Trump Related Issues

Trump Related Issues

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are Trump using the National Guard to assist local law enforcement, the attitude of many Trump supporters toward free speech, and Trump and many of his supporters becoming like Establishment Republicans.

Chicago

With some justification, the mayor of Chicago objects to Trump using the National Guard to assist in local law enforcement. However, his objection is neither philosophical nor based on the Constitution.

Would the mayor have objected to Eisenhower using the regular army to force White students at the point of bayonets to go to integrated schools? Probably not. Like all liberals and many conservatives, he is a hypocrite. When the military is used to enforce what he supports, he does not object. When the military is used to enforce what he does not support, he objects.

If Trump were following Eisenhower’s example and using the regular army to force integration, would this mayor or any other liberal object? If they could overcome their hatred of Trump long enough, they would not object to Trump’s action but would support it.

Thus, the mayor shows that he is a hypocrite. His objection to Trump using the military for law enforcement in his city is not philosophical or constitutional. It depends on which laws that the army is being used to enforce.

Obviously, the mayor and a majority of the people in Chicago prefer to live in a crime-ridden city. If they did not, they would replace their light-on-crime political leaders with tough-on-crime political leaders. Trump should let them have what they want: a crime-ridden city.

If Trump uses the National Guard in Chicago, Portland, or other cities, he is acting like the autocratic dictator that the anti-Trumpers assert that he is. Today, Trump uses the National Guard to fight crime. Tomorrow, Democrats will use the National Guard to round up MAGA people to save democracy by protecting the country from terrorists and criminals (they consider MAGA people to be terrorists and criminals). With his unconstitutional actions of using the National Guard to fight crime, Trump will be setting the precedent for Democrats to use it unconstitutionally to imprison MAGA people. (Washington, D.C., is a special situation. It is a city that is constitutionally completely under the control of Congress, and federal law authorizes the President to use the military to a limited degree to enforce the law in the District of Columbia.)

Hate Speech

Far too many Republicans, conservatives, and Trump supporters are acting like Democrats. Like Democrats, they want to penalize people for “hate speech.” The only difference between them and the Democrats is that they disagree on what is hate speech. Like Democrats, they support free speech for themselves, but they want to suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree. 

The Charlie Kirk murder reveals their true colors. It is their equivalent of the Democrats using COVID-19, transgenderism (transgender people consider this term derogatory), and homosexuality to suppress speech. (Most Republicans and many conservatives now find homosexuality acceptable.)

Much of the left’s comments about Kirk are puerile, disgusting, despicable, and derogatory, which proves that those making these comments are reprehensible reprobates. However, the government should not censor such speech. Nevertheless, an employer should have the right to fire any employee making such comments if he finds them inappropriate and inconsistent with the image of his company. Also, anyone threatening another person may be held accountable.

Establishment Republicans

Unfortunately, Trump and most of his supporters are becoming more like Establishment Republicans. Like Establishment Republicans, they do not want to dismantle the Deep State; they want to use it against their opposition just as the Democrats have done. Additionally, like the Establishment Republicans, Trump has become a warmonger, and most of his supporters approve of this endeavor, especially with respect to Israel.

Just as Democrats and Establishment Republicans cut spending by increasing spending, so has Trump. Like them, he believes that he can borrow the country into prosperity: Ever-growing debt brings ever-growing prosperity.

Although Trump has been somewhat disruptive and is doing an excellent job in dismantling the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) idiocy, it looks like the Establishment and the Deep State will last until the country collapses into chaos and splits asunder.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

King on Racism and the White Backlash – Part 2

King on Racism and the White Backlash – Part 2

Thomas Allen

Next, King discusses the American Indian. He preferred genociding the American Indians by breeding them out of existence to White driving them from their land and replacing them. 

Continuing, King writes, “Thus through two centuries a continuous indoctrination of Americans has separated people according to mythically superior and inferior qualities while a democratic spirit of equality was evoked as the national ideal.” (P. 85.) He complains about the country not going full-throttle to give the Negro whatever he wanted and demanded. (Today, the Negro has much more than King thought possible. Now, the Negro has enslaved Whites to serve and support him.)

Then, King discusses the War on Poverty and complains about not enough money being spent on Negroes.

Correctly, King writes, “There is a double standard in the enforcement of law and a double standard in the respect for particular laws.” (P. 87.) (King is right. Negroes are allowed to violate laws, especially criminal laws, more so than are Whites. Police and most governmental agencies are less likely to enforce a law against a Negro than against a White.)

King writes, “To live with the pretense that racism is a doctrine of a very few is to disarm us in fighting it frontally as scientifically unsound, morally repugnant and socially destructive.” (P. 88.) (Except for White Communists and White oligarchs, all Whites are racists.) However, he continues, “A people who began a national life inspired by a vision of a society of brotherhood can redeem itself. But redemption can come only through a humble acknowledgment of guilt and an honest knowledge of self.” (P. 88.) (Thus, only self-debasement and kowtowing to the Negro in unconditional submission, do Whites have a slight chance of redemption. [Many Whites have so humiliated and degraded themselves, but they still are not redeemed.] In other words, Negroes have to treat Whites worst than the meanest and vilest White ever treated a Negro for White even begin thinking about achieving redemption. Of course, all of this is done in the name of love.)

Next, King writes, that “all men are created equal; every man is heir to a legacy of dignity and worth; every man has rights that are neither conferred by nor derived from the state, they are God-given.” (P. 89.) (Here, King mixes truth with falsehood. Not all races are made in the image of God; only the White race is made in the image of God [see "What Race Was Adam?" by Thomas Allen.] Men are not created equal. A five-foot, fat, klutz does not have the same opportunity of becoming a professional basketball center as does a seven-foot, agile, athlete. [See “Gottfried and Equality” by Thomas Allen.]  Short, fat klutzes may have an equal opportunity to apply for a job, but genetics denies them an equal chance of getting the job. Peoples are not even equal before the law [see “The Heritage Foundation on Critical Race Theory” by Thomas Allen]. Moreover, God is not an egalitarian [see “Respecter of Persons” by Thomas Allen]. If God were an egalitarian, then all would be saved with the same rewards, or all would be condemned with the same torment.)

The first step to redemption is “the journey home, the journey to full equality, . . . [which requires] a radical reordering of national priorities.” (P. 90.) Consequently, Whites need to spend their money primarily for the benefit of Negroes. Likewise, governments need to spend the taxpayers’ money for the benefit of Negroes. A just society requires spending vast sums of money for the benefit of Negroes. If Whites pay insufficient protection money to Negroes, riots and other acts of violence will occur. (In addition to giving Negroes  all sorts of benefits and privileges that Whites never enjoyed, Whites have spent vast sums of money for the benefit of Negroes. Yet, the Negro’s lust for lucre is still not satisfied. Now, they demand trillions of dollars in reparations.)

Further, King argues that money spent on space exploration and war should be spent on the Negro. (King-idolizing conservatives need to push that money wasted on war be given to Negroes.)

Next, King comments on the struggle of Negroes to attain dignity. (Negroes may or may not have obtained dignity, but they sure have stripped many Whites and nearly all White governmental, corporate, religious, media, and academic leaders of their dignity.)

Continuing, King declares, “The Negro is no longer ashamed that he is black —  he should never have permitted himself to accept the absurd concept that white is more virtuous than black.” (P. 92.) (However, many Whites are now ashamed of being White.) Negroes should not have allowed Whites to crush them with the propaganda that Whites are superior. “That day is fast coming to an end.” (P. 92.) (That day arrived decades ago. Now, Whites and Negroes have crushed Whites with the propaganda that Whites are inferior.)

According to King, poverty prevented Negroes from attaining dignity. (With the enormous quantities of money transferred from Whites to Negroes, poverty should be eliminated as an excuse for the lack of dignity.)  “If the society changes its concepts by placing the responsibility on its system, not on the individual, and guarantees secure employment or a minimum income, dignity will come within reach of all.” (P. 92.) (All King-idolizing conservatives need to promote democratic socialism, for this is what King is describing and wants.)

King writes, “Over the last few years many Negroes have felt that their most troublesome adversary was not the obvious bigot of the Ku Klux Klan or the John Birch Society, but the white liberal who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice, who prefers tranquillity to equality.” (P. 93.) (Robert Welsh, the founder of the John Birch Society, was a staunch integrationist [see “John Birch Society and Segregation” by Thomas Allen]. Also, William Jasper, editor of The New American, a magazine associated with the John Birch Society, was an integrationist [see “A Letter: Miscegenation” by Thomas Allen].) Continuing, King adds, “Even in areas where liberals have great influence — labor unions, schools, churches and politics — the situation of the Negro is not much better than in areas where they are not dominant.” (P. 92.) (In recent decades, most liberals seem to have overcome this deficiency as they outdo each other by lavishing privileges, wealth, and power on Negroes.)

Correctly, King notes, “Often white liberals are unaware of their latent prejudices.” (P. 93.) (Unlike Southerners, Northern liberals have not spent much time around Negroes, so they have to rely on mysticism or prejudicial stereotyping to guide them. While Southerners who have not been indoctrinated with wokeism view Negroes realistically, Northerners generally view Negroes in one of two ways. Some idolize the Negro and believe that he is like a White person of high moral character but only with dark skin. Others resort to stereotypes: The Negro is a criminal brute or a lethargic, listless, lazy loafer.) King condemns liberals for their lack of alacrity and speed in surrendering White America unconditionally to King’s demands. (Since King wrote this essay, not only have liberals surrendered unconditionally to the Negro, but so have most conservatives. Is America any better now than then?)

According to King, any liberal who fails to accept interracial marriages negates his claim to genuine liberalism. (Thus, King reveals that he has no reservations about genociding the American Negro via miscegenation. Likewise, most liberals and conservatives lack reservations about genociding the Negro via miscegenation.) When interracial marriage is so acceptable and common that no one ever questions it, the disease of racism is cured. (Thus, the cure of racism is to genocide the races via miscegenation. One wonders if King believed that mulattos and mestizos are superior or if he hates Whites so much that he is willing to genocide the American Negro to genocide the White race. And this is evidence of love?)

Then, King states, “The white liberal must see that the Negro needs not only love but also justice.” (P. 95.) Further, King states, “The white liberal must affirm that absolute justice for the Negro simply means, in the Aristotelian sense, that the Negro must have ‘his due.’” (If the Negro received ‘his due’ and the same justice as Whites, far more Negroes would be in prison, and fewer Whites would be in prison.)

Next, King asserts that the Negro’s demand for justice is “a troublesome concept for many liberals, since it conflicts with their traditional ideal of equal opportunity and equal treatment of people according to their individual merits. But this is a day which demands new thinking and the reevaluation of old concepts. A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, in order to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis.” (P. 95.) (Since King did not want Negroes to be judged on their merit, he must have believed that they lacked merit and were really inferior. Thus, King demanded equity, equality of outcome, for Negroes instead of equality of opportunity and treatment. [Consequently, King-idolizing conservatives should cease preaching equality of opportunity and start preaching equality of outcome.] To placate the Negro, merit and equality of opportunity and treatment have been replaced with special privileges and benefits for Negroes so that they can achieve equity. Now, less-qualified Negroes are hired instead of more-qualified Whites. Universities admit less-qualified Negroes over more-qualified Whites. Yet, the Negro’s greed and lust remain unsatisfied.)

Mistakenly, King claims, “The Negro has not gained a single right in America without persistent pressure and agitation.” (P. 96.)  (The fifteenth amendment gave suffrage to Negro men. Negro pressure and agitation did not cause this amendment to be ratified. White Republicans gave them suffrage because of the growing popularity of the Democrats in the North. To retain control of Congress, the Republicans needed more Republican voters in the North. They expect most Negroes to vote for Republicans, so they gave them the vote.)

King writes, “that the oppressed person who agitates for his rights is not the creator of tension.” (P. 96.) (That is, the Negro has no responsibility for any of his violent acts and should not be held accountable for his violent acts. Whites are the blame for all violent acts of Negroes. Even after surrendering unconditionally to the demands of Negroes and giving them nearly everything that they demand, except reparations, Whites are still the blame.)

Moreover, King insists that the Negro protests, demonstrations, and riots did not cause a White backlash. “[T]he hatred and the hostilities were already latently or subconsciously present.” (P. 96.) By bringing these hostilities to the surface, the Negro was like a physician informing his patient that he has cancer. Therefore, the Negro was doing Whites a service by destroying their country, society, and culture to save them from the rot of racism.

Next, King, condemns Negroes who “have uttered anti-Semitic sentiments.” (P. 97.) However, “the amount of anti-Semitism found among Negroes is no greater than is found among white groups of the same economic strata.” (P. 97.) “The limited degree of Negro anti-Semitism is substantially a Northern ghetto phenomenon; it virtually does not exist in the South.” (P. 97.) (The lack of antisemitism among Southern Negroes may result from a lack of contact that they had with Jews. Familiarity breeds contempt as often as it breeds harmony.) Nevertheless, Jewish maltreatment of Negroes caused the antisemitism of Negroes. (Again, Negroes are not responsible.) Moreover, “Negroes cannot be expected to curb and eliminate the few who are anti-Semitic.” (P. 98.) (Yet, King expected White liberals to curb and eliminate White segregationists.)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Allen.

Part 1, Part 3

More social issues articles.

Losing Control

Losing Control

Thomas Allen

White liberals, progressives, and conservatives are losing control of the Black mobs that they have created. Blacks are now destroying icons of White liberals, progressives, neoconservatives, and establishment conservatives: Lincoln, Grant, and abolitionists. They are attacking anything that memorializes Whites — and self-loathing Whites join them in destroying White heritage.

To most of these White albusphobes, Blacks are identical to Whites except for some external physical features. Thus, Blacks are Whites with more melanin, platyrrhine noses, and woolly hair. They are not. Blacks differ significantly from Whites and other races in many nonphysical attributes (see “Nonphysical Racial Differences” by Thomas Allen).

Unlike most Whites, most Blacks lack the ability to think abstractly. Consequently, Blacks have difficulty thinking about the future, thinking counterfactually (how would I feel if  . . . ?), and working with numbers and mathematics. Lacking the ability to think abstractly leads to moral problems. For most Whites, morality is internalized, i.e., most Whites resist stealing even if no one is around to stop them. Lacking the ability to think abstractly, most Blacks are deficient in internal morality. Their morality is enforced by external forces, such as the police or a strong authoritarian leader. (This lack of internal morality is seen in the explosion of crime by Blacks in places where the police have been significantly reduced.) (For more information about the nonphysical differences between Blacks and Whites, see Racism, Guilt, Self-hatred and Self-deceit by Gedaliah Braun [2008], who taught philosophy in Africa for many years and derived his conclusions from observation and frank discussions with Blacks. Not only is he not a Negrophobe, but he also approaches being a Negrophile. Unlike most Whites, who are racial nihilists, he is a racial realist.)

In “Curse of the Ghetto Golems” (July 26, 2022), David Cole gives two examples of left-wingers trying to use Blacks to implement their communist and progressive agendas. They are Herbert Aptheker, an atheistic Jew who was a prominent American communist, and George Soros, an atheistic Jew who considers the White race and Western traditions akin to Nazism and, therefore, have to be destroyed.

Herbert Aptheker. Aptheker was a prominent communist during the middle of the twentieth century. He and his comrades organized the civil rights movement. Urging Blacks to destroy America, he encouraged Black militancy and radicalism. Although Aptheker idealized Blacks, they were still just instruments to achieve his goal of communism. Not only were Blacks to destroy America, but they were also to build a Marxist utopia on the rubble. 

Unfortunately, for Aptheker, he lost control of his Blacks. They excelled in the violent part of the communist revolution. However, they replaced the ideological violence of communism with common thuggery.

George Soros. Soros is an unusual atheistic Jew in that he is neither a Zionist nor a communist. Yet, like a good communist, he seeks to destroy Western Civilization and the White race that founded it. To him, Western Civilization is Nazism, and Whites are Nazis.

To destroy his imaginary Nazis, Soros has spent billions of dollars to prevent the prosecution and incarceration of Black criminals. Consequently, crimes by Blacks have soared. To Soros, Blacks are merely tools used to achieve his dastard objectives.

Unlike Aptheker, Soros expected only common thuggery from Blacks. He does not seek to convert them to communism. He just wants to unleash their innate urge for violence and thuggery and to protect them from the consequence of their criminal actions.

Unfortunately, for Soros, his Black leaders have embarrassed him by using the money that Soros gave them for rioting for their own pleasures. Soros discovered that his Black leaders were using his money for their benefits and not for riots.

Moreover, Soros heavily financed Black Lives Matter (BLM). In return, he did get some riots, but BLM used much of the money to buy mansions.

Both Aptheker and Soros started off using Blacks to advance their agendas. However, Blacks ended up using Aptheker and Soros to advance their causes, which is usually enriching themselves.

The global elites are trying to create a civil war in the United States. When the war comes, what will White and antigun liberals, progressives, wokespersons, and social justice people do? Their albusphobia and Negrophilia prevent them from allying with Whites albusphiles, who have little use for these traitors, whose continuous unconditional surrendering to Blacks is a leading cause of the war. Moreover, except as a source of wealth, Blacks have no use for these wimps. Most likely, Blacks will go after the lightly-armed White albusphobes long before they will go after the heavily armed White albusphiles.

Unfortunately for Blacks, most Asians, Latinos, and other nonwhites may ally with the White albusphiles because most of them have a lower opinion of Blacks than do most White supremacists. If a real shooting war comes between Blacks and the rest of the country, Blacks will lose.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

More Social Issues Related to Blacks

More Social Issues Related to Blacks

Thomas Allen

White supremacy, preservation of the American Negro, segregation at universities, and social justice reforms are discussed below.

White Supremacy

Do White supremacists exist in the United States today? Yes, a majority of the White population in the United States is White supremacists.

White supremacy is alive and prospering. However, it is not in the form of the stereotypical Klansman of yesteryear, who is now almost extinct. Today’s White supremacists are progressives, liberals, neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, many libertarians. Today, White supremacists are those who support the civil rights movement and the welfare state because they believe that Blacks cannot succeed on their own. They need Whiteys’ succor. If these people want to see a White supremacist, all that they need to do is to look in a mirror.

White supremacy today exists as White parentalism toward Blacks. These Whites believe that Blacks can only advance and prosper with Whitey’s aid. Thus, they have granted Blacks many privileges that they deny themselves, such as affirmative action, quotas, lower scores for college entrance, and set-asides. Further, these White supremacists support the Civil Rights Acts, the welfare state, and most of the programs of Johnson’s Great Society and their descendants. 

Moreover, Blacks who support or believe the claims of civil rights and welfare proponents believe in White supremacy because they believe that Blacks are so inferior that they can accomplish nothing without Whitey’s granting Blacks special privileges.

Preservation of the American Negro

If conservatives, liberals, progressives, and libertarians were asked if the American Negro, the Black race of America, should be preserved and saved from genocide, all would answer yes. Likewise, if asked if they opposed policies that resulted in the genocide of the American Negro and supported policies that preserved the American Negro, they would again answer yes.

However, if one looks at the policies that conservatives, liberals, progressives, and libertarians promote and the policies that they oppose, one would discover that they have lied. They do not care about protecting the American Negro from genocide. If they wanted to save the American Negro, they would support policies that segregate and separate the races. Moreover, they would oppose policies that integrate and amalgamate the races. Therefore, they act oppositely from their assertion about their desire to preserve the American Negro, the Black race of America. The exception is that some liberals and progressives weakly promote some policies that aid in the preservation of the American Negro. 

Segregation at Universities

Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) sent a letter to Attorney General Barr urging him to investigate the “alarming trend of racial segregation” occurring at some universities. Universities are allowing nonwhite students to create race-based dormitories and events for Blacks and other “people of color.” (Whites are not granted such privileges except by exclusion.)

Specifically, they object to one major university having racially segregated online discussion groups with racially segregated moderators. Thus, the university created a discussion group for nonwhites only and another for Whites only.

Also, they object to another major university holding “segregated training sessions for resident assistants (RA), students who oversee dorms and enforce policies and rules.” One session was for resident assistants who were White, and another was for resident assistants who were Black and other people of color. The nonwhite session was described as “Healing Space for Staff of Color,” and the White session was described as “White Accountability Space.”

These two senators claim that such segregation violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. They express sadness about the growing trend of segregation, especially on college campuses. (These two senators err in believing that the Civil Rights Act applies to segregation by nonwhites. It intended to prevent Whites from segregating. It was never intended to prevent nonwhites from segregating.)

These two senators rail against the defense offered by the universities. The universities’ defense is that racial segregation gives “members of certain racial groups, especially minority groups, spaces where they can discuss shared concerns and issues. Thus, these defenders attempt to portray racial segregation as a tool to further diversity.” (Blacks who are seeking segregation and the university administrators who approve these requests for segregation show much more intelligence than these two senators. Unlike these senators, Blacks know that segregation promotes diversity. They know that segregation preserves diversity while integration destroys diversity. [See “Diversity” by Thomas Allen.])

Like neoconservatives and liberals, Senators Cotton and Loeffler believe that the United States are a creedal country and not a genetic country. (Also, these two senators are racial nihilists, who practice the new morality, and have no qualms about genociding the American Negro. Genociding the American Negro will be the result of the policies that they are urging.)

(Reference: “Public Colleges Defy Federal Law with Racially Segregated Events to Further Diversity,” Judicial Watch, November 13, 2020, https://www.judicialwatch.org/corruption-chronicles/public-colleges-defy-federal-law-with-racially-segregated-events-to-further-diversity/, accessed December 2, 2020.)

Social Justice Reform

Social justice reform is easy. All that the government has to do is to release all Blacks from prison and exempt all Blacks from all laws. Then, Blacks would no longer have to pay taxes or obey traffic laws. Moreover, they will no longer be arrested for any crime including battery, theft, rape, or murder. Also, they should be allowed to take any job of any White including that of a CEO of major corporations. Further, the employer cannot require Blacks to do any work and cannot fire them. Blacks may take the house of any White along with his furniture, cars, and all other property, and the White may not object. Also, Blacks may use White women, men, and children for their sex toys without any objection from the White toys. Thus, Blacks will have received justice — if they can stop killing each other long enough to enjoy the fruits of their thefts.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues 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.

Coulter on Race — Part 2

 Coulter on Race — Part 2

Thomas Allen

According to Coulter, Republicans are the friends of Blacks, and Democrats are their enemies. Republicans have been ardent supporters of civil rights for Blacks and integration. Historically, Democrats have been opponents of civil rights for Blacks and supporters of segregation.

During the Jim Crow Era, segregationist Democrats were responsible for all the problems of Blacks. Now, during the Civil Rights Era, liberal Democrats are responsible for all the problems of Blacks. Liberal Democrats have crippled and retarded Blacks with leniency toward criminals and the rewarding welfare state. [Yet, Blacks continue to support liberal Democrats. But then, Blacks are never responsible for their problems and actions.]

The Democrats expelled the White segregationists from their party and began to attack White segregationists because the segregationists were causing the party to lose too many votes. [Now, Democrats not only support but also encourage segregation by nonwhites. Republicans like Coulter oppose segregation by both Whites and nonwhites.]

Coulter is highly critical of Democrats for “denying blacks the right to vote, to go to school, to sit in nonsegregated diners and to use the same water fountain as whites” (p. 163). [She is referring primarily to the Southern Democrats. Unless they failed to meet the qualifications for voting, which were the same for both Whites and Blacks once the grandfather provisions faded away, Blacks were not legally denied the right to vote. Moreover, no one prevented legally Blacks from going to school; Whites heavily subsidized Black schools. Also, she has a low opinion of Black diners since she implies that White divers were superior to Black diners. Now, Blacks are allowed to segregate diners, but Whites are not. If Blacks could not drink from White fountains, Whites could not drink from Black fountains.]

Coulter claims that Democrats have always favored racial discrimination. In the 1960s, however, it switched from discrimination against Blacks to discriminating against Whites. [Since World War II, Republicans have always favored Blacks over Whites. If not, when Republicans held power, they would have repealed all the laws and executive orders that discriminated against Whites in favor of Blacks. Moreover, discrimination shows discernment; Republicans seem to lack discernment.]

If liberals, the Democratic Party, and the media would cease poking the fires of racism, the flames of racism would be reduced to dying smoldering coals — so Coulter implies. [However, more than this is needed. For example, studies on racism, consciousness-raising sessions about racism, articles denouncing racism, and other actions against racism, all of which Coulter seems to endorse, need to vanish.] 

She writes, “Democrats’ commitment to civil rights has always been directly proportional to how much it helps them politically.” [The same is true of Republicans.] 

[While condemning Democrats, Coulter overlooks that most Blacks are Democrats. Consequently, she condemns her beloved Blacks with her attacks on Democrats.] 

While presenting Democrats as Negrophobes, she presents Republicans as Negrophiles. She brags that most Republicans were and are integrationists. In Congress, most Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [Therefore, most Republicans promote policies that lead to amalgamation and the resulting genocide of Blacks. Moreover, this act is the basis for progressive power.]

In addition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, she boasts about the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments that the Republicans ram through. [The thirteenth amendment did not free any slaves in the South; they were already freed before it was ratified. It freed slaves outside the Confederate States. The fourteenth amendment was adopted illegally. The fifteenth amendment did not give Blacks the right to vote in the South; they already had the vote before this amendment was proposed. It gave the vote to Blacks in the North where some States denied them the vote. Its purpose was to keep Northern State Republican —just as the Democrats want to give illegal aliens the vote because most of them will support Democrats.]

Furthermore, she vaunts about Republicans enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which conferred citizenship to Negroes after overriding President Andrew Johnson’s veto. Also, the Republicans passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867 and sent troops to the South to enforce it. [Thus, she displays her disdain for the South and Southerners and endorses oppression and tyranny if they are done in the name of promoting and protecting Blacks. The primary objective of these two laws was to finish destroying the South by stripping it of the wealth that Lincoln’s War had not destroyed and to use Blacks to humiliate and genocide Southerners. Aiding Blacks was only incidental to these laws. If the primary purpose of these laws were to aid Blacks as she claims, then upwards of half or more of the 1865-Black population would not have died during Reconstruction. Moreover, if Republicans were Negrophiles as Coulter maintains, their party platform would not have contained a clause to keep Blacks out of the territories.]

She does an excellent job of illustrating the hypocrisy of liberals. Correctly, she blames liberals for destroying the Black family.

Further, she blames the poor Black behavior on liberals because they did not punish Blacks for acting like redneck Southerners. Instead, liberals rewarded bad behavior and penalized good behavior. Such action has greatly harmed Blacks.

She identifies the beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Movement:

The only people who had ever benefited from the left’s lunacy on race were (1) professional blacks and (2) self-righteous white liberals, who congratulated themselves on their own ethnic sensitivity while moving heaven and earth to make sure their own kids didn’t go to school with black kids (p. 15).

[Since most conservatives echo the left’s position on race, they are just as loony and benefit the same as White liberals.]

She condemns Whites’ condescending to self-appointed Black leaders like Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Lewis Farrakhan.

Liberal reporters, most of whom are Whites, like to hurl the accusation of racism at conservatives and Republicans. Such accusations often destroy careers and reputations. [Instead of rejecting the accusation and attacking the accuser, most conservatives and Republicans accept the accusation and grovel at the feet of an unforgiving Black potentate and degrade themselves begging for forgiveness. Such reprehensible actions only cause loss of respect for the beggar and encourage future accusations.] Her advice for people who are falsely accused of racism is to declare: “You are a liar. That never happened” (p. 244). 

According to Coulter, White liberals have the luxury of being immune to the charge of “racism.” [However, that is changing as Blacks are lumping them with all other Whites.]

Using Al Sharpton as an example, she comments on the double standard of liberals, Democrats, and the media. They praised Sharpton for doing things that if Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell would have done, liberals, Democrats, and the media would have condemned them.

Coulter notes that liberals instill racial hatred in Blacks: “The problem with liberals’ constantly imputing racist hatred to white people was that it kept creating real racist hatred in black people—ending with real dead white people.” (p. 94.)

Overall, Whites are more tolerant of homosexuals than are Blacks. Yet, liberals, who adore homosexuals, did not condemn Blacks for their homophobia. Instead, they either ignore or justify their homophobia.

While liberals idolize Black criminals and revere Blacks who fake hate crimes, they have little use for honest Blacks. Moreover, liberals promote Black hostility toward Whites.

She condemns Franklin Roosevelt for putting a Klansman on the US Supreme Court, refusing to desegregate the military, giving Blacks make-work government jobs, and putting them on welfare. Thus, he brought Black advancement to a halt. Consequently, in the North, Blacks began supporting Democrats instead of Republicans. According to her, Southerners did not let Blacks vote. [When Blacks in the South were allowed to vote, they voted for her despicable Democrats.]

Although the liberal’s approach to helping the Negro was idiotic, at least according to Coulter, they picked the group that deserved special treatment. [Thus, Coulter endorses Black privileges denied to Whites.] She adds, “Civil rights aren’t supposed to be bounties for every self-obsessed group with a grievance” (p. 147). [Accordingly, civil rights are only for Blacks and are not for anyone else. Apparently, Whites with a grievance against Black privileges should be denied their civil rights because civil rights are only for Blacks.]

She criticizes liberals for using Blacks to promote issues that do not help Blacks, such as, national health care, abortion, and homosexual marriage — most Blacks do not support these issues. [Yet, they vote for Democrats who support these issues.] However, liberals have been successful in using Blacks to advance their progressive causes. [Progressivism grew out of Lincoln and the Republicans, whom Coulter adores.] Another complaint that she has about liberals is that they treat Blacks like children. [Conservatives often act the same by supporting special privileges for Blacks as Coulter does.]

Democrats want to expand civil rights victims to cover women, homosexuals, illegal immigrants, transgenders, and most other groups except heterosexual White males. Being a Negrophile, Coulter wants to restrict civil rights to Blacks.

According to Coulter, because Blacks suffered under slavery and Jim Crow, they deserve favorable treatment. [Favorable treatment for Blacks requires discrimination against Whites. So, what is the difference between Coulter and Democrats other than Democrats want to give other groups favorable treatment?]

Consequently, Coulter adamantly opposes the feminist movement and the shift of civil rights from Blacks to women. This shift moved Blacks “to the back of the bus” (p. 157). She disdains feminists promoting rare White-on-Black rape to advance the feminist agenda. So rare is White-on-Black rape that feminists have to resort to hoaxes. Between 2003 and 2008, no White-on-Black rapes were recorded. However, during this time, Blacks raped several thousand White women per year and raped Black women at an even higher rate.

Like Democrats, Coulter supports Roosevelt’s application of the Interstate Commerce Clause except that she extends it much further than he did[, which far exceeds that intended by the Constitution of the founding fathers]. Also, like liberals, she supports extending the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment to private companies[, which the authors of this clause did not intend]. Then she complains about Democrats expanding the Interstate Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause to women and other groups. 

Coulter discusses Bob Jones University and believes that its policy against interracial dating was silly and its theology was incorrect. However, its policy applied to both Blacks and Whites. Whites could not date Blacks, and Blacks could not date Whites. [Yet, she does not apply this reasoning to segregated schools. Blacks were assigned to Black schools, and Whites to White schools. Blacks could not go to White schools, and Whites could not go to Black schools. Both races were treated the same. Moreover, she shows that she has no concerns about supporting policies that lead to breeding Blacks out of existence. Also, she is wrong about prohibiting interracial dating as theologically incorrect. The Bible forbids interracial mating and marriages.] Anyway, Bob Jones repented of its evil ways and became politically correct by allowing interracial dating.

Coulter presents the typical Republican diatribe against Democrats. Republicans are Negrophiles; Democrats are Negrophobes. Republicans promote integration and, therefore, promote the amalgamation and genocide of Blacks. Democrats promote segregation and, therefore, promote the separation and preservation of Blacks. Segregationists are the only people whom she hates more than Democrats, who are almost synonymous with segregationists in her mind.

Moreover, she accuses Democrats of trying to destroy the country, which they are. Yet, she promotes policies that do the same thing although she is too blind with her love for Blacks and hatred for Southerners, segregationists, and Democrats to realize it. She promotes Whites surrendering their political power to Blacks. Wherever and whenever Whites have surrendered political power to Blacks, the results have been disastrous. Africa is a prime example. Other examples are the Southern States during Reconstruction and the major cities run by Blacks. Why does she think this time will be different? Democrats know that Whites surrendering political power to Blacks will be destroyed the country. That is the reason that they push this surrender. Why does Coulter want to aid them in bringing down the country?

  Coulter thought that America’s insanity with race and White guilt ended with the completion of the O.J. Simpson trial. However, this reprieve lasted for only a few years. As she notes, Obama brought back racism with his presidency.

Nevertheless, the election of Obama proves that America is not racist. Many Whites voted for Obama to prove that they were not racists. White guilt elected Obama to the presidency. She blames White guilt for electing many of the Black liberal Democrats to office and the resulting disasters that their policies cause. 

Coulter wants the country to move beyond race. However, liberal Democrats make just about everything about race. (Only two ways can her dream be achieved. One is the physical separation of the races, which is the Scriptural way and which she rejects. The other way is the complete amalgamation of the races to form motley mongrel man.)

One of the flaws of her book is that she fails to define “racism,” which is the soul of her book. Nevertheless, if you want to read a book written by a racial nihilist who practices the new morality of sacrificing Blacks on the altar of humanity, this is the book for you.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Part 1.

Some Comments on Blacks

Some Comments on Blacks

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are judging people by their character and not their race, comparison of antebellum Blacks to today’s Blacks, the Jim Crow Era.

Judging by Character and Not by Race
Most White libertarians, conservatives, liberals, and progressives like to boast about not noticing a person’s race. That is, they like to boast about being racial nihilists. They cite M.L. King’s statement: “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

However, in noticing a person’s race, White liberals and progressives far exceed libertarians and conservatives in their hypocrisy. White liberals and progressives are quick to notice a person’s race when elevating a nonwhite above a White, when praising a nonwhite race, or when castigating the White race. Most White conservatives seem to suffer from some kind of disassociation disorder. They want to be politically correct and not notice a person’s race. Yet, they also hesitate to dishonor their ancestors and commit racial genocide. Having a suicidal ideology, libertarians are most consistent at being racial nihilists.

Most nonwhites do not have the racial problems that inflict Whites. They acknowledge that they are a genetic people, and most still believe that their genetics are worth preserving. Many Whites are torn between considering themselves a genetic people or a propositional people where race and, therefore, genetics are irrelevant, and the White race is not worth saving. Regrettably, for the White race, many Whites, especially neoconservatives, libertarians, liberals, and progressives have decided that they are a propositional people.

Now, let us return to judging people by character and not by race. While one of these White people is walking down the street in Detroit, for example, he encounters a group of Black teenage boys heading toward him. On the other side of the street is a group of White teenage boys. (1) Is he going to hurry toward the Blacks and interview them and then cross the street and interview the Whites so that he can discern their character? To carry out this approach, he has to command the Whites remain where they are while he interviews the Blacks and the Blacks remain where they are while he interviews the Whites. (2) Is he going to continue to walk toward the Blacks to prove that he is not a racist, not prejudice, not bias, and does not judge people by their race? (3) Or, is he going to play the odds by crossing the street where the White boys are, thus showing that he judges people by their race? Be honest, which would you do?

Blacks Then and Now
In antebellum times, the plantation owner provided his Blacks with free housing, free food, and free medical care. Today, the United States government and State and local governments provide their Blacks with free housing, free food, and free medical care. Moreover, they outdo the plantation owner by providing their Blacks with even more free stuff.

However, some important differences exist between the two. By requiring his Blacks to work for their keep, the plantation owner gave his Blacks some sense of dignity. Moreover, he paid for their keep with his money. Governments do not require work from their Blacks; thus, they make their Blacks parasites. Furthermore, governments reward their Blacks for not working. Even worst, they reward their Blacks with other people’s money.

Fortunately, some Blacks have freed themselves from the plantation mentality. Unfortunately, many Blacks have not freed themselves from the plantation mentality. For them, freedom means freedom from work.

Jim Crow
Most commentators harshly condemn the Jim Crow Era of segregation for its cruelty, injustice, discrimination, etc. Little is said or written about that era that is positive.

The primary difference between Jim Crow in the North and the South is that in the North restrictions on Blacks was by custom. In the South, they were by statue. These restrictions on Blacks were also restrictions on Whites; thus, these restrictions worked in both directions. (One Black noted that Jim Crow in the South was better than Jim Crow in the North. At least in the South, a Black knew in which restaurants he could and could not eat. However, in the North, a Black had to endure the embarrassment of not being waited on to know that he was not allowed to eat there.)

Nevertheless, the Jim Crow Era did have a positive effect on Blacks. It gave them independence and taught them to rely on themselves — collectively and individually — and not to rely on whitey. Unlike today, when Blacks receive preference for welfare to Whites, under Jim Crow, Whites received preference. Therefore, Blacks had to rely more on themselves during the Jim Crow Era than now.

Moreover, the Jim Crow Era created a growing Black middle class. For that reason, the Communist strove to replace Jim Crow with civil rights and integration. They were highly successful. After the Civil Rights Era of integration supplanted the Jim Crow Era, Blacks became ever more dependent on the government. Via the welfare state, they became slaves of the great White plantation master in Washington and his overseers in the State capitals.

During the Jim Crow Era, Blacks had a higher moral standard than they have had under the Civil Rights Era. Then, they had more families with both a father and a mother than now. They had a lower percentage of children born out of wedlock than now. Also, Black sacrificed far fewer of their children to Lucifer at the abortion clinics than now. Moreover, the rate of crime for Blacks then was lower than now.

During the Jim Crow Era, few Americans suffered from the mental illnesses of Confederaphobia, Dixiephobia, albusphobia, and racial nihilism. Nearly all adhered to the old morality of racial preservation, especially the preservation of one’s own race. In the Civil Rights Era, a large and growing number of Americans suffer from Confederaphobia, Dixiephobia, albusphobia, and racial nihilism. Although most nonwhites still follow the old morality, most Whites now follow the new morality of sacrificing the races, especially the White race, on the altar of humanity.

Whereas Jim Crow laws gave Whites advantages over Blacks, Civil Rights laws give Blacks advantages over Whites. Further, Civil Rights laws give Blacks more advantages than Jim Crow laws ever gave Whites. Jim Crow laws never sought to destroy the Black society, culture, and race; they even protected them. However, an objective of the Civil Rights laws has been to destroy White society, culture, and race — especially Southerners and their society and culture.

The Jim Crow Era ended with the last major White resistance to forced integration, which occurred in Boston in the mid 1970s. Thus, ended Jim Crow.

Nevertheless, contrary to the popular myth, Blacks had many advantages and benefits under Jim Crow that they have lost during the Civil Rights Era.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Zionism and the Middle East

Zionism and the Middle East

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 1988, 2021 by Thomas C. Allen.

More political articles.

More Thoughts Related to the US Constitution

More Thoughts Related to the US Constitution

Thomas Allen

Below are discussed the underlying principle of the US Constitution, two views of the Constitution, a government of, by, and for the people, and the meaning of the phrase “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence.

US Constitution

The United States Constitution is (or at least originally was) an agreement among the several States, which created the US government to serve as an agent of States. It is not a contract or agreement between the State and the US government. Unfortunately, the US government has usurped the powers of the States and has subordinated the States to its will. Consequently, the US government has become the master, and the creators, the several States, the servants.

An analogy of the United States is a partnership. The partners agree to hire an attorney to represent them in specific legal matters. Then, the attorney expands the powers that the partners had delegated him until he becomes the overlord of the partnership. Moreover, the attorney refuses to allow any of the partners to leave the partnership. This illustrates what has happened to the United States and their constitution.

Two Views of the Constitution

In Northern Rebellion and Southern Secession (1904), E. W. R. Ewing describes two views of the US Constitution:

The Democratic Party, led by Thomas Jefferson, held that “sovereignty could exist alone in its source”; and that the people of the respective States were this source; and that the people could act only through conventional power; that the Federal Government was a municipality, the creature of the people of the several State organizations; that the Constitution had been established as the “guide, and standard, and rule of legislation, executive and judicial authority and functions.” The Federal party, led by the elder Adams, admitted that the people of the States were the original source of sovereignty, but contended that they had delegated that sovereignty to the Federal Government, and that under the Constitution, Congress now had national sovereignty (page 28).

With the election of Lincoln and the Republicans, the Federalist view of sovereignty became dominant and has remained dominant to this day. Rare is a politician, especially at the Federal level, who holds the Jeffersonian view of sovereignty. 

Government of, by, and for the People

Politicians, teachers, and others never tire of telling us that we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Further, they tell us that the people are the masters, and the government (politicians and bureaucrats) are the servants.

What a pack of lies! What a pack of liars! We do not have a government of, by, and for the people: We have a government of, by, and for politicians and bureaucrats. Moreover, the government is the master, and the people are the servants — or, perhaps more correctly, the slaves.

Proof. Masters have the right to know what their servants are doing when they are performing their jobs. Servants do not have the right to know what their master is doing. Does the government have secret information that it keeps from the people? Yes. Does the government claim that it has the right to know what the people are doing? Yes. Does the government spy on the people and otherwise collect and compile private information about the people? Yes. Therefore, politicians and bureaucrats are the masters and the people are the servants. Consequently, we have a government of, by, and for the politicians and the bureaucrats.

If we had a government of, by, and for the people and if the people were the masters, then the government would have no secrets. The people would have access to all the information that the government has. They would know everything that politicians and bureaucrats did in doing their jobs. Nothing would be classified as secret, top-secret, etc. Black budgets would not exist. Spying on the masters would be a crime. The government would do what the people wanted instead of doing what the politicians and bureaucrats wanted.

“All Men Are Created Equal”

The clause “all men are created equal” occurs in the Declaration of Independence. Liberals and neoconservatives believe that this clause is the defining principle of the United States. In light of this clause, the US Constitution should be understood and interpreted. Moreover, the United States have a moral obligation to spread equality across the globe by force if necessary. 

However, what does “equality” mean in this clause? Liberals and neoconservatives disagree. Liberals focus more on the outcome whereas neoconservatives focus more on the opportunity. Both are convinced that it refers to political, economic, and social equality. Yet, does this clause refer to political, economic, and social equality?

Jefferson, who is credited with being the author of the Declaration of Independents, took the phrase “all men are created equal” from Locke. Locke used the phrase to mean men are equal in their liberty; that is, all men have a natural right to equality in liberty. Jefferson intended the phrase to be understood as Locke understood it. This understanding is clear when the phrase is read in the context of the Declaration of Independence in its entirety. Neither Jefferson nor Locke intended this equality to mean that all men are or should be equal politically, economically, or socially. Furthermore, they did not intend for it to mean equality of opportunity, condition, or outcome. Thus, the phrase means that all men are entitled to liberty. It does not mean that they are entitled to political equality (democracy), economic equality (socialism, communism), or social equality (integration, amalgamation).

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Principled Conservatism

Principled Conservatism

Thomas Allen

Conservatism is a tone or attitude; it is not a set of principles. This attitude rests on the wisdom of the ages and is highly skeptical of utopian schemes, such as socialism in all its forms. Thus, the wisdom of the ages, the accumulated wisdom of generations, tradition, guides conservatism instead of abstract speculation. Nevertheless, conservatism does not eschew principles.

What conservatives seek to conserve is not what happened a few years ago or even decades ago. They seek to conserve the consensus of their civilization over the centuries since it reflects the truth derived from its being.

Moreover, conservatives reject universality. They affirm selectivity and particularism; thus, they are tribal. Also, conservatives think in terms of individual men instead of in terms of mankind or humanity as do liberals and neoconservatives.

The following describes a principled conservative, also known as a traditional American conservative. Among the principled conservatives are Jeffersonian-Calhounians, paleoconservatives, traditional Southern conservatives, fusionists, and the Old Right. Principled conservatives should not be confused with neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, or enlightened conservatives. (Establishment conservatives are conservatives who are not neoconservatives, enlightened conservatives, or principled conservatives; they include Hamiltonian-Lincolnians, big-government conservatives, the typical Republican politicians, and Buckleyites. Enlightened conservatives are the New Conservatives of the 1950s represented by Russell Kirk and who subordinate the individual to society, subordinate freedom to virtue [for them, virtue is freedom] and rights to duty, subordinate reason to undifferentiated tradition to the point of rejecting reasoning, scorn reason and principle, reduce virtue to prudence, and depend heavily on Providence.)

What follows is a description of the typical principled conservative. The typical principled conservative:

– opposes designs for the perfecting human nature and society;

– scorns uniformity, egalitarianism, utilitarianism, materialism, pragmatism, scientism, and positivism;

– prefers the familiar to the unknown, the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, and the convenient to the perfect;

– is partial to the present;

– is disinclined toward doctrine or creed and, therefore, objects to the notion that the United States are a creedal nation;

– eschews the abstract;

– rejects Rationalism and Universalism but does not reject rationality and universality as such;

– cherishes both individuality and plurality;

– believes in absolute truths and absolute values;

– believes that truth is objective and eternal;

– is not a reactionary seeking an unrecoverable lost past;

– rejects the notions of the perfect life of man, the illimitable progress of society, and materialistic determination;

– has an affection for the proliferation of variety and the mystery of human existence;

– dismisses the notion of man as a manipulable, mutable being whom social engineers can shape;

– affirms that utopia degrades man;

– believes, unlike collectivist liberals, that man is more than a tool-bearing gregarious animal whose end is material welfare;

– maintains that moral and spiritual virtues are the true end of man;

– sees man as an imperfect being, who cannot be molded into perfection (besides, perfection is subjective, and what one modeler sees as perfection, another sees as imperfection);

– believes that all people are (or should be) equal before the law (and even this equality is a chimera because of the differences in judges, jurors, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and law enforcers) but objects to universal egalitarianism (the equality of all people in all respects, e.g., all people are equal in intelligence, ability, and potentiality);

– maintains that the individual is the locus of virtue in the social order and this virtue is based on the moral and intellectual order that has been passed from generation to generation; 

– accepts the historical idea that man is a rational, volitional, autonomous individual, a free being who lives between good and evil, truth and error, and who fulfills his destiny in the choices that he makes;

– understands that innate freedom is the essence of man’s being — and upon this axiom is his (the principled conservatives) political thoughts founded;

– is a proponent of tradition and prefers the traditional to the pragmatic when the two conflict;

– holds that principles should be derived mostly by convection and compromise and tested by long experience;

– favors an epistemology rooted in tradition and morality of particularity;

– distinguishes, unlike enlightened conservatives, between the good and evil traditions — using reasoning to distinguish among the possibilities;

– protects the tradition and applies it to new situations;

– does not avert change per se but does avert rapid change;

– is hesitative about change and innovation and is selective about which changes and innovations to accept;

– believes that change should be a slow and natural alteration and not some present infatuation;

– believes that change should come because of a need generally felt, not inspired by abstractions;

– prefers innovations that approximate natural growth, that is, they are intimate in the situation, and are no merely imposed;

– thus, favors change that responds to a specific defect while opposing change that is primarily designed to improve the conditions of human circumstances;

– favors change that is small and limited while opposing change that is large and indefinite;

– opposes radical change and innovation;

– cautions against change not because he opposes change but because of the severe limitation of an individual’s knowledge;

– opposes change for the sake of change, i.e., the lust for change;

– believes that tradition needs to guide reason;

– objects to the Rationalist’s idea of reason divorced from tradition, custom, and habit;

– opposes rationalist ideologies derived solely by reasoning in part because they are inflexible;

– accepts using reason operating within the bounds of tradition but opposes abstract reasoning;

– acknowledges that knowledge is a form of tradition because it passes from one generation to another;

– holds that the knowledge of any individual or group of individuals is insignificant compared with the knowledge of the nations and ages;

– conceives of knowledge as the search for and the acceptance of truth and not as the acquisition of power to control and manipulate man and nature;

– asserts that moral knowledge is gained from tradition;

– objects to the Rationalist’s notion of moral knowledge being abstract and universal, but does not reject moral universality because the development and exercise of universal moral truths depend on tradition;

– believes that morality is tradition-specific and depends on a particular time, place, and relationship (morality or moral doctrines include individualism, pluralism, natural rights, human rights, the principle of utility, categorical imperative, and social contract);

– accepts morality as consisting of principles and ideals that are universal and acknowledges that they are abstractions construed from tradition but rejects the Rationalist’s notion that they are timeless, transcultural, and tradition-neutral; that is, these principles and ideals arrive from tradition and do not beget tradition;

– places the absolute moral values of Western civilization above relativism, which he loathes;

– opposes the notion that society can be compelled with a plan of supratemporal ideals;

– maintains that rights are settled by convention and are not universal abstractions; 

– holds that freedom is the first criterion of political order;

– acknowledges that freedom is essential to the nature of man and is neutral to virtue and vice, yet man has the duty to seek virtue;

– argues that rights are inherently derived from the nature of man; rights are not derived from society or the state;

– asserts that every individual has the right to live uncoerced by force or fraud in possession of his life, liberty, and property;

– asserts that each person has the duty to obey moral laws by which he respects the rights of others to their lives, liberties, and property — failure to do so results in the forfeiture of his rights and freedoms;

– promotes the freedom to choose, free will; therefore, man cannot be forced to be free;

– contends that although man may be forced to act virtuously, he cannot be forced to be virtuous — only when an individual is free to choose virtue or vice can he be virtuous;

– advocates freedom from and opposes freedom for, which is not freedom at all but a set of conceived ends;

– demands the right to bear arms (thus, condemning all forms of gun control) and all the other inalienable rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights;

– objects to political correction, speech codes, counterculture, cancel culture, sensitivity training, and other similar absurdities;

– values loyalty and sees patriotism as a virtue and not a vice;

– maintains that the United States are a European country and a White or Aryan country and, therefore, their people are a European people;

– believes that the United States are an integral part of European civilization, i.e., Western civilization;

– believes in racial preservation (or at least, use to be but now, regrettably, is most likely a racial nihilist who practices the new morality of sacrificing the races on the altar of humanity);

– opposes miscegenation and policies, such as integration, that lead to miscegenation (unfortunately, those who have become racial nihilists have abandoned this opposition);

– opposes immigration of nonwhites (unfortunately, those who have become racial nihilists have abandoned this opposition);

– supports the traditional family, which is the basic unit of human society, and, therefore, opposes weakening the family by encouraging sexual licentiousness, homosexuality, and miscegenation, and subverting the authority of the parents;

– is pro-life and, therefore, opposes abortion;

– opposes inheritance and estate taxes (they are antifamily taxes) and the  progressive income tax;

– maintains that the United States are a Christian country and, therefore, opposes attempts to deny or weaken this Christian heritage;

– opposes governmental efforts to deny people their rights of religious expression and worship;

– believes in traditional education controlled by the parents instead of the government and, therefore, disapproves of the government acquiring the job of educating children (public education);

– supports teaching traditional virtues and how to think instead of what to think and, therefore, opposes using schools to indoctrinate students with propaganda to tear down traditional values and loyalties;

– asserts that the function of schools and colleges is to train the mind and to transmit the culture and tradition of the civilization to the young; thus, opposes training students for life adjustment through life experience via free activity where the teacher imposes nothing and where current prejudices are taught instead of values, which leads to value nihilism and political collectiveness, which are the basis of the current educational system;

–  argues that society and state were made for man and man is not made for them — unlike socialists in all their forms, who believe that man is secondary to society and state;

– rejects the notion that society is a real entity, a living organism, with a life, rights, and moral duties of its own and, therefore, does not consider society an organism morally superior to people, nor is it a being with a corporate personality that has rights;

– considers the individual as the essential moral entity and society as merely a set of relations between persons;

– believes in a transcendental order, a body of natural laws, that rule society and conscience;

– maintains that civilize society requires orders and classes;

– opposes people who attempt or want to reconstruct society on an abstract design;

– favors a society based on noninstrumental rules of conduct, i.e., rules that do not specify a practice or routine to promote or hinder the achievement of some substantive purpose but prescribes how to live harmoniously;

– promotes a society where citizens are regarded as individuals who may severally or collectively engage in many self-chosen activities;

– maintains that all value resides in the individual and that all social institutions derive their value from individuals;

– holds that social institutions are justified only when they serve the needs of individuals;

– defines the state as a definite group of people, distinct and separate from other people, who possess a monopoly of legal coercive force; it is not an organism or being with a life of its own independent of the people who comprise it; moreover, it is not one with the citizens whom it governs in a holistic unity;

– declares that the purpose of the state is to ensure the peaceful coexistence among citizens holding diverse and disparate ideas of moral truths instead of promoting or imposing moral truth;

– identifies two natural functions of the state: (1) to protect the rights of citizens against violent or fraudulent assaults, which includes protecting citizens from assaults by foreign forces and (2) to judge conflicts of rights with rights;

– treats the state (government) as a civil association, i.e., people associating solely in their obligations to observe the law (people are not told what to do but how to do whatever they choose to do);

– maintains that the government of a state is not a manager but is an umpire, the custodian of the rules;

– affirms that the state ought to be limited to its proper function of preserving order;

– opposed the state (government) being used to bring about some specific goal or ideal;

– holds that the state has the duty to respect the rights and freedoms of individuals and to guarantee these rights and freedoms by restraining those who trespass against the lives, liberties, and property of others;

– abhors the notion of using the state (government) to create and impose a utopia;

– sees the state as necessary to maintain social order, which is necessary for a harmonious society;

– supports small, limited government;

– asserts that the sole purpose of government is to rule; therefore, objects to the government being used to impose beliefs and activities on the people, to educate them, to make them better or happier, or to direct them to undertake specific activities;

– holds that governing is specific and limited to providing general rules of conduct to enable people to pursue activities of their own choice instead of imposing substantive activity and, therefore, opposes the government enacting positive laws directing people how to live;

– prefers the constitution that the founding fathers gave the United States to the one that Lincoln gave them, which is the one under which they now operate;

– maintains that the United States consists of 50 sovereign nations or bodies politics, States, as set out in the original Constitution and founding documents (Regrettably, most likely has abandoned the Constitution that the founding fathers gave the country in favor of the Constitution that Lincoln and the Radical Republicans gave it; thus, he claims that the United States is a sovereign nation.)

– adheres to the doctrine of States’ rights;

– remonstrates all treaties, agreements, conventions, alliances, international organizations, etc. that impinge on the sovereignty and independence of the United States or any State;

– opposes the Supreme Court and other federal courts revising the Constitution and rewriting federal and State statutes;

– condemns bureaucrats issuing and enforcing administrative decrees (regulations) that interfere with personal liberty and dignity, private property, and the sanctity of the family;

– favors the dispersal and decentralization of political and economic power and abhors the concentration and centralization of political and economic power;

– advocates a free-market, free-enterprise economy;

– ardently supports private ownership of property and the right of the owner to control his property;

– advocates an economy that is independent of the state (government) and, therefore, loathes governmental economic planning no matter the form;

– opposes Marxism in all its forms (communism, fascism, national socialism, democratic socialism, etc.) and Keynesianism and related economic systems (such as the current economic system of the United States) — thus, opposing all economic systems designed to control the economy;

– loathes the notion that bureaucrats can better invest capital than capitalists can;

– abhors the notion that bureaucrats know better how consumers should spend their money than consumers do;

– opposes governmental control of credit and interest rates either directly or indirectly through its central bank;

– opposes the redistribution of wealth including the redistribution of wealth through punitive taxation or inflation;

– rejects egalitarianism and accepts unequal acquisition of property, wealth, influence, honor, etc. and the right to pass them to the heirs of the holder; the only equality that he supports is the equal right of all men to be free from coercion against their life, liberty, and property;

– opposes greed and the drive to exploit and prefers to enjoy rather than to exploit;

– has the propensity to use and enjoy what is available instead of longing for something else;

– favors a foreign policy that places the interest of the United States first;

– prefers peace to war;

– believes that the United States armed forces should only be used to defend the territory of the United States;

– opposes meddling in the affairs of other countries and an interventionist foreign policy;

– views welfarism, the welfare state, with disfavor;

– disapproves of the government providing insurance against the hazards of life;

– prefers voluntary aid associations and programs to governmental welfare programs;

– supports protecting the environment;

Thus, a principled conservative esteems tradition, is cautious about change, and is devoted to the preservation, maintenance, and extension of the tradition of freedom and virtue. He uses tradition as a guide for reasoning and reason to distinguish between desirable traditions and undesirable traditions.

Further, the essential principles of the principled conservative are virtue and liberty, the freedom of the individual. Virtue depends on freedom, and virtue should be the goal of freedom. (This goal requires the government to be limited to providing general rules of conduct to maintain the social order by protecting the rights of citizens against violent or fraudulent assaults, which includes protecting citizens from assaults by foreign forces, and judging conflicts of rights with rights; however, it should never be used to impose beliefs and activities.)

A principled conservative is skeptical of collectivism and statism as they move toward totalitarianism. He favors the primacy of the individual, which requires the division of power, that is, limited government and a free economy.

Moreover, a principled conservative abhors attempts to establish a utopia and the notion that society and mankind are perfectible, yet he strives to improve human institutions and conditions. Thus, he trusts the free function of free individuals either individually or in voluntary cooperation.

Some principled conservatives may deviate from several of the above items. However, most principled conservatives adhere to nearly all, if not all, of these items.

Reference

Francis, Samuel. “Statement of Principles [of the Council of the Conservative Citizens].” 2005.

Gottfried, Paul Edward. Conservatism in America: Making Sense of the American Right. New York, New York: Palgrave Macmillian, 2007.

Kerwick, Misguided Guardians: The Conservative Case against Neoconservatives. Las Vegas, Nevada: Stairway Press, 2016.

Meyer, Frank S. In Defense of Freedom and Related Essays. Indianapolis, Indiana: Liberty Fund, Inc., 1996.

Personal observations and other articles.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.