False Paradigms

False Paradigms

Thomas Allen

Some, mostly conservatives, argue that the ruling elite manipulates and controls people by creating a false Left-Right paradigm. Their argument is flawed. Most of these paradigms are not false.

An example of the so-called false Left-Right paradigm occurs with the economy. One group wants a governmentally planned and controlled economy — the Left. Whereas, the other group wants a free-market, free-enterprise economy that is free of governmental meddling — the Right. Are these views false? One reality believes that a governmentally planned economy is morally superior to a free-market economy. The other reality believes the opposite. Either one view is false, or both views are false. Both cannot be true. Apparently, the promoters of the false paradigm believe that both are wrong. (This Left-Right paradigm does not include people who believe in a mixed economy of some governmental economic planning but not total governmental planning. This view is the synthesis of the two opposing paradigms, and is probably the goal of the ruling elite, but with more emphasis on governmental control.)

Moreover, conservatives have been moving leftward for a century or more. If the liberals had not moved farther leftward, the conservatives would have passed them by now and be farther left than liberals. Therefore, liberals must move farther and faster leftward toward the ridiculous to keep the conservatives from overtaking and passing them. This race explains why the United States have implemented 80 percent of the planks of the Communist Manifesto. (This ever leftward movement shows the success of the ruling elite in manipulating people to give the ruling elite ever more power.)

If the false paradigm promoters are correct, the conflict between libertists, those who want liberty, and statist, those who want governmental parentalism, is false. If this conflict is false, then which one is false? Are the liberties incorrect, or are the statists incorrect? At least one or both have to be false for a false paradigm to exist. Obviously, both cannot be true.

Another, and perhaps the most important paradigm, is the conflict between people who just want to be left alone and people who are determined not to leave them alone. As long as these two groups exist, conflict will exist. For peace to exist, one must destroy the other. Naturally, the ruling elite side with the controllers because they are kindred.

Many more paradigms exist that the ruling elite can and have used to control people and, by that, increase their power. Examples are segregation versus integration, free trade versus protectionism, individualism versus collectivism, forced vaccination versus freedom of choice, and Christianity versus Judaism versus Islam versus secular humanism.

These paradigms are not false. They exist and are real. All that the ruling elite has to do is to identify them and then amplify them. Their primary methodology of amplification is to heavily support and promote one, usually the Left, while corrupting the leaders of the others. By doing this, the ruling elite pushes the people in the direction that ruling elite want the people to go.

Ironically, most promoters of the false paradigm do not seem to believe that the opposing views are false. They describe these opposing views or paradigms as though they are real, which they are, and, therefore, are not truly false.

Consequently, they urge the opposing sides to compromise their views and join in the struggle against the ruling elite. However, this leads to another paradigm of the decentralists, those against the objectives of the ruling elite, and the centralists, those for the objectives of the ruling elite. How can these two compromise?

Nevertheless, the Left and the Right may be able to compromise on immigration. The Left wants unrestricted, unlimited immigration. The Right wants immigrants to enter the country legally. If the legal requirements for entry were reduced simply to placing the name of everyone who wants to enter the country on a list, then the concerns of both would be met.

In any event, compromise is nearly always a victory for the ruling elite. When the libertists (the Right) compromise with the statists (the Left), the statists usually win. While the statists may not get as much as they want when they compromise, they get much more than the libertists because the libertists usually surrender something and get nothing in return. Thus, the ruling elite wins as the power of the state, which they control, grows. Likewise a compromise between the centralists (the Left) and the decentralists (the Right), most of the time, is a victory for the centralists and, therefore, a victory for the ruling elite. Compromise is not the answer.

(An example of the typical compromise is taxation. The pro-excise tax people want to levy an excise tax of 20 percent on product A, which currently carries no excise tax. Opposing this tax is the anti-excise tax people, who want to eliminate all excise taxes. The typical compromise would be an excise tax less than 20 percent, such as 10 percent. Thus, the pro-excise tax people win, although they do not get as much as they want. Because a new excise tax has been adopted, the anti-excise tax people lose. Since it now has more revenue, the big winner is the ruling elite, who controls the government and, consequently, the state. A true compromise would have been repealing the excise tax on product X. Then both sides would gain something and lose something. Whether the ruling elite gains or loses dependents on whether there is a gain or lose in tax revenue.)

Even a truce between the Left and the Right benefits the ruling elite. It allows them time to consolidate their gains and to prepare their next assault on liberty. (This is why the ruling elite rotates political power between Democrats and Republicans, both of whom are statists and centralists. The elite puts the Democrats in power to push the elite’s agenda forward (leftward) into new territory. Then, the elite  put the Republicans in power to consolidate those gains and make them more efficient. The Department of Education is a prime example.

Nevertheless, the Left and Right do agree on some issues. Both despise the Southerner and the South and believe that Southerners and the South should be eradicated. Both believe in and promote integration and amalgamation and ardently detest segregation and separation. Thus, they are racial nihilists and practitioners of the new morality. Both worship Saint Martin Luther King. Perhaps the Left and Right  can unify on these issues, all of which were once solely left-wing positions.  Unfortunately, the ruling elite is also a strong proponent of these issues.

Contrary to what the promoters of the false Left-Right paradigm claim, the various paradigms that they identify as false are real. The ruling elite does not create them. They merely amplify and use them to advance their agenda of obtaining absolute power over mankind — that is, to become gods.

However, with its journey leftward, the Right should eventually become indistinguishable from the Left. Consequently the Left-Right paradigm will vanish, and the ruling elite will win.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Are COVID-19 Response Based on Science?

Are COVID-19 Response Based on Science?

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: Presented below is a letter-to-the-editor on COVID-19.]

Caesar Cooper claims that science guides him when he issues his edicts concerning COVID-19. Whatever guides him, it is not science.

Like other respiratory viruses, COVID-19 spreads via the air, not just via droplets or touching contaminated surfaces. COVID-19 has a diameter between 0.06 and 0.14 microns. Virus-laden saliva or respiratory droplets are between 5 and 10 microns. N95 masks, the best mask commonly available, can filter particles as small as 0.3 microns. Thus, it may prevent most respiratory droplets from escaping, but not aerosolized viruses, which are three times smaller than the holes in the mask. Cloth masks can block only 30 to 60 percent of respiratory droplets, but they do not protect against aerosolized viruses. Thus, using a mask to protect oneself from COVID-19 is like a person hiding behind a chain-link fence when someone is shooting at him.

Even the CDC has a study dated May 2020 posted on its website that claims that masks are ineffective in preventing the spread of respiratory viruses. Also, in its guidance dated June 2020, god-on-high, the World Health Organization (WHO), claims that healthy people gain no advantage in wearing face masks.

Moreover, Cooper must consider social distancing a hoax. If he really believes that social distancing prevents the spread of COVID-19, he would insist that protesters remain six feet apart. Further, he would limit the size of protests to no more than 50 people. Any protester violating these edicts would be arrested.

He requires others to obey his edicts on face masks, social distancing, and crowd size. So, why does he not require his kindred-in-arms, the protesters and rioters, to obey his edicts? Surely, he values his kindred more than he does churchgoers and attendees of a Republican convention. The logical conclusion is that he knows that his edicts are hoaxes and are not based on science. Thus, they must be based on politics, the lust to control.

Additionally, the number of cases and deaths related to COVID-19 is overstated. The tests used to identify infections of COVID-19 do not distinguish between COVID-19 and other coronaviruses including some that cause the common cold. Also, the US government encourages the States, hospitals, and doctors to overstate COVID-19 cases by paying them more for COVID-19 cases and deaths. Often people who die of other causes, such as car accidents, cancer, and heart attacks, who are diagnosed with a coronavirus are listed as dying from COVID-19 per CDC guidelines.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

The Antebellum Northerner’s Opinion of Blacks

The Antebellum Northerner’s Opinion of Blacks

Thomas Allen

In Northern Rebellion and Southern Secession (1904), E. W. R. Ewing describes the typical Northerner’s, including the typical abolitionist’s, opinion of and attitude toward Blacks.

Even before Ohio became a State, Ohioans saw Negroes as shiftless thieves and adopted laws to expel them. They found that Negroes lacked the fitness and capacity to provide for themselves (pp. 112-113).

Gerrit Smith, an abolitionist, concurred with the Ohioans. He “attested the incapacity, unfitness, and unwillingness of the Southern negro [sic] to provide for himself” (p. 113). He offered free and runaway Negroes farmland if they would farm it. His scheme failed from the want of takers.

When Cobb, a reporter of the Supreme Court of Georgia, asked the governors and leading politicians of the Northern States about the condition of the free Negroes in their States, he received the following replies (p. 288):
– from Connecticut: “not thrifty,” “immoral”;
– from New Jersey: “debased . . . generally indolent”;
– from Pennsylvania: “much deteriorated by freedom”;
– from Indiana: “sent forty this year to Liberia . . . hope finally to get rid of all . . . do not intend to have another negro [sic] or mulatto come into the State”;
– from Illinois: “thriftless, idle, vicious”;
– from New Jersey: “one-fourth criminals in State colored, while colored population is but one-twelfth.”

Nearly all Northerners held that the Negro was inferior to them. Regardless of any lip service that they may give to the proposition that “all men are created equal,” they regarded the Negro as a natural and social inferior.

Further, few Northerners, including abolitionists, would have allowed Negroes to marry their sisters or daughters, and the woman would have strongly objected to such a marriage. Moreover, in New England, Negroes had been burned alive for assaulting White women (p. 280).

Most Northern States denied Negroes, including mulattoes, the privilege of voting and other privileges and duties of citizenship. They considered the Negro “unfit for the exercise of citizenship” (p. 267).

Yet, among the last States to deny free Negroes the vote was in the South. South Carolina did not deny free Negroes the vote until 1835 (p. 281).

Moreover, although more free Negroes lived in the South than in the North (p. 286), they were treated with greater dignity in the South. In the North, many employers refused to hire Negroes, and Whites generally refused to work beside a Negro (p. 289). About the treatment of the Negro in business following Lincoln’s War, Booker T. Washington wrote:

There is almost no prejudice against the negroes [sic] in the South in matters of business, so far as the native whites are concerned; . . . But too often when the white mechanic or factory operative from the North gets a hold, the trades union soon follows, and the negro [sic] is crowded to the wall (p. 289).

Moreover, Illinois made it illegal for Negroes and mulattoes to enter that State with the intention or appearance of residing there. If found guilty, the Negro would be fined, and if he were unable to pay the fine, then he was to be sold at a public auction (p. 268). Michigan and Indiana also prohibited Negroes from coming into them to live there (p. 269). Likewise, Oregon prohibited Negroes from entering it (p. 271). Also, California prohibited Negroes from entering it to reside there (p. 274).

To Massachusetts goes the honor of being the first State to expel all free Negroes in her boundaries (pp 269-270).

In 1829, Ohio restricted public schools to Whites only (p 266). In 1833, Connecticut made “it a penal offence to set up or establish any school or literary institution for colored persons not inhabitants of the State; and any negro [sic] coming to the State for instruction could be forcibly removed therefrom” (p. 266).

For the most part, the Northern States considered free Negroes, including mulattoes, a danger to their society. Thus, they placed many social and legal restraints on them. Even as late as 1870, many Northern States forbade Negroes from owning property, making contracts, and testifying against Whites (p. 269). Hypocrites that they are, these Northerners railed against Southerners for denying Negroes rights that Northerners refused to grant them.

For decades following Reconstruction, the Northerner’s low opinion of Blacks did not change much. Even the last violent resistance to school integration occurred in Massachusetts. Furthermore, since 1960, more race riots have occurred outside the South than in the South. (See “Race Riots” by Thomas Allen.)

Since the Northerner, including the abolitionist, knew from first-hand experience the behavior of the Negro, free or slave, they must have hated the Southerner so much that they turned the freed Negro loose in the South in hopes that they would demoralize and eventually genocide the Southerner. The only other option is that these Northerners and abolitionists were stupid; however, as most of their leaders were intelligent men, stupidity can be ruled out. Some leading abolitionists openly admitted their hatred of Southerners and their desire to genocide them.

About the burden that was thrown on the South following Lincoln’s war, Booker T. Washington wrote:

The time is not far distant when the world will begin to appreciate the real character of the burden that was imposed upon the South in giving the franchise to four millions of ignorant and impoverished ex-slaves. No people was ever before given such a problem to solve. History has blazed no path through the wilderness that could be followed (p. 289).

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

Who Is the Militia and What Is its Purpose

Who Is the Militia and What Is its Purpose

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was written in 1995.]

    The short answer to who is the militia is every able-bodied man except for a few political leaders. The short answer to the purpose of the militia is to protect the people from their own government and foreign governments.
    The militia is not the National Guard. Congress established the National Guard to serve as a reserve force for the armed forces. The National Guard is akin to the Army Reserve except that it is under the control of the governors of the several states during times of peace (unless the President wants to use the National Guard to enforce federal edicts in a State). Because the federal government can require National Guardsmen to serve overseas, it cannot be the true militia because the Constitution does not allow the federal government to send the militia overseas. Furthermore, federal law recognizes the National Guard, in times of peace and war, as a component of the United States Army.
    The militia is not a collective right. It is an individual right. Historically and legally, the militia is the whole body of the people as individuals.
    That the right to bear arms belonged to the people individually can be easily substantiated by the comments made by the founding fathers:

        Fisher Ames: “The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing government, are declared to be inherent in the people.”
        Zachariah Johnson: “[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them. . . . The government will depend on the assistance of the people in the day of distress.”
        Thomas Jefferson: “[N]o free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
        Richard Henry Lee: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
        Patrick Henry: “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. . . . The great object is that every man be armed. . . . [E]veryone who is able may have a gun.”

Other founding fathers made similar statements proclaiming the right — nay, the duty — of every able-bodied man to be armed. When these men said “the people,” they meant, in the words of George Mason, “the whole people, except a few public officers.”
    The reason for possessing arms is not for hunting or sport. The reason is for self-protection, self-protection not so much from criminals and foreign governments, but from their own government. A well-armed citizenry is needed to prevent a constitutional government from degenerating into a tyrannical government.
    Noah Webster summed up the purposed of an armed citizenry:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.

    Alexander Hamilton, who favored a strong central government, stated the necessity of an armed citizenry:

This [a well-armed and trained militia] will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

   Obviously, these statements were made in the early days of the country. The people need to become much more heavily armed if they want to begin to match the firepower of the standing army and nullify the corrupt and despotic power of the United States government.
    Justice Joseph Story summed up the necessity of the militia in his Commentaries on the Constitution (1833):

The militia is the natural defense of a free country against foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample the rights of the people. The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

If there was ever a time for a well-armed militia, it is now.

Copyright © 1995 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

John Birch Society and Segregation

John Birch Society and Segregation

Thomas Allen

In the April 23, 2020, online New American, Alex Newman writes an article, “NeverTrumper Lies About Birch Society & Schlafly in ‘Daily Beast.’” In this article, he refutes what Ronald Radosh wrote about Phyllis Schlafly in “Phyllis Schlafly, ‘Mrs. America,’ Was a Secret Member of the John Birch Society,” the Daily Beast,  April 20, 2020.  Newman writes that Radosh is “a former Communist Party USA operative turned NeverTrump neoconservative Buckleyite.”

The discussion that follows is about what Newman writes about the John Birch Society (JBS) and its founder Robert Welch and their support of integration instead of what he writes about Schlafly. Most of what Newman writes in his article focuses on the JBS and Welch’s opposition to racial segregation and support of racial integration.

On racial issues, Welch and the JBS were at the forefront of political correctness. While attacking communism and communists, they supported the communist organized and led desegregation-integration movement.

Newman ardently objects to Radosh’s characterization of the JBS as a “far-right group infamous for its support of segregation.” On the contrary, the JBS was and still is dedicated to integration and, apparently, everything that has grown out of integration, such as, Black privileges and the movement to genocide the White race — although, most likely, Newman would argue otherwise.

Noting that the JBS has never supported segregation, Newman lists several notable Black activists who were members of the JBS: George Schuyler, Manning Johnson, and Julia Brown. Continuing, he adds that members of the JBS “helped lead the fight against racism, racial collectivism, government-enforced segregation, discrimination, and so on.” Except for racial collectivism, progressives, liberals, and communists also fought against these things.

Although it may have opposed governmental-enforced integration, the JBS has never been as vigorous in opposing government-enforced integration as it was in opposing government-enforced segregation. Moreover, it seems to have accepted segregation by custom (the Northern approach) while opposing government-enforced segregation (the Southern approach). Thus, the JBS is a right-wing Puritan Yankee organization out to reconstruct Southerners into its own image. (Most Southerners never wanted to force segregation in the North. However, most Northerners wanted to force integration in the South, but not in the North.)

Although Welch was a Southerner, he was a scalawag par excellence. Obviously, he believed that the Radical Republicans failed to remake the Southerner into the image of the Puritan Yankee.  Consequently, he sought to finish their work. While he failed to replace segregation with integration, the communists succeeded.

Newman remarks that National Review and its founder, William Buckley,  supported segregation into the 1960s. He condemns Buckley for claiming that Whites were more advance than Blacks and that Southerners should suppress voting by Blacks to preserve civilization. Apparently, Newman believes that the civilization of post-civil-rights America, with its increased sexual promiscuity, divorces, acceptance of homosexual marriages, abortions, crimes by Blacks, lost liberties, socialism, police state, drug abuse, power of the Establishment, etc., is superior the civilization to pre-civil-rights America.

Even as late as the mid-1960s, Buckley was fighting a rearguard action to save the White race and Western Civilization, while the JBS and Welch were rejoicing covertly their demise —at least that has been the result of their war against racial separation. (The communists knew this destructive result of integration, which is why they fought for it.) Later, Buckley repented his evil ways and adopted the politically correct racial view that Whites, especially Southerners, are the vilest creatures in the Universe — Welch would have been proud of him.

Next, Newman writes that Welch wrote an article, “A Letter to the South,” in which he argues against segregation in the South. In that article, Welch argues “that segregation was on its way out, that this demise was a good thing, and that the communist exploitation of the “civil rights” cause had set back this progress by a generation.” Welch was wrong. Within a decade after this article, the communist lead civil rights movement had won; integration had replaced segregation in the South. Only mop-up operations against the few remaining renegades and expansion into the North remained. Because of this victory for which Welch longed, the White race is on its way to extinction —and the American Black may not be far behind.

Although Welch condemned communist racial agitators for stirring up racial hatred and for impeding integration, they did achieve victory quickly and completely. For this victory, Welch should have been glad. Was Welch’s hostility toward the communists coming from his lust for glory, i.e., he wanted the credit for ending segregation in the South? Does this explain the hostility of the JBS toward communists?

On racial issues, Welch was an extremely progressive and indefatigable promoter of racial equality, which is among the most detrimental hoaxes that the Establishment, the ruling elite, has ever advanced. (For the unbiased, science has proven that the races are not equal. They differ in physical abilities, intelligence, temperament and many other aspects. As history has shown, races differ in their abilities to develop civilizations, technologies, and many other things.)

Being racial egalitarians, Welch and his fellow Birchers are a step away from being full-fledged socialist and communists. They believe that the several races of men are identical in attributes. Except for a few external physical features, which no one but a liar can deny, the races are identical and, therefore, equal. (Nevertheless, the races of man differ in blood and bone, which are not readily visible.) If the attributes of the races are identical and equal, then the attributes of each individual comprising the races must be identical and equal. From this egalitarian notion, socialists, especially communists, derive the logical conclusion that each individual should, therefore, be equal in wealth. However, Birchers have not come to this logical conclusion of racial equality. Consequently, they are not as logical in their reasoning as are socialists and communists. Is because the egalitarianism of the communists is more consistent and logical than that of the Birchers a reason that Birchers despise communism?

In the 1950s, most Southerners, both liberals and conservatives, and many Northerners opposed race-mixing. Only communists and their kindred and Birchers favored race-mixing, which leads to miscegenation, which is genocide — the destruction of the races. Thus, integration is genocide.

Apparently, Welsh and the Birchers who followed him in advocating integration did not care about the Black man. If they did, they would not have pushed policies that would eventually lead to his death.

Welch “openly promoted and supported an end to segregation” because ending segregation would result in “exposing evildoers and reduce government.” One must wonder what drugs Welch was taking to believe this nonsense. The death of segregation birthed an explosion in the size of the government. (More government is needed to enforce integration than segregation because integration is unnatural.)  Moreover, what vile evildoer has been exposed and, if exposed, has suffered any penalty?

Much of the hostility of the JBS and Welch toward communists and communism seems to come from the civil rights movement. While the JBS failed to replace segregation with integration, the communists succeeded. Does much of the JBS hatred of communists come from the communists succeeding where the JBS failed?

Welch is not the only leader of the JBS to support genocide via race-mixing. JBS President Emeritus John McManus also promotes genocide via race-mixing. (Also, see “A Letter: Miscegenation” by Thomas Allen.) Unlike most Blacks and other nonwhites, Welch and his fellow Birchers are racial nihilists who follow the new morality.

NOTE:
According to Eustace Mullins (Murder by Injection: The Story of the Medical Conspiracy Against America, 1988, page 200), the Rockefellers sponsored the JBS. Nelson Rockefeller bought the Welch Candy Company from Robert Welch, a 32nd degree Freemason, for a handsome price. For the principal officers of the JBS, Welch chose from his acquaintances at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). (Years later, the JBS would attack the CFR as a more dangerous group than the Communist party. Because of the support that the CFR gave the Soviet Union through its control of the US government, multinational corporations, and international financiers, the Soviet Union lived decades longer than it would have lasted without such aid.) As Buckley, who was a CIA operative (and a member of the CFR and Skull and Bones), and his National Review were established to control conservatives and the Right, so Welch and the JBS seemed to have been established for the same purpose. When the JBS credibility began to fade, Buckley gave the JBS free publicity by attacking it in his magazine.

According to Mark Hines (“A Good Reason to Leave the John Birch Society: Masonic Roots of Mormonism,” The Federal Observer, Vol. 06, No. 343, Dec. 10, 2006, http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=8610, accessed Dec. 10, 2006), the JBS “is a front organization set up to attract and control unsuspecting Patriots that wish to band together to make a difference in our Country.” He criticizes the JBS for collecting a great deal of money and expending much time and energy without ever accomplishing anything. Hines discovered that Mormons controlled the JBS. The Mormons had a different, even the opposite, agenda than the common members. Mormons pushed the Freemasonry agenda of globalism, which the common Bircher vehemently opposed.

In Kangaroo Court Versus the John Birch Society (“The Belmont Brotherhood,” http://watch.pair.com/belmont. May 5, 2006.), A.J. MacDonald discusses some founders and council members of the JBS and their connection with the Establishment, Insiders, Ruling Elite, Globalists, or whatever one wants to call them. Moreover, Welch’s view of Christianity is similar to that of an ultra-liberal “Christian” — far more humanistic, communistic, Masonic, and Illuministic than Christian. (Perhaps, this explains why Welch promoted policies that would lead to the genocide of the races that God created.) About Welch, Nicholas J. Bove, Jr. writes, “Welch has provided the most valuable service of all time to the Conspiracy. He founded an organization to neutralize millions of Americans from discovering what the true power behind the Illuminati really was.” (“The Belmont Brotherhood,” op. cit.)

According to Dr. Henry Makow, before founding the JBS, Welch had been a member of the Communist (Trotskyite) front League of Industrial Democracy ("The Zionist Billionaires Who Control Politics," Feb. 23, 2011, http://www.henrymakow.com/koch.html, accessed Feb. 24, 2011).

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Balaam and the Doctrine of Balaam

Balaam and the Doctrine of Balaam

Thomas Allen

Balaam (d.c. 1459–1452 B.C.), son of Beor, lived in Pethor. He was an enchanter, a soothsayer, whom the Spirit of Yahweh touched. Chapters 22 through 24 of Numbers presents the story of Balaam.

The Story
Balak, King of Moab, summoned Balaam, who had come under the power of Yahweh, to come and curse the Israelites with his demonic magical powers. Balak promised to reward Balaam, if he cursed the Israelites. The Israelites had just defeated the Amorites, and Balak feared them.

Initially, Balaam told Balak that Yahweh had forbidden him to comply with Balak’s request. Again, Balak implored Balaam to come and curse the Israelites. This time God allowed him to go, but he had to deliver only the message that God gave him. Balaam went. However, instead of cursing the Israelites as Balak wanted, Balaam blessed them — foreshadowing their strength, the beauty and fruitfulness of their land, and their victories. Three times Balak sought Balaam’s curse; three times Balaam blessed the Israelites. Further, he foretold that Moab, Edom, Amalak, and Kail would become part of the Israelite empire. Later the Israelites slew Balaam in a battle with the Midianites (Numbers 31:8).

Needless to say, the blessings did not please Balak. He became angry with Balaam, ordered him to leave, and gave him no payment.

Later, Balaam went to the Midianites and delivered them a plan to defeat the Israelites with the fornication of miscegenation. Midianite women, who were Melanochroi or possibly Melanochroi-Aryan hybrids, seduced the Aryan Israelite men and corrupted them. (Corruption through miscegenation and interracial mating became known as the “Doctrine of Balaam.”) As a result of the sin of interracial mating, which led to idolatry, God delivered a heavy judgment on the Israelites.

Besides the “Doctrine of Balaam,” Balaam is also known for the “Way of Balaam” and the “Error of Balaam. “Balaam is a type of mercenary prophet, ambitious to exploit his gift financially” (Unger, p. 133) — hence, the Way of Balaam in 2 Peter 2:15. Also, Balaam blunders “in reasoning that God of necessity must curse the nation Israel because of its sins” (Unger, p. 133) — hence, the Error of Balaam in Jude 11. Fausset identifies the Error of Balaam as running greedily for a reward. Kennedy argues that the Way of Balaam and the Error of Balaam are synonymous with the Doctrine of Balaam, i.e., teaching fornication via interracial mating.

Apparent Contradiction

Numbers Chapter 22 – 20 And God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men are come to call thee, rise up, go with them; but only the word which I speak unto thee, that shalt thou do. 21 And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab. 22 And God’s anger was kindled because he went; and the angel of Jehovah placed himself in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him.

In verse 20, God tells Balaam to go with the men. In verse 22, God is angry with Balaam for going with the men as God had told him to do. Why?

Fausset opines that Balaam did not wait for the men to come and call. He writes “Certainly ‘God’s anger was kindled because he went’; for his going was in spite of the former plain prohibition; and the second voice was a permission giving him up in judicial anger to his own perversity (comp. 1 Kings xxii. 15), a permission too resting on the condition, which B[alaam] did not wait for, ‘if the men come to call thee’” (Fausset, p. 71, col. 3).

Clarke agrees with Fausset. In his eagerness, Balaam went to meet the messengers of Balak instead of waiting for them to come to him as God had directed. Because Balaam went without the messengers calling him, God became angry with him.

Smick opines that God became angry with Balaam because of his motive. Balaam went to receive the reward that Balak had promised instead of going to declare Yahweh’s message.

Longacre and Wade claim that the apparent contradiction occurs because verses 20 and 22 come from different sources. Verses 20 and 21 are from the Northern Israel narrative (E), which refers to the Deity as Elohim (God). Verse 22 comes from the Judahite narrative (J), which refers to the Deity as Yahweh (Jehovah or Lord in most English translations).

The Doctrine of Balaam

Revelation 2:14: But I have a few things against thee [the church of Pergamum], because thou hast there some that hold the teaching [doctrine] of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block [sin] before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication.

Fornication is any type of illicit sexual act. It means more than extra-marital sex. It means any proscribed sexual act, which includes interracial sex and mating. For example, homosexual acts are illicit sex and, therefore, fornication. Homosexual acts do not cease to be fornication if they take place within a marriage. Likewise, with interracial sexual acts, they do not cease to be fornication if they take place inside a marriage. Just as the Scriptures do not recognize same-sex marriages, they do not recognize interracial marriages. The fornication that Balaam taught was interracial sexual acts and miscegenation.

Additionally, the Doctrine of Balaam teaches the brotherhood of man and that only one race exists: the human race. Consequently, it promotes integration and interracial mating.

The open borders policy of the United States and nearly all other (formerly) predominantly White countries with their unlimited, unrestricted third world immigration greatly facilitates the Doctrine of Balaam. Most likely, that is why the Luciferian leaders of the West promote open borders. They seek to genocide the race created in God’s image: the Adamite, the Aryan, the White race. With nonwhites flooding these countries, can miscegenation be far behind? Interracial rape is now common in Western Europe. It has been common in the United States for decades.

The Doctrine of Balaam has become the controlling doctrine of the (former) White world. So far, for the most part, the other races have not fallen victims to the Doctrine of Balaam. Most African countries, especially those controlled by Negroes, seek to drive Aryans and even Melanochroi from their midst. The Turanian countries of Asia severely restrict immigration. Thus, the Doctrine of Balaam is primarily a White man’s disease and sin.

Interracial mating leads to hybridization. Total hybridization extinguishes the races that God created. God hates hybrid humans so much that He forbids a mixed bred person (mongrel, “bastard” in the King James) from entering His assembly (congregation) — Deuteronomy 23:2 (“No half-bred [mongrel] may be admitted to the assembly of the Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh” – NJB.) According to Ezra, if people are in an interracial relationship, they must separate, and if married, divorce. (The only act for which Jesus approves of divorce is fornication [Matthew 19:9]).

Any clergyman who does not teach about the sin advocated by the Doctrine of Baal, interracial mating and marriages, is failing his flock — especially in this age of forced integration and the flooding of the (formerly) White world with nonwhites. Any clergyman who accedes to the Doctrine of Baal or worse teaches it, is a disciple of the Devil. He deliberately leads his flock astray.

References
Allen, Thomas Coley. False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of the Races and Interracial Marriages. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 2001.

Clarke, W.K. Lowther, editor. Concise Bible Commentary. New York, New York: MacMillan Publishing, 1953.

Davis, John D. The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible. Revised and rewritten by Henry Snyder Gehman. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminster Press, 1944.

De Witt, Adam. “Be Ye Not Unequally Yoked Together Through Deceptive Love.”

Douglas, J.D., editor. The Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Jacobus, Melancthon W., Edward E. Nourse, and Andrew C. Zenos, editors. A New Standard Dictionary. New York, New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1926.

Kennedy, Arnold. “Balaam’s Doctrine –What Is It?”

Longacre, Lidsay B. “Number.” The Abingdon Bible Commentary. Editors Frederick C. Eiselen and Downey. New York, New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1929.

Peloubet, F.N. Treasury of Biblical Information. 1913.

Smick Elmer, “Numbers.” The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Editors Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1962.

Tenney, Merrill C., editor. The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1967.

Unger, Merrill F., Unger’s Bible Dictionary. 3rd ed. (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1960).

Wade, G.W. “Numbers” A Commentary on the Bible. Editor Arthur S. Peake. New York, New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, n.d.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

A Letter: South Africa

A Letter: South Africa

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1986 responding to an article by Ms. Frances Kendall in Reason magazine.]

    The solution to South Africa's problem offered by Frances Kendall is interesting. If implemented, I would be surprised that her solution would work without some significant changes. Based on the information in her article, her solution contains several major flaws.
    First, she recommends drawing cantonal boundaries without regard to tribal or racial boundaries. Thus, she proposes to commit the same error that has been committed in the rest of Africa. The colonial powers drew political boundaries with little regard to tribal or ethnic boundaries. When they withdrew, the colonial boundaries remained. The result of this disregard for tribal and ethnic boundaries has led to oppression and bloodshed all over Africa. This has happened in spite of the constitutions that most of these countries have which guarantee all sorts of rights for the people. There is no reason to believe that South Africa would be any different. Besides, most Swiss cantons are racially, ethnically, and culturally homogeneous. The German-Swiss and French-Swiss have much more in common than do the Zulu and Xhosa, who are traditional enemies. They certainly have much more in common than these two tribes have with the Afrikaner.
    Another flaw is the erroneous belief that a bill of rights is compatible with democracy. A bill of rights is as antidemocratic as a true monarchy. In a democracy the majority rules. The will of the majority must prevail if democracy is to live. The purpose of a bill of rights is to limit the political power of the rulers, which in a democracy is the majority. But if the power of the majority is limited, i.e., the majority cannot change the bill of rights at its whim, then some sort of minority rule exists. Where a minority rules, a democracy cannot exist.
    Another flaw is the absurd idea that the antidiscrimination provisions of the constitution would be used only against the central and cantonal governments, but not against private companies, associations, and individuals. One needs only to look at the Second Reconstruction of the South in the United States to see how ridiculous this concept is. During the Second Reconstruction of the South, antidiscrimination laws have been aimed as much at, or perhaps even more so, the private sector as they have been aimed at the State and local governments. There is no reason to believe that the Black rulers of South Africa would allow Whites even in a totally White canton to refuse to sell, rent, or provide services to a Black who enters or tries to enter that canton.
    She also proposes to allow communists and other terrorists to participate in formulating a new government for South Africa. Unless she desires despotic socialism, which she seems to abhor, allowing communists to participate is highly questionable. Although there may be one, I know of no instance in the third world where communists have been allowed to participate in formulating a government without the communists or at least despotic socialists eventually ruling.
    In her article, she offers no method to keep the central government from becoming more powerful by usurping the rights and powers of the cantonal governments and the people as the central government has done in the United States and, to a lesser degree perhaps, in Switzerland. Most likely, the usurpation would occur more quickly and more completely in South Africa for at least two reasons. First, there is no tradition of independent cantonal government. Second, her solution seems to require the central government to antedate or be created simultaneously with the cantonal governments; thus, the cantonal governments will appear to be creations of the central government.
    The only difference between her solution and the predictions of the prophets of doom is the method by which the Afrikaner will perish and the amount of time involved. If war comes as the prophets of doom predict, the Afrikaner may perish. But he will die like a man fighting for his race, culture, and homeland. (Oh, if only the rest of the West had this courage!) If her solution is implemented, the Afrikaner will surely perish. But he will die like a wimp as he is bred out of existence. (To die like wimps seems to be the insatiable desire of the West, not only for the Afrikaner, but for all that is European in race and culture.)
    There is, I believe, a better solution to the South Africa problem than the cantonal solution offered by Kendall, and that is, what I would term, the States’ rights’ solution, which, unlike her cantonal solution, requires true decentralization and dispersal of political power.
    First, the boundaries of the cantons should be drawn along tribal, ethnic, racial, cultural lines. This would ensure that the inhabitants of a given canton would have a common language, tradition, culture, heritage, etc. It would greatly reduce internal conflict within a canton.
    Next, instead of adopting a democratic form of government for the central and cantonal governments where rule is by the will of the majority, a republican form of government where rule is by law and where each important political faction and segment of society can be guaranteed some degree of representation should be adopted. The principle of “one man, one vote” should be abandoned. Representation should be proportioned primarily on the basis of the tax base and not on the basis of population. Voting should be weighted in accordance with the amount of taxes paid. The more taxes a person pays, the more votes he should have. This is the market concept of the more wealth a person has, the more “votes” he has in the market, applied to the political process.
    Perhaps the reason that Switzerland is among the freest of countries is that it was one of the last (maybe the last) in the non-Islamic world to grant suffrage to women. In the United States, the rapid acceleration in the growth of government and the decline of liberty began within a decade after women gained the “right” to vote. With few, if any, exceptions, as the franchise has expanded, the government has grown and liberty has declined. With political equality, democracy, has come economic equality, socialism. If liberty is one of Kendall’s objectives, democracy is not the panacea that she believes it to be. As John Randolph of Roanoke proclaimed “I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality.” In other words, one can have liberty; one can have equality; one can have neither; but one can never have both.
    Perhaps the most important principle that needs adopting is Calhoun’s doctrine of concurrent majority. Under this principle, each canton would have the right and power to veto acts of the central government, as far as that canton is concerned, that are, in the opinion of the canton, unconstitutional or unduly infringe upon the rights of the canton and its citizens. This principle could be applied at the cantonal level where important segments of society could have the power to veto acts of the canton as far as the acts apply to that segment. Likewise, each canton should possess the ultimate veto and have the right to secede without molestation or armed conflict.
    To protect the cantons from the central government and to preserve their rights and the rights of their citizens, the cantonal governments should have control of a significant part of the armed forces.
    The plan proposed by Kendall probably will not solve South Africa’s problems. It will surely not save the Afrikaner. The plan that I have briefly outlined above may not solve South Africa’s problems either. However, it does offer the Afrikaner a much better chance of surviving. (I am convinced that the West will accept no solution short of turning South Africa into a Soviet colony with a Black-led puppet government.)
    As an unreconstructed Southerner, my sympathy and empathy are with the Afrikaner. I believe that Western civilization may well live or die with him. Just as the South stood against the world and fought and died for all the nobleness of Western civilization 125 years ago, so today does the Afrikaner. I wish him victory.

Copyright © 1986 by Thomas C. Allen.

More political articles.