwhites to invade White countries without restrictions or limits while granting these nonwhites the privilege to plunder, oppress, rape, maim, and kill Whites with little or no penalty. On the contrary, Whites who complain about being maltreated by nonwhites are penalized.)

Continuing, King states that the great and rich countries must “provide capital and technical assistance to the underdeveloped areas.” (P. 188.) These countries need to provide much more aid than they have provided — enough to sustain economic growth. Wealthy countries “must promptly initiate a massive, sustained Marshall Plan for Asia, Africa and South America.” (Pp. 188-189.) (Although not at the level that King wanted, rich countries, especially the United States, have provided an enormous amount of aid. However, they send aid to the government of the recipient country; consequently, only a small portion goes to the people who need it. Most of the aid goes to enrich officials of the recipient government and to the politically connected in the country receiving the aid and the country sending the aid. As for the Marshall Plan idea, European countries that received the most aid, e.g., Great Britain, under the Marshall Plan took longer to recover than countries that received little or nothing, e.g., Germany.)

Continuing, King writes, “The aid program that I am suggesting must not be used by the wealthy nations as a surreptitious means to control the poor nations.” (P. 189.) (That is, aid must be given with no conditions attached and no oversight.) Moreover, aid must be given with “a compassionate and committed effort to wipe poverty, ignorance and disease from the face of the earth.” (P. 189.) (Thus, if aid is given with an inappropriate motivation, it does the recipient country no good. How absurd! Despite the motivation, the recipient will use his lucre the same way if it comes without conditions.) Nevertheless, King implies that much of the aid will be wasted instead of improving the health, education, and wealth of the people. Such waste is caused by these colonies becoming independent countries. 

King credits the economic growth of the West to being relatively underpopulated and an abundance of iron ore and coal. (If true, when the Europeans landed in the Americas, they should have found a level of economic prosperity similar to what Europe had. The Americas were relatively underpopulated and coal, iron ore, and other natural resources exceeded that of Europe. Likewise, with Africa, when the Europeans landed in sub-Sahara Africa, they should have found a level of economic prosperity similar to Europe’s. Like the Americas, Africa was relatively underpopulated and had natural resources that far exceeded Europe’s. King errs because he fails to account for nonphysical genetic differences.)

Because the emerging new governments of former colonies, “confront staggering problems of overpopulation. There is no possible way for them to make it without aid and assistance.” (P. 190.) (Thus, King admits that nonwhites are inferior to Whites because Whites made it without aid and nonwhites cannot. Moreover, the primary reason that these new countries were “overpopulated” was that the European colonial powers created conditions conducive to population growth.)

King declares, “that we must use our resources to outlaw poverty.” (P. 191.) (Thus, King declares that Jesus erred when he said that the poor will always be with us. Jesus did not mean that we should not help the poor from our personal estates, which we should. However, one should not plunder [tax] another person and give the loot to the poor — as King wanted to do.)

About one thing, King is correct: “A final problem that mankind must solve in order to survive in the world house that we have inherited is finding an alternative to war and human destruction.” (Pp. 191-192.) (On this point, King-idolizing conservatives, especially neoconservatives, ignore the greatest conservative ever, the archconservative King. Most of these conservatives adore every war that they have ever seen. People with the right connections can make a great deal of money from war.)

Continuing, King writes, “There is no need to fight for food and land. Science has provided us with adequate means of survival and transportation, which make it possible to enjoy the fullness of this great earth.” (P. 192.) (King sounds like a proponent of free trade.) He detests the notion of fighting wars in the name of peace and condemns leaders who do so. These leaders seek “a peaceful world order, a world fashioned after their selfish conceptions of an ideal existence.” (Likewise, King sought a peaceful world order fashioned after his selfish conception of an ideal existence.) He contends that peaceful ends must be pursued through peaceful means.

Then, King suggests “that the philosophy and strategy of nonviolence become immediately a subject for study and for serious experimentation in every field of human conflict” (p.194) including relations between nations. (King seems to want countries to resolve conflicts among themselves following his method of “nonviolent” protests. For decades, the CIA has been following King’s method. If a government [a segregated State or city] does not bow to the CIA’s [King’s] demands, the CIA supports the opponent’s [openly violent civil rights groups] of the government and brings it down via a coupe, civil war [riots], etc.)

Then, King states, “The United Nations is a gesture in the direction of nonviolence on a world scale.” (P. 195.) (If true, the United Nations is a failure. As many, and probably more, violent conflicts have occurred since its creation than before. However, the real purpose of the United Nations is not to prevent violent conflicts. Its purpose is to serve as a foundation for a despotic world government that a few oligarchs control.)

Next, King writes that “true nonviolence is more than the absence of violence. It is the persistent and determined application of peaceable power to offenses against the community.” (P. 195.)  (What is this application of “peaceful power?” It looks a lot like the application of legalized coercion, i.e., war. Covert war is what King used to destroy the South.)

King argues for “a revolution of values to accompany the scientific and freedom revolutions engulfing the earth.” (P. 196.) (King had a warped sense of freedom. Traditionally, freedom means that the government does little beyond the minimum to protect life, liberty, and property. Freedom means no welfare state, no guaranteed income, no affirmative action or quotas, no public school system, and none of the many other things that King wanted governments to do. Concerning race relations, just about the only acts that a government could take are those necessary to prevent or discourage genocide.)

Continuing, King declares, “We must . . . shift from a ‘thing’-oriented society to a ‘person’-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.” (Pp.196-197.) (King-idolizing conservatives take note: You need to oppose the free market economy. Either King is exposing his ignorance of a free market economy or he hates it. A free market economy is people-oriented. If producers do not provide people with what they want or need at a price that they can afford, they make no profit. Without property rights, i.e., the right to use their property as they think best, producers are hampered in providing people what they desiderate. The foundation of a free market economy is cooperation. Moreover, a free market economy does a better job of conquering the great triplets than does King’s approach of massive governmental intervention that is based on envy and the lust for power.)

Then, King describes capitalism and Communism. (His description of Communism is accurate. His description of capitalism is what happens when governments interfere in a free market economy for wars, favorites, or picking winners and losers.)

King argues for a fascist economy — the melding of capitalism and Communism. “The good and just society is neither the thesis of capitalism nor the antithesis of Communism, but a socially conscious democracy which reconciles the truths of individualism and collectivism.” (P. 197.) (This is a description of fascism: the concatenation of the collective and the individual with oligarchs deciding what is a good and just society. Moreover, King should be rolling over in his grave with joy since nearly every country in the world today has some form of fascist political economy, and most did at the time he wrote.)

With his Luddite tendencies, King declares “With righteous indignation, it [the true revolution of values] will look at thousands of working people displaced from their jobs with reduced incomes as a result of automation while the profits of the employers remain intact, and say: ‘This is not just.’” (P. 198.) (King seems to want nonwhite countries to industrialize. Yet, industrialization, i.e., automation, costs people their jobs. Over the centuries many jobs have been lost to automation. Most automation has replaced people in grueling, dangerous, or monotonous jobs that most people dislike doing. Automation has freed them to perform more interesting work. The industrial revolution has been built on automation. Besides, if everything is so automated that no jobs exist, then companies would quickly go out of business because no one could buy their products. What King and most other people fail to realize is that the final customer decides what jobs are needed and the pay of workers and not employers, capitalists, etc. If the government intervenes to fix wages, prices, etc. shortages occur, and the country as a whole is poorer. Nevertheless, King has a point about companies taking much more money out of a community than they invest there — this is an argument to favor small businesses over multinational corporations.)

King complains, “There is nothing but a lack of social vision to prevent us from paying an adequate wage to every American citizen.” (P. 199.) (As noted above, the final customer decides the pay that a worker receives by what he is willing to pay for the product or service. Obviously, King did not know much about economics. But, here, he is promoting his guaranteed income for every family. That is, he wants the government to plunder producers and divide the stolen loot among families or individuals.)

Then, King states, “that our greatest defense against Communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice.” (P. 200.) (That is, the United States need to flood the world with money with no conditions attached.)

Continuing, King declares, “These are revolutionary times.” (P. 200.) (True. It was the revolution of tyranny and despotism over freedom and liberty. In the name of King’s social justice, tyranny, and despotism won.)

Next, King writes, “Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal opposition to poverty, racism and militarism.” (Pp. 200-201.) (If this is our only hope, we are doomed. Poverty is still with us as Jesus said it would be. Black racism, Yellow racism, and Brown racism have supplanted White racism, which is mostly dead. Militarism is as prevalent today as ever before as the United States seek to impose democracy and King’s social justice on every country in the world.)

King was a cosmopolitan and a globalist. He urged everyone to place humanity as a whole above his particular tribe, race, class, and nation (a people as opposed to a country). Further, he calls “for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all men.” (P. 201.) (That is, all tribes, races, classes, and nations must sacrifice themselves on the altar of globalism under the rule of the global oligarchs. Now, it becomes clear why White oligarchs supported King and his destructive work.)

In conclusion, King states, “We can no longer afford to worship the God of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation.” (Pp. 200-201.) (Where Southerners were involved, King never did stop worshiping the God of hate or bowing before his altar of retaliation.)

For decades, the White oligarchs have been flooding the country with legal and illegal nonwhites. This flooding of nonwhites greatly threatens the hold that Negroes have on America. Because they are not White, these nonwhites are demanding and receiving the same benefits and privileges given to Negroes. Consequently, Negroes are beginning to lose their control of America to these nonwhites. Unfortunately for Negroes, they cannot control these nonwhites with guilt as they have controlled Whites. When these nonwhites reach a critical mass, they will push the Negro to the lowest rung of society. Then, Negroes will look at the days of segregation and Jim Crow as the days of privilege and prosperity. For this dismal future, Negroes can think King and his civil rights movement and social justice.

After reading his book, I discovered that I have much more confidence in the American Negro than King did. He believed that the Negro was incapable of bettering himself without the aid of Whites. Therefore, according to King, Negroes need Whites to solve their problems, to support them, and to give them special privileges and benefits. Although Whites gave the Negro everything that King demanded and more — except ending wars and a guaranteed income, many Negroes still have a slave mentality, however, a perverse slave mentality. Like the traditional slave, they remain dependent on Whites, but unlike the traditional slave, they expect Whites to serve them. By obeying King’s demands, Whites have greatly damaged the Negro. The Negro as a whole would have been better off today if King and his followers had not created the turmoil that they did in the 1960s and if the Negro had been left alone to solve his problems.

To resolve his problems the Negro should free himself from his dependency on Whites. Ironically as it may seem, especially to King, Negroes would have advanced further in a more segregated society. The Black Power folks were going in the right direction, but King subverted their movement. As a result, the Negro is not much better off today than in King’s day except economically. In many social respects, the Negro is worse off.

If the Negro had followed the Black Power road instead of King’s road, he would have had the satisfaction of knowing that he raised himself up and that he is responsible for his achievements. Because he followed King’s road, he will always question his achievements since Whites gave him just about everything that he has.

When King said that he had a dream, his dream was the genocide of the White race after all its wealth had been plundered. At least, that is the result of the policies that he advocated and promoted. Moreover, King-idolizing conservatives have been working diligently to achieve his dream — except in the economic realm where most continue to oppose guaranteed income and reparations.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on social issues.

Was Paul an Evolutionist?

Was Paul an Evolutionist?

Thomas Allen

    If creationists who claim that Adam and Eve are the parents of all the various kinds (races, species) of humans are correct, then Paul is an evolutionist, a Darwinist. In 1 Corinthians 15:39, he writes, “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes.” These so-called creationists interpret “one flesh of men” to mean that all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve through Noah and his family.
    First, let us see what some commentators have to say about this verse. In A Commentary on the Holy Bible (1939), J.R. Dummelow, editor, writes, “There are many different forms of animal life; so there may be of human life.” Thus, because many different species of animals exist, so may several species of men exist.
    Everett Harrison, editor, suggests in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (1962) that this verse and those following indicate that a believer’s race will be identifiable in his resurrected body. Moreover, based on Harrison’s comment on this verse, one could support Paul being either an evolutionist or a creationist. He comments, “In the light of the theory of evolution, this is an interesting statement [,i.e., ‘All flesh is not the same flesh’].” Paul could be suggesting that each flesh (kind, species) initially came into being independently of all other flesh. This is creationism and is most likely what Paul intended. Conversely, he could be suggesting that all flesh came from one flesh, which is evolution, Darwinism.
    In One Volume New Testament Commentary, C.B.S. writes, “There are different varieties and forms of bodily life.” Thus, he implies that different forms (kinds, species) of men exist. Likewise, Beet writes, “. . . the immense variety, and variety of kinds, of living bodies.” Consequently, there are several kinds of humans.
    With the possible exception of Harrison, these commentators in their commentary on this verse neither support nor reject evolution or creationism. They merely note that a large number of kinds of animals exist. So, by implication, several kinds of humans exist.
    If all human kinds have one common pair of parents, then, according to Paul, all beasts have one common pair of parents. Therefore, all mammals, reptiles, and amphibians are descendants of one pair of parents. How does a frog turn into a mouse if an evolutionary process is not involved? Likewise, the same is true of birds and fishes; they are descendant from a common pair of parent birds or parent fishes.
    Creationists cannot have it both ways. If different kinds (fleshes) of beasts have different initial parents, then different kinds (fleshes) of humans have different initial parents. If “one flesh of men” means that all humans have a common initial pair of parents, then “another flesh of beasts” means that all beasts have a common initial pair of parents. That is, all mammals, reptiles, and amphibians are descended from the same initial parents. Likewise, so are the various kinds of birds and fishes descended from the same initial parents respectively. Evolution means different kinds descending from common initial parents. Thus, if all kinds of human descended from Adam and Eve, evolution is proven.
    Monogenism, which is what the Church has traditionally taught, supports evolution, Darwinism. According to monogenism, all human kinds (races, species) descended from a common pair of parents, Adam and Eve. Polygenism supports creationism. According to polygenism, each human kind descended from a different, unique pair of parents. Thus, if creationism is true, Adam and Eve are the parents of only one human kind. If (theistic) evolution is true, then Adam and Eve are the parents of all human kinds.
    Biblical creationism is described as “after its kind.” Polygenists claim that each flesh (kind) of beast and each flesh (kind) of man has its own initial pair of parents (flesh) and, thus, is after its flesh (kind). Therefore, creationism is polygenism.
    On the other hand, monogenists claim that all flesh (kind) of beasts comes from the same initial flesh (kind) and all flesh (kind) of men comes from the same initial flesh (kind). Therefore, monogenism is evolution, i.e., Darwinism. If the monogenistic claim that all human kinds descended from Adam and Eve is correct, evolution is proven.
    In The Disaster Darwinism Brought to Humanity, Harun Yahya, a Muslim,  argues that Darwinism is responsible for Social Darwinism, communism, fascism, Nazism, Marxism (from which come fascism and Nazism), two world wars, and many other evils of the late nineteenth century and the twentieth century. It is also responsible for colonialism, imperialism (Islamic imperialism existed long before Christian imperialism or Darwin’s birth), the prohibition against interracial marriages (although interracial breeding is a form of genocide), segregation (although segregation preserves the integrity of the races whereas integration genocides them), and eugenics. Moreover, although capitalism has been retreating since World War I, Darwinism is responsible for the advancement of capitalism (because of the stereotypical criticism of capitalism: individualism, competition, and profit-making and because it is void of charity and cooperation, or as Marx asserts, because capitalism is a vital, energetic, productive engine, yet it is egoistic, individualist, and rights-obsessed, which makes it morally evil.) Nevertheless, Yahya acknowledges that these evils existed before Darwin, but Darwin gave them a scientific veneer to justify them and make them more acceptable. If Darwinism is guilty of these evils, then the Church is just as guilty, if not more so, than Darwin. With its monogenistic teachings, it was preaching Darwinism centuries before Darwin was born. Likewise, Islam with its monogenistic doctrine is also guilty.
    When Paul writes, “there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts,” etc., does he mean that all human kinds have a common initial pair of parents and all beast kinds have a common initial pair of parents? If so, he is a monogenist and an evolutionist. However, if he means that each human kind has a different initial pair of parents and each beast kind has a different initial pair of parents, then he is a polygenist and is not an evolutionist.
    Of course, the argument depends on what is a “kind.” Is a kind a class, order, family, species, or subspecies? Some creationist evolutionists, to use an oxymoron, start with the family; that is, they identify a kind as a family. For example, all species of the cat family are decedents of an initial pair of felines, i.e., a feline kind. Obviously, evolution is involved if all species of cats are descended from a common ancestor. If these creationist evolutionists are correct, then evolution, Darwinism, is proven. The disagreement between creationist evolutionists and secular evolutionists is the starting point and the time required for one species or kind to evolve into another. What secular evolutionists claim that takes millions of years to achieve, creationist evolutionists claim that it takes only a few generations. If kind is not equivalent to a species, or even a subspecies (many of which used to be a species in their own right), then Darwinism becomes necessary, and evolution is proven.
    Does only one human kind exist or do several kinds or species of humans exist? If taxonomists had followed the techniques used to identify species of animals for identifying species of humans, they would have identified several species of humans (and some did identify several human species). However, because of centuries of Catholic monogenic indoctrination that all human kinds descended from Adam and Eve, all human kinds were lumped into one species. (Now, political correctness has replaced Catholic indoctrination. However, with the disdain and hatred of the White race, even by Whites, one wonders why the White race is not classified as a different human species or even a different genus to prevent it from contaminating and degrading the other human races.)
    Today, the primary technique used to identify a species is the ability to produce fertile offspring. As a result, many former species have been lumped together as one species. Because of using this criterion as the almost sole criterion for identifying a species, many former species of the genus Canis have been lumped together. However, taxonomists are not consistent is using the criterion of fertile offspring. Obviously, it is not used for extinct species. Moreover, have entomologists tried interbreeding all species of ants to see if they are really distinct species or mere subspecies of the same species? The ability to produce fertile offspring should be only one of several criteria used to determine a species — and then used more for exclusion than inclusion.
    (For a more detail discussion of polygenism verses monogenism and the classification of human kinds into several species, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis and Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man, both by Thomas Allen.)
    Is Paul an evolutionist? “Flesh of beasts” parallels “flesh of men.” Therefore, Paul must have meant the same thing by both phrases. Thus, if Paul means that all kinds of men descended from a common ancestor, then he would have meant that all kinds of beasts descended from a common ancestor. Consequently, he is an evolutionist. However, if by “flesh of” he does not mean descent from a common ancestor, then he does not mean that all human kinds and all beast kinds descended from a common ancestor, i.e., each human kind, race, species, and each beast kind, species, and many subspecies have a different initial ancestor.  Thus, he is not an evolutionist but is a creationist.
    Dr. Pye Smith, who was a Christian philosopher and a proponent of all human kinds descending from a common pair of parents, wrote,

If the two first inhabitants of Eden were the progenitors, not of all human beings, but only of the race whence sprang the Hebrew family, still it would remain the fact, that all were formed by the immediate power of God, and all these circumstances, stated or implied in the Scriptures, would remain the same as to moral and practical purposes. Adam would be a “figure of Him that is to come,” the Saviour of mankind; just as Melchizedek, or Moses, or Aaron, or David: the spiritual lesson would be the same. The sinful character of all the tribes of men, and the individuals composing them, would remain determined by the most abundant and painfully demonstrated proofs, in the history of all times and nations. The way and manner in which moral corruption has thus infected all men, under their several heads of primeval ancestry, would be an inscrutable mystery, which it is now, but the need of divine mercy, and the duty to seek it, would be the same; the same necessity would exist of a Saviour, a redemption, and a renovation of the internal character by efficacious grace. That the Saviour was, in his human nature, a descendant of Adam, would not militate against his being a proper Redeemer for all races of mankind, any more than his being a descendant of Abraham, Judah, and David, at all diminishes his perfection to save us “sinners of the Gentiles.” (Geology and Scripture, p. 357, Bohn's ed. 1854.)

    Thus, just as Melchizedek, Moses, Aaron, and David were figures of the Christ, who would come as the Savior of humanity, so was Adam. Adam did not have to be the ancestor of all man kinds for them to be saved.  Thus, each kind of human having a different initial pair of parents does not diminish the salvific work of Christ — unless the Israelite-identity folks are correct. (If descent from Adam is necessary for salvation, then descent from Abraham through Jacob is also necessary as the Israelite-identity folks claim. According to Israelite-identity folks, only Israelites, descendants of Jacob, can be saved. Therefore, whether all are descendants of Adam is irrelevant. Only descend from Jacob matters. Without a reliable genealogy, how does one know that he is a descendant, much less a pure descendant with no admixture of non-Israelite Adamites, Aryans, of Jacob? [Non-Israelite Aryans and Israelites are biologically the same.] Most Aryans, like Negroes, Turanians, Melanochroi, Khoisans, and Indo-Australians, cannot be saved because they are not descendants of Jacob, or at least not pure descendants.)
      Either God created each kind, race, species, of men or they evolved from a common ancestry, which is evolution, Darwinism. If the races did not evolve and God did create them, then all good Christians (and presumably good Muslims) should oppose everything that leads to their demise or destruction, including interracial mating. Otherwise, if God did not create them independently, then Darwinism and all the evils that Yahya attaches to it, including genocide, should not matter.
    If God created each race of men independently, then genocide matters. However, if the races of men evolved, then genocide per se does not matter as genocide leads to the survival of the fittest. Unfortunately, most Americans are evolutionists and do not oppose genocide per se. However, they do oppose some forms of genocide while finding other forms acceptable — only the type of genocide may matter. At least 98 to 99 percent of Americans do agree on one thing — be they liberal or conservative, progressive or libertarian, left-wing or right-wing, communist or laissez-faire capitalist, Republican or Democrat, pro-Trump or anti-Trump, pro-Clinton/Obama or anti-Clinton/Obama, globalist or nationalist, Christian or atheist, Jew or Muslim, religious or nonreligious, White or Black, or Yellow or Brown. They all agree that one form of genocide is perfectly acceptable. This form of genocide is interracial mating: breeding the races out of existence. Thus, this proves that most Americans, even most Christians who claim to be creationists, are Darwinists. (Most Americans object vigorously to the genocide of the North American Indians by disease, starvation, and mass killing. However, few Americans show any concern about breeding the North American Indian out of existence. This form of genocide has been much more effective than other forms.)
    Since a key law of evolution is survival of the fittest, no evolutionist should have any objection to genocide whatever its form. Genocide is nothing more than the application of the law of the survival of the fittest.
    Would Paul have condoned or condemned genocide in the form of interracial mating? If he were a creationist, he would surely have condemned it.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Capitalists and Socialists

Capitalists and Socialists

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: an addendum was added in 2026.]

Traditionally, socialism meant governmental ownership of the means of production, and capitalism meant private ownership of production. Now, these two terms mean the control of production and distribution through a government-business partnership. The difference between the two is that socialists make government the senior partnership while capitalists make big business the senior partner. (What most people mean when they use the term “capitalism” is a free market, free enterprise economy with minimum governmental intervention. What true capitalists and socialists mean by “capitalism” is a highly governmentally controlled economy for the benefit of the capitalists who control the government. “Socialist” as used in this article means a proponent of centralized governmental economic and social planning that may, but usually does not, require governmental ownership of production and distribution.) Because both promote similarly and frequently the same agendas, capitalists and socialists are often indistinguishable.

S.D. Parks identifies three classes in modern America: “managers (institutional elites), producers (taxpaying small business-owners, the middle and working classes), and dependents (nontaxpaying dependents of government).” (Chronicles, Nov. 2021, p. 3.) In the first class, managers, are found the capitalist and socialist oligarchs. However, only a small number of this class comprises the oligarchs.

Both capitalists and socialists are adherents of a powerful government with centralized planning. Most capitalists and socialists favor some kind of fascism, such as democratic socialism, national socialism, corporatism, and government-business partnership. Most socialists prefer democratic socialism (if they control the elections), which is now morphing into national socialism with Whites and the COVID unvaccinated replacing the Jews. Capitalists prefer government-business partnership followed by corporatism, which the plutocrats favor.

Under capitalism and socialism, an elite controls the economy. (At least, they attempt to control the economy. Unfortunately for them, the market is more powerful than any cabal, which is why centralized economic planning always fails unless the objective is to impoverish the masses.)

Another of the many things that capitalists and socialists have in common is that both want the people to be interchangeable cogs. Consequently, racial, ethnic, and sexual differences are undesirable. Recognition of them interferes with the notion that people are just producers and consumers. The purpose of the masses is to buy what they produce after the elite, the oligarchs, have taken their share of their production. Beyond being slaves of the oligarchic elite, the people, the masses, have no utility.

Accordingly, both capitalists and socialists promote an inclusive economy where the people are homogeneous cogs. Thus, they promote feminism, transgenderism, homosexualism, and racial integration. Moreover, both support unlimited immigration, especially the immigration of nonwhites, and affirmative action. Loyalty to the state and corporation supersede loyalty to the family and community.

Although inclusiveness and diversity contradict each other and are incompatible, both capitalists and socialists support and promote them. (While inclusiveness requires integration and amalgamation, diversity requires segregation and separation.) They may have different reasons for supporting them; nevertheless, the results are the same.

Likewise, both promote equality of the masses. However, the oligarchs, the plutocrats who are the ruling elite, under no circumstance want equality with the masses. Instead, they are always to remain the masters of the masses. 

Furthermore, both support the Communist orchestrated civil rights movement and the concomitant race riots. Consequently, capitalists and socialists are united in their support of Black Lives Matter and Antifa and their riots and the social justice agenda. Further, they are united in their disdain of Whites — except they seem not to disdain White oligarchs, and, therefore, both promote Critical Race Theory.

Both have used the COVID plandemic to advance the police state. To make the people easier to control, they seek to impose vaccine passports.

Both support and promote the welfare state and the accompanying warfare state. The oligarchs use the welfare state and the warfare state to control the people and to keep them loyal to the government that the oligarchs control. However, the capitalist oligarchs lean toward the warfare state because it transfers wealth and power from the masses to the plutocratic oligarchs, while the socialist oligarchs lean toward the welfare state.

Being advocates of progressivism, both capitalists and socialists have little use for true conservatives and traditionalists. Capitalists and socialists are universalists, cosmopolites, and globalists. Consequently, they oppose particularists, localists, and nationalists. 

Moreover, they abhor independent thinking. For this reason, public schools indoctrinate instead of teaching critical thinking.

Being the oligarchs in a capitalist state, capitalists control the politicians and bureaucrats and, therefore, the government and state. Likewise, the socialist oligarchs in a socialist state control the politicians and bureaucrats and, therefore, the government and state. Both seek to use the power of the state and government for their own benefit.

If one questions capitalists supporting these socialist ideas, one needs only to look at where capitalist foundations, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, George Soros-Open Society Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and other capitalists’ foundations, spend their money. Likewise, the boards of many corporations support socialist causes, such as feminism, transgenderism, homosexualism, inclusiveness, diversity, Critical Race Theory, and the restructuring of American society. Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Tech, Big Banks, Big Med, Big Ed, and Big Business in general push the progressive (socialist) agenda, such as global warming, abortion, and population reduction.

The communist version of socialism is the ultimate monopoly. Since all capitalists want a monopoly for their business, most capitalists do not find communism incompatible with capitalism if the capitalists control the government.

The capitalist and socialist oligarchs have reprobate minds. They are narcissists, sadists, and sociopaths. They are the enemy of the people.

Addendum

After I published this article, I came across an excellent definition of “capitalism.” In The South and the American Empire: Essays (Columbia, South Carolina:  Shotwell Publishing LLC, 2026), Joseph R. Stromberg defines “capitalism” as “any economy with private ownership of capital, production for profit, rational accounting, marlet prices, and free (propertyless) wage laborers.” (p. 244) Furthermore, under capitalism, private enterprise prevails over private property. Additionally, centralized financial capital is promoted.

American-style capitalism grew through “active, open-handed federal or state assistance for favored businesses through loans, subsidies, grants, favorable statutes and judicial decisions, and other institutional favors, with little real obligation of these businesses toward society or state.” (p. 274) Moreover, corporations became legal “persons” with potentially perpetual life. Property morphed from the tangible, e.g., land and commodities, to the intangible, e.g., stock certificates and bonds — paper. Furthermore, commodity money, e.g., gold coins, transmuted into credit money, e.g., today’s federal reserve notes. Corporate management replaced ownership. Agriculture was sacrificed for industrialization and banking.

Copyright © 2023, 2026 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.

The Democratic Party

 The Democratic Party

Thomas Allen

Today, the Democratic Party is America’s version of Europe’s social democratic parties. It is a party of progressive egalitarianism. Like these parties, the Democratic Party promotes a cradle-to-grave welfare state, diversity, unlimited third-world immigration, multiculturalism, multiracialism, and globalism. Also, the Democratic Party advocates indoctrination through government schools and a social system where perversions, libertinism, hedonism, narcissism, and wokeism are encouraged and traditional values are suppressed. In economic matters, like the European social democrats, it espouses a form of democratic fascism with government-business partnerships, i.e., managerial capitalism and the managerial state (a social justice-welfare state with a regulated market economy — welfare capitalism). Like all left-wing parties, the Democratic Party forcibly takes the property of others, often enslaves them, and at times kills them to satisfy its lusts, desires, biases, and prejudices. However, unlike the European social democratic parties, the Democratic Party pursues foreign intervention (imperialism) to impose its ideals on the rest of the world. Yet, the Democratic Party has not always been a fascist or semi-socialist party.

The neoconservatives and most of the alt-right claim that the Democratic Party is the party of racism, slavery, segregation, and “Jim Crow.” This is a highly misleading exaggeration. Racists (whatever that now means — see “Are You a Racist?” by Thomas Allen for more than 700 definitions of “racist”) and segregationists dominated both the Republican and Democratic parties until after World War II. All parties in the United States presided over slavery until 1865. (Even President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation protected slavery in areas under the control of the Union army when Lincoln issued it.) However, today, the Democratic Party is free of these charges except it fosters discrimination against and racial hostility toward Whites.

(According to the argument of the neoconservatives and the alt-right, today’s Democrats are racists, segregationists, and advocates of Jim Crow because some Democrats were racists, segregationists, and advocates of Jim Crow in the past. If their argument is correct, then today’s Republican Party is the party of repatriationists and eugenists because Republican President Lincoln wanted to repatriate the Negroes and Republican President Roosevelt was a eugenist.)

Unfortunately for the neoconservatives and most of the alt-right, their assertion that the Republican Party is the party that advocates freedom and civil rights for the Negro is flawed. Following Lincoln’s War, Republicans supported civil rights, voting rights, and privileges for Blacks not because they cared about the Negro. Even the abolitionists only cared about Negroes in the abstract; they did not care about them as concrete individuals. Republicans wanted to use the Negro to retain power and to finish genociding the Southerner — to finish what the Union army failed to do.

Later the Democratic Party usurped this endeavor to finish genociding the Southerner from the Republicans. In the 1950s with the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education and the civil rights and related laws in the 1960s, the Democratic Party earnestly sought to complete the work of the Republicans to genocide the Southerner. In this drive to exterminate Southerners, the Democratic Party has sought to genocide all Whites despite Whites controlling the Democratic Party. Like the Republican Party, the Democratic Party has never cared about the Negro per se; both parties have always used the Negro to genocide the Southerner and to gain and retain political power. To them, the Negro is just a useful tool.

In the nineteenth century, the Democratic Party was the party of “the old republican American tradition: resistance to unconstitutional powers and a proper relationship between state and general governments; strict economy in federal expenditures; opposition to corporate welfare in all its manifestations; sound money and a stable currency; peaceful neutrality and the cultivation of international trade; and more broadly the spirit of personal and political independence.”[1]

Under the leadership of William Bryan, the populists captured the Democratic Party. Then, with the election of Woodrow Wilson, the progressives gained control of the Democratic Party. Under Franklin Roosevelt, the progressives morphed into fascists. President Lyndon Johnson transformed the Democratic Party into the social democratic party that it is today. Thus, the Democratic Party now stands for the opposite of what it stood for 130 years ago.

Endnote

1.  Brion McClanahan, “Rejecting the ‘Proposition Nation,’ Chronicles, April/May 2021, p. 21.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political 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. 

COVID-19 Vaccine and Capitalism

 COVID-19 Vaccine and Capitalism

Thomas Allen

Most neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, and other conservatives point to President Trump’s Operation Warp Speed initiative on getting a COVID-19 vaccine from conception to into people’s bodies in less than a year as proving the superiority of capitalism over socialism. (Russia, which many conservatives consider a communist country, accomplished the same feat, and it did so with a true vaccine instead of a gene-therapy drug that is called a vaccine to avoid liability like the ones used in the United States.) This goal was achieved because the federal government bought large quantities of doses before big pharma manufactured them and because it suspended much of the required testing and allowed the vaccines to be used experimentally, i.e., the vaccines are experiential drugs, on the American people.

Among the steps skipped has been animal testing before human testing. Probably, the reason for skipping the animal-testing step is that when other vaccines using the mRNA technology were tested on animals, the animals died.

Moreover, the FDA authorized (not to be confused with approved) the use of the COVID-19 vaccines before Phase 3 Trails have been completed. Phase 3 Trials are not expected to be completed until 2023. Thus, the federal government is allowing vaccine manufacturers to test their experiential vaccines on tens of millions of people without their informed consent, which is a violation of the Nurnberg Code. Furthermore, the vaccine manufacturers have no liability for injuries resulting from their vaccines. 

However, these boasting conservatives conceal that this capitalism is not free-market capitalist. It is Hamiltonian-Lincolnian crony capitalism, which is a mild form of fascism.

Under free-market capitalism, big pharma would have developed and distributed the vaccines without any governmental financial aid or purchases (except, perhaps, for the military). Consequently, the federal government would not have subsidized the development of the vaccines, paid for their advertisement, or promoted them as it has done with the COVID-19 vaccines. The only governmental intervention would be to punish the executives of pharmaceutical companies that sell as medicines poisonous substances that will injure or kill people. Since vaccines are concoctions of poisonous substances that injure some people, the government should be filling prisons with high-ranking executives of pharmaceutical corporations. Instead, the government shields vaccine manufacturers from liability. In the United States and most other countries, vaccine manufacturers are not liable for any injuries or deaths that their vaccines cause. Thus, the manufacturing and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States are more akin to a socialist economy than to a market economy.

Moreover, on behalf of big pharma, the federal government has colluded with the presstitutes to create mass hysteria and terror. Such hysteria and terror have created a high demand for big pharma’s vaccines. This type of government-business partnership is illustrative of crony capitalism.

Furthermore, the federal government is colluding with big businesses to institute  “vaccine passports” to travel, work, buy, and otherwise participate in society. To bypass constitutional problems, the federal government is having big businesses require their customers and workers to have vaccine passports before selling or employing. To ensure uniformity, the federal government will issue and track vaccine passports. Thus, another government-business partnership is created, which is nothing more than crony capitalism. Also, vaccine passports are more illustrative of socialism than of capitalism, especially free-market capitalism. (Our fathers, grandfathers, and great grandfathers fought the Nazis to keep us from having to show papers to travel, work, and buy and from having to wear badges [such as bracelets showing that the wearer has been vaccinated] to identify our status. Now the presstitutes and governmental officials are terrorizing people to demand vaccine passports. And big businesses are using this terror, hysteria, and fear to demand that people present their vaccine passport before they can work or buy.)

Who benefits from vaccine passports? People who are forced to carry them to travel, work, buy, and otherwise participate in society do not benefit. They are the biggest losers. The primary beneficiaries are big businesses, especially big pharma,  — money — and governments — power. Vaccine passports will create enormous markets for big pharma to force its vaccines for which it has no liability on people and then to sell the drugs to treat the side effects of the vaccines. Furthermore, big pharma gains access to everyone’s medical records. For governments, vaccine passports greatly increase their opportunities and abilities to control people.

Although many conservatives oppose vaccine passports, many conservatives support crony capitalism out of which vaccine passports are a natural outgrowth. Ironically, while railing against Nazism and fascism, most liberals embrace vaccine passports, which are a natural outgrowth of Nazism and fascism.

The way that the COVID-19 vaccine has been developed and distributed in the United States and most of the rest of the world is more kin to fascism, which is a form of socialism, than to market capitalism. As mentioned above, under market capitalism, the only involvement of government with vaccine manufacturing and distribution is to prosecute executives whose companies manufacture and sell vaccines that injured the vaccinated. Instead, most governments exempt vaccine manufacturers from all liability for injuries or deaths caused by their vaccines.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Basic Principles of the Modern Left

 Basic Principles of the Modern Left

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

A Letter: Communist Democracy, Genocide, Fascism

A Letter: Communist Democracy, Genocide, Fascism

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1990 responding to Mr. Howard Ruff about an article that he wrote for his newsletter, “The Ruff Times.”]

    I agree with your comments in the March 12, 1990, issue of “The Ruff Times” about the dangers of Gorbachev consolidating power in his hands. Anyone who prefers liberty to despotism seeks to decentralize and disperse power rather than to centralize and concentrate it as Gorbachev is doing.
    However, I disagree with you that “communist democracy” is an oxymoron, much less the oxymoron of the year. Enclosed is a short article that I wrote for the “Southern National Newsletter” about a year ago in which I aver that democracy is much more compatible with and akin to socialism, of which communism is just one branch, than a free market economy and that democracy has little to do with freedom — at least in the sense that freedom was thought of before the coming of the welfare state. If you want to pursue an oxymoron, try the ever-popular, ever-present oxymoron “Judeo-Christian.” [Judaism teaches that Jesus was a bastard, sorcerer, blasphemer, and worse. How does that compare the teachings of the Christian New Testament about Jesus?]
    As for South Africa, your prognostication is not as dismal as mine. The Afrikaner is on his way to extinction. The genocide of the Afrikaner will be both by the more traditional violent method typically practiced in Africa and by the more subtle method typically practiced in the United States and the rest of the Western Hemisphere. [The Black controlled government of South Africa is now actively promoting genociding the Afrikaner and other White South Africans.] Most likely, Apartheid will win in the end. As the various South African tribes war with each other for supremacy, South Africa will become divided into several countries. There will be only four winners: the Black African leaders who survive to become dictators, the British multinational corporations, the international bankers, and the Soviet Union. [We can now omit the Soviet Union from the list. I guess that the globalist, i.e., the multinational corporations and international bankers, no longer have any use for the Soviet Union. Most likely, China will take the place of the extinct Soviet Union in South Africa.]
    Perhaps the reason that “genocide” is such an abused term is to conceal from the American public that genocide, as defined by the Genocide Convention, is an official governmental policy of the United States. Enclosed is an article that I wrote for the “Southern National Newsletter” after Congress approved legislation to implement the Genocide Convention in which I aver that according to the Convention, genocide is an official governmental policy in the United States.
    To conceal from the American public that they live in a fascist country, albeit a democratic fascist country if you want an apparent oxymoron, is perhaps why the term “fascist” is abused as much as if not more than “genocide.”  The United States are a fascist country. It has adopted the welfare state and it has total control of all property in the United States — both of which are key elements of fascism. As in the autocratic fascist countries about 50 years ago [now 75 years ago], individuals are allowed to own property, pay taxes on their property, and are held responsible and liable for their property.  However, the government tells them what they may, can, and shall do with their property and what they may not, cannot, and shall not do with their property. (The government may not be involved in all areas of property usage, but the people have conceded it the right to be so.) The government has the benefits of ownership while the property owners have the responsibility.

Copyright © 1990, 2019 by Thomas C. Allen.

More political articles.

The Best and Worst Presidents

The Best and Worst Presidents

Thomas Allen

Below are my lists of the ten worst presidents beginning with the worst and the ten best presidents ending with the best. Along with the name of the president, his party, years of his term, and a brief reason for inclusion on the list are given.
The hardest part about compiling these lists was deciding whom to leave off the worst list and whom to include on the best list. These lists are not partisan. Five Republicans and five Democrats are identified as the worst presidents. One Federalist, two Democratic-Republicans, two Whigs, three Republicans, and two Democrats are named as the best presidents.
The presidents named in the list of the worst presidents not only ignored their oath of office, but they also grossly violated it. However, the presidents in the list of the best presidents strove to keep their oath of office to defend the Constitution.
With this revision, Jackson has been removed from the list of best presidents and Cleveland has been added to the list of best president. The ranking of the best presidents has been reordered. Revisions have been made to Lincoln, Roosevelt, Johnson, Wilson, Bush, Nixon, Obama, Jefferson, Tyler, Washington, Coolidge, and Monroe.

The Worst Presidents
1. Abraham Lincoln, Republican, 1861-1865: destroyed the Constitution; caused the death of more than 600,000 men to impose his protective tariff; gave the country legal-tender paper fiat money; established the imperial presidency; gave the United States their (“its” in his mind) first conscription law; committed treason according to the Constitution when he levied war against States that he calmed never left the union; suppressed opposing opinions even with imprisonment without trial.

2. Franklin Roosevelt, Democrat, 1933-1945: brought fascism to the United States; ruled like dictator; virtually destroyed the family farm with his regulations; stole the people’s gold (real money); lied the United States into World War II; placed the United States economy on a wartime footing from which they have never left; recognized the Soviet Union and thus aided Stalin in his tyranny and butchery and gave Eastern Europe (really Central Europe) to the communists; laid the framework for the United Nation and the globalist foreign policy that followed.

3. Lyndon Johnson, Democrat, 1963-1969: brought the Civil Rights Act, war on poverty, the welfare state, an immigration law that favored non-Whites while discriminating against Whites, and other programs to enslave Blacks and to bring down Whites; enacted the Gun Control Act of 1968; reduced the States to mere provinces of the federal government; lied the United States into an expanded war in Vietnam; probably the meanest president ever and a co-conspirator in the assassination of Kennedy.

4. Woodrow Wilson, Democrat, 1913-1921: brought the interventionist foreign policy to the United States and thus globalism to America, the federal reserve system, direct election of senators (17th Amendment), the income tax (16th Amendment), and draconian laws that destroyed free speech and other liberties in the name of national security; lied the United States into World War I; dictatorially controlled the United States economy and nationalized the railroads and radio broadcasting to control information; established the regulatory state where regulatory agencies enacted rules (legislative), enforced their rules (executive), and decided if their rules had been violated (judicial).

5. George W. Bush, Republican, 2001-2009: allowed 9-11 to happen, established the Department of Homeland Security, with his war on terrorism brought the police state to the United States and sweeping spying on the American people; lied the United States into a war with Iraq; bailed out the big banks; gave the American people Agenda 21 by which they will lose all control of their property.

6. Richard Nixon, Republican, 1969-1974: ended the last connection that the dollar had with gold; recognized communist China and, by that, began China’s growth into a major world power; extended the Vietnam War for political purposes and abandoned American-Vietnam-War prisoners of war in Laos, adopted guaranteed income; imposed wage and price controls; created the EPA and OSHA; enforced force busing, ushered in affirmative action and racial quotas.

7. Barack H. Obama, Democrat, 2009-2017: destroyed what little the previous presidents had left of the United States, thus fundamentally transforming the United States; according to the Council on Foreign Relations, his was the “most multilaterally-inclined US administration in history;” made appointments without the advise and consent of the Senate.

8. William McKinley, Republican, 1897-1901: lied the country into war with Spain and made the United States an imperialistic country with the Spanish-American War and thus overthrew the tradition of the American foreign policy of nonintervention.

9. Ulysses S. Grant, Republican, 1869-1877: resided over most of Reconstruction with one of the most corrupt governments the country has ever had; brought the Long Depression, 1873-1879, which by some measures was worse than the Great Depression; accepted Sherman’s genocide of the plains Indians; ended the free coinage of silver, i.e., the Crime of ’73 (he claimed that he did so unknowingly, but he did not try to correct the problem once he became aware of it — a problem that was never corrected).

10. Jimmy Carter, Democrat, 1977-1981: probably the most incompetent president ever, admitted before he was elected that his presidency would be a failure (he said that if any Trilateralists were found in his administration that it would be a failure; then he proceeded to fill his administration with Trilateralists); established the Departments of Education and Energy.

The Best Presidents
10. James Monroe, Democratic-Republican, 1817-1825: was the last one standing after all the others were eliminated; generally followed Jefferson’s philosophy of government.

9.  John F. Kennedy, Democrat, 1961-1963: must have had something going for him since the CIA, FBI, the military-industrial complex, Lyndon Johnson, the Texas oil men, the Israelis, French, South Vietnam (Diem regime), Cubans (Castro), Russians, and others wanted him dead.

8. Warren G. Harding, Republican, 1921-1923: said no to the bankers when they wanted him to intervene to assuage the Depression of 1920-21, which was more intense than the Great Depression, for them; unlike the presidents who followed Franklin Roosevelt, he took the country off a wartime footing; eschewed the imperial pretensions of Woodrow Wilson; launched a disarmament movement that resulted in reducing the world’s navies and the Kellogg-Briand treaty to outlaw war.

7. Rutherford B. Hayes, Republican, 1877-1881: ended Reconstruction, though it was a political deal to give him the presidency at least he kept his word; ushered in returning to the gold standard (although the law to do so was enacted during the Grant administration).

6. Calvin Coolidge, Republican, 1923-1929: proponent of limited government,  protected the balance between the federal and State government, last president who truly favored States’ rights; pushed to reduce or eliminate the war taxes and unconstitutional regulations enacted during the Wilson administration; opposed farm subsidies because they were unconstitutional and would destroy the farmer’s independence and would increase supply while decreasing consumption; supported permanent peace and therefore opposed foreign adventurism and entangling alliances and thus opposed entering the League of Nations and refused to join the world court; the last president who tried to save the country; the last president to believe the Constitution as ratified.

5. George Washington, Federalist, 1789-1797: a republican at heart; could have been king but chose not to; set a policy of not entering into any entangling alliances; avoided getting involved in the war between Great Britain and France; thought that the veto should be reserved only for unconstitutional enactments.

4. Grover Cleveland, Democrat, 1885-1889 and 1893-1897: the last Jeffersonian president; attempted to return the country to constitutional government, vetoed more unconstitutional laws than any other president, took his oath of office seriously; supported limited government, frugal government, sound money, honest and responsible public servants, limited corporate privileges; opposed the federal government usurping powers reserved by the States or the people, handouts to special interests, the annexation of Hawaii against the will of the Hawaiian people; appointed Confederate veterans to his administration; refused to intervene to support the banks and big businesses that suffered from the Panic of 1893

3. John Tyler, Whig, 1841-1845: Abandon the Whig’s government-business partnership philosophy and adopted a strong states’ right philosophy (he became the president without a party); adhered to the Constitution better than any other president (no other president took his oath of office as seriously as he) and, therefore, some consider him to be the best president ever; supported secession; vetoed unconstitutional bills for a central bank, internal improvements, and protective tariffs (all of which were Whiggish programs); opposed patronage, i.e., the spoils system; presided over the annexation of Texas.

2. Thomas Jefferson, Democratic-Republican, 1801-1809: perhaps had the most frugal government of all presidents; perhaps came closer to obeying his oath of office than any other president (at least during his first term); believed in executive restraint, rejected the notion that the president should be involved in legislation (the president job is limited to making recommendations, Congress and not the president should the primary body for setting policy); opposed the Supreme Court usurping the authority to declare a law unconstitutional; opposed centralized banking.

1. William Henry Harrison, Whig, 1841: was not in office long enough to do any damage.

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Articles on Politics.

Analysis of Money No Mystery

Analysis of Money No Mystery

Thomas Allen

    The following is an analysis of Money No Mystery: Mastery by Monopoly by Arnold Leese [1938] (Hollywood, California: Sons of Liberty). Leese  (1878–1956) was a British fascist politician. What is proposed in his book is a fascist monetary system. He discusses some Jewish issues that are not addressed since they are beyond the scope and objective of this article. His words and my paraphrases or summaries of his words, I have italicized. My commentary is in roman letters. I have provided references to pages in his book and have enclosed them in parentheses.
    Mr. Leese comments on gold’s suitability for money. One property that makes gold suitable for money is its rarity (p. 3.). Rarity is an important characteristic for money if it is not too rare. What makes gold the most suitable metal for money is its flow-to-stock ratio. Annually, newly mined gold accounts for about 2 percent of the above ground stock of gold available for monetary use. Thus, newly mined gold does not have much effect on the value of gold.
    Mr. Leese remarks that irredeemable paper money had reached “a stage of general stability” (p. 3.). That may have been true during the late 1930s when he wrote. However, that stability was lost during World War II and the decades that followed.
    Like all fiat money advocates, Mr. Leese believes that governmental fiat gives money its value. Government can give otherwise worthless pieces of paper great value by declaring them legal tender and by that eliminate any need for gold backing (p. 3.). If governmental fiat can give money value, bimetallism would have worked. Gold and silver would have exchanged at the same value at the ratio decreed by the government. (Presumably, they would exchange at the same value even if various countries had radically different ratios.) If government fiat and legal-tender laws gave money its value, a $10 U.S. note would have had the same purchasing power as a $10 gold coin in the United States between 1862 and 1879. Instead U.S. notes traded at a discount to gold until they became redeemable on demand in gold.
    Mr. Leese claims, “No one inside this country [Great Britain] cared a scrap whether the legalised paper money was convertible or not into gold; he didn’t want gold; he wanted goods, and got them, through the scraps of paper legalised by the State as National Money” (p. 3.). That may be true. Only a miser wants money because it is money regardless of form. Most people want money so that they can trade it or invest it now or some time in the future. Convertibility into gold serves as a regulator of credit, paper money, and keeps it within proper bounds. If the government or banks are issuing too much paper money or other types of credit money, people will redeem the excess and halt the expansion. Gold keeps the monetary system honest and thwarts the expansionist programs of statists, which is why fascists and other statists hate it.
    Mr. Leese has a better understanding of the gold standard than most post-World-War-II writers, including proponents of the gold standard. He knew that the British pound was the value of 113 grains of gold (p. 4).
    Like most opponents of the gold standard, Mr. Leese declares, “Few people wanted to do this [exchange bank note for gold], because gold has limited functions in general utility; you can’t eat it, drink it, make clothes of it or even flirt with it; before you can make use of it, you have to exchange it for something you want” (p. 4). Thus, he presents one of the most absurd arguments that opponents of gold give. One can eat and wear gold. However, such an argument against gold is stupid and is intended to deceive. The same thing can be said about paper fiat money and even more so about its electronic equivalent. How does one eat, drink, and wear electrons, which make up the bulk of today’s money, flowing through some unknown computer at some unknown location?
    Mr. Leese makes an error common to most opponents and proponents of the gold standard. He asserts that if all paper money is not fully backed by gold, a true gold standard does not exist (p. 4.). The true gold standard does not require all paper money and other forms of market-generated credit money to be backed by gold. Bank credit money (bank notes and checkbook money) can also be backed by commercial money, real bills of exchange, which are themselves a form of market-generated credit money — the real bills doctrine.
    According to Mr. Leese, the international gold standard leads to people and countries attempting to corner gold to “become masters of the International Industrial situation.” Jews were the primary people who cornered gold. By cornering gold, Jews gain control of fixing the rate of interest (p. 4-5). Where the real bills doctrine operates, many financial transactions are with commercial money — not with gold. The propensity of consumers to buy fixes the discount rate of bills of exchange, which is not really interest — not the hoarders of gold. Hoarders of gold have much less power than their opponents give them. (A more detail discussion on hoarding gold is given in “Is Gold Too Easy to Manipulate?”)  As Jews control most of the paper money issued today through central bank operations, abandoning the gold standard for fiat paper money does not eliminate this issue. It does not assuage Leese’s problem of Jewish control of the monetary system. (Perhaps this is why the Protocols of Zion advocates abandoning the gold standard in favor of fiat paper money [v.i.].)
    Mr. Leese writes, “The Financier can, by using his control of Gold to expand or contract the volume of Money (currency or credit) in circulation, create boom or slump in Britain” (p. 5.). As post World-War-II history shows, the financier can more easily expand and contract the volume of paper money. He can expand the money supply far greater under today’s monetary system than he could under the gold standard. Thus, when the inevitable slump comes, it is more severe or last much longer than it would have under the gold standard.
    Like most opponents of the gold standard, Mr. Leese asserts that gold cannot “supply the industrial need for National Money” (p. 5). As I show in “There Is Enough Gold,” enough gold exists to accommodate world commerce several times over when accompanied by the proper credit system, the real bills doctrine. Enough gold was available in 2004 to accommodate 3.8 times the gross world product of 2007 without fractionalization of gold.
    Mr. Leese discusses Britain’s return to the gold standard following World War I (pp. 6-7).
    Mr. Leese writes, “OUR National Money must be divorced from its association with Gold” (p. 8). This part of his proposal has been achieved. In 1971 when President Nixon ended the gold exchange standard, Bretton Wood system, gold ceased any formal role in the world’s monetary systems.
    Mr. Leese states that countries (Great Britain) should pay for imports with domestic paper money that can only be exchanged for goods and services in the importing country (p. 8). To some degree, bills of exchange serve this purpose. The world is in the process of achieving the intent of his proposal by abandoning the U.S. dollar standard that has been in place since World War II. However, his proposal seems to require country A to buy from country B the value of products that it sells to country B. Such an arrangement would greatly hamper foreign trade.
    Mr. Leese recognizes the need to control the amount of money issued (p. 8). He does not offer any mechanism for doing this other than trusting politicians and bureaucrats. Thus, politicians and bureaucrats would have to act contrary to their nature by not seeking to increase their prestige, power, and wealth.
    Mr. Leese discusses how the practices of lending for interest came to Great Britain and the adverse effects of interest (pp. 9-12). Under fascism, interest on foreign loans belong to the people of the country as a whole and not to the individuals who lend the money abroad (p. 11). By “people as a whole” he probably means the government — at least that is what most statists mean. However, the government is not the people as a whole. It has never been and never will be. It is the small group of people controlling it. If the people as a whole are to receive the interest paid on foreign loans, some mechanism needs to be in place to divide that interest among the individuals of the country without the government getting part of it.
    Mr. Leese opposes the Social Credit scheme (p. 12). I discuss the flaws of Social “Credits in Analysis of Richard Cook’s Monetary Reforms.”
    Mr. Leese presents the monetary reforms of the Imperial Fascist League (pp. 12-15). A “Department of Issue is established to control absolutely the issue of currency and credit” (p. 13). Its objectives are:
    (1) Gradually inflate money and credit until the price level of commodities are raised to the level reached at the end of World War I (p. 13).
    (2) After achieving item 1 and in accordance with item 3, stabilize the purchasing power of money so that it becomes as fixed as the yard (meter), pint (liter), and pound (gram) and no longer varies; expand and contract the money supply to maintain a stable level of a general-price index (p. 13).
    (3) Adjust currency and credit until production is sufficient to satisfy the needs of the country and its exportation overseas (p. 13).
    (4) Retire gradually all external and internal interest-bearing government securities with non-interest bearing currency (pp. 13-14), i.e., with non-interest bearing government notes or central bank notes that function like government notes.
    (5) Adjust gradually “to the new values by limiting currency inflation, in the early stages, to State disbursements” (p. 14), i.e., the government gets the new money first before it loses value.
    (6) Distribute equitably credit inflation to agriculture and industry (p. 14).
    (7) Balance imports and exports by tariffs, embargoes, and trade packs that enforce equality in exchange value (p. 14). The trade issue is discussed above.
    Mr. Leese does not propose governmental ownership of banking. However, banks are stripped of their ability to create money via lending. That is, he advocates 100‒percent reserve banking. The government introduces new money by buying government securities and cancelling them and with low-interest loans. Only the government can lend money for mortgages, which are lent through deposit banks. The government fixes all bank interest rates (pp. 14-15).
    His proposal has so many flaws, one knows hardly where to begin. His system depends on the wisdom and integrity of politicians and bureaucrats. If that were not enough, his proposal also depends on them be omniscient. Governments have attempted items 1, 2, and 3. So far they have all failed.
    Moreover, all price indexes are flawed. They always over count some items and under count others. As people’s tastes constantly change, price indexes need to be revised often to account for changing tastes. Also, changes in technology affect quality and cost as well as offering new items not in the index. These changes need to be considered. An ever-changing price index makes comparing the cost of living over an extended time questionable. Furthermore, governmentally generated price indexes are subjected to political consideration. Politicians like to conceal inflation, so they adjust price indexes to hide the real cost of living.
    Most countries can achieve item 4, if so desired, by having their central banks buy all their securities. To keep such action from resulting in massive inflation,  if not hyperinflation, would require large-scale restraint of the monetary and banking system.
    When governments fix interest rates, they drive high-risk borrowers to the black market (loan sharks) for loans. To propose involving the government in the mortgage and lending markets is fuel for corruption and disaster. Governmental intervention in the mortgage and lending markets was a major contributor to the crash of 2008. When governments become involved in economic activities, politics usually trump economics.
    A great irony of Mr. Leese’s fascist proposal of replacing the gold standard with fiat paper money is that the Jewish Protocols of Zion has the same proposal. The Jewish proposal is set out in Protocol 20:

        The present issue of money in general does not correspond with the requirements per head, and cannot therefore satisfy all the needs of the workers. The issue of money ought to correspond with the growth of population and thereby children also must absolutely be reckoned as consumers of currency from the day of their birth. The revision of issue is a material question for the whole world.
        You are aware that the gold standard has been the ruin of the States which adopted it, for it has not been able to satisfy the demands for money, the more so that we [Jews] have removed gold from circulation as far as possible.
        With us [Jews] the standard that must be introduced is the cost of working-man power, whether it be reckoned in paper or in wood. We shall make the issue of money in accordance with the normal requirements of each subject, adding to the quantity with every birth and subtracting with every death.[1]

The two proposals merely disagree in the criteria to use in deciding how much money the government needs to inject into the economy. Was Mr. Leese an agent of the Jews?
    Mr. Leese’s proposal fails to achieve his purported goal. It does not make the monetary system or economy better — at least not in the long run. However, it greatly increases the power of the government, i.e., those who actually control the government, over the economy and the people. As such control is a goal of fascism, Mr. Leese’s proposal does successfully achieve that fascist goal.

Endnote
1. Protocol of the Learned Elders of Zion, ed. Sergyel Nilus, trans. Victor E. Marsden (1905, 1922), p. 16.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on money.