Two Natures of Jesus

Two Natures of Jesus

Thomas Allen

An essential component of the Trinity doctrine is the doctrine of the two natures of Jesus, also called the doctrine of the hypostatic union. According to this doctrine, two natures, divine and human, are indissolubly united in Jesus Christ, yet they remain distinct. One nature is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and incapable of suffering. The other nature is weak, has imperfect knowledge, and is liable to sorrow, pain, and death. Thus, the former is infinite eternal God, and the latter is finite mortal man.

In 451 A.D., the Council of Chalcedon formulated the doctrine of the two natures of Jesus:

One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He was parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ.

Accordingly, the divine nature and human nature are united without confusion or commixture. Consequently, Jesus never ceases to be both fully God and fully man.

A true believer in the Trinity doctrine of the two natures of Jesus has to believe simultaneously in the following contradictions about Jesus:

– He is 100 percent God and 100 percent man.

– He is omnipotent and can do all things yet feeble and limited in what he can do.

– He is omnipresent and, therefore, cannot move yet moves from one place to another.

– He is omniscient (knows all things and is completely void of all ignorance ) yet has imperfect knowledge and is ignorant of many things.

– His mind is uncreated and infinite yet his mind is created and finite.

– He is independent yet dependent.

– He is immutable yet mutable.

– He is exempt from pain, sorrow, and death yet suffers pain, sorrow, and death.

– He is immortal yet mortal.

– He is eternal with no beginning yet has a beginning.

– He is self-existent yet derived.

– He is equal to God the Father yet is inferior to God the Father.

– He does not need to pray because in the fulness of the Godhead he needs nothing yet prays because he has needs.

– He did not die on the cross yet died on the cross.

– He cannot be contained by the heavens yet was enclosed in a woman’s womb.

– He is light yet enclosed in the darkness of a womb.

– He is Almighty God yet an infant’s body housed him.

– He is Almighty God yet a suckling babe dressed in diapers.

– He is without limitation yet had to learn to eat, walk, and speak.

– He was incarnated yet conceived.

All these and more conflicting attributes are contained in the person of Jesus.

Orthodoxy demands that a person believe in all these contradictions. Some contend that if a person does not believe these contradictions about Jesus, he cannot be saved.

Besides a lack of Scriptural support, a major flaw in the doctrine of the two natures of Jesus is that it presents Jesus as a deceiver. When Jesus said, “I can of mine own self do nothing. . . .” (John 5:30), Trinitarians claim that Jesus said this in his human nature. However, in his divine nature, he can do everything that God can do. When Jesus said, “. . . my Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28) Trinitarians maintain that he said this in his human nature. In his divine nature, he is as great as the Father. However, if Jesus is God, then he has deceived his audience with these two statements because he told them things that are not true. (According to the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon [where Jesus was declared to have two independent natures and wills] whenever Jesus spoke, he always spoke as God the Son and never as a mere human. Most Christians accept the decrees of these two councils. Thus, anyone who claims that Jesus ever spoke in his human nature is a heretic.)

These explanations are like a man claiming that he cannot write because he cannot write with his left hand, but he can write with his right hand. Another example is a man with a good eye and a glass eye who witnesses a crime. On the witness stand, he asserts that he did not see the crime although earlier in his police statement he had admitted seeing it. On the witness stand, he is referring to his glass eye (human nature), which did not see the crime, although his good eye (divine nature) did see the crime. 

Appendix. Atonement 

Trinitarians argue that sin is an infinite evil and, therefore, deserves an infinite punishment. Consequently, the atonement must be infinite, and no finite being can make an infinite atonement. Since Jesus is both God and man, his sacrifice on the cross qualifies as an infinite atonement. However, like the Valentinians, Trinitarians maintain that Jesus died as a man and not as God (God cannot die). Only his human nature bled and died. Thus, only the human nature of Jesus, the mere man, was offered and sacrificed. The divine nature of Jesus, God, was not offered and sacrificed. Consequently, the infinite atonement completely vanishes. The atoning sacrifice to the infinite God is a mere man, for only Jesus as a man endured and died on the cross. Therefore, concerning the atonement, the Trinitarian doctrine of the two natures of Jesus offers no advantage over the Unitarian doctrine that Jesus is solely human. (When dying on the cross, “. . . Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” – Mark 15:34. Thus, the God part of him had departed leaving only the human part to die.)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious 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.

Is Ann Coulter Credible?

Is Ann Coulter Credible?
Thomas Allen

    In her column “A Nation Rejoices! A Humiliating Defeat for Trump,” Ann Coulter explains why the Republican Doug Mastriano lost the gubernatorial election in Pennsylvania. With her explanation, she implies that she has no credibility.
    In “A Credibility Test,” a four-part test is given to determine if a person has credibility on political issues. The four questions are:
    (1)    Does the person believe or act as though he believes the official story of the Kennedy assassination?
    (2)    Does the person believe or act as though he believes the official governmental conspiracy theory of 9-11?
    (3)    Does the person believe or act as though he believes that the Democrats did not steal the 2020 presidential election but won it fairly?
    (4)    Does the person believe or act as though he believes that White replacement is a hoax?
If a person answers “yes” to any of these questions, his credibility is questionable. If he answers “yes” to two or three, he has no credibility. If he answers “yes” to all four, he is ignorant beyond repair and is irredeemably stupid.
    Among the reasons that Coulter gives for Mastriano’s defeat were that he spoke at a QAnon rally where the official stories of 9-11 and the Kennedy assassination were questioned. Thus, she implies that she accepts the official stories — at least, she does not reject them.
    Also, she condemns Mastriano for claiming that the Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election. By that, she implies that the Democrats did not steal the 2020 presidential election.
    Coulter does not discuss White replacement in this article. However, in “They’re Replacing You, Black America” (June 2, 2022), she implies that White replacement is a hoax.
    As shown above, Coulter answers all four questions with “yes.” Therefore, not only does she have no credibility, she is ignorant beyond repair and is irredeemably stupid.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Capitalists and Socialists

Capitalists and Socialists

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addendum

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

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

Copyright © 2023, 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Resisting Oppressive Governments

Resisting Oppressive Governments

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The texts of the verses cited in this article are given in the appendix that follows.]

In Glad Tidings of the Kingdom of God, issue 1658, p. 18, the Christadelphians argue that good Christians should not resist, but should obey implicitly, a despotic government no matter how tyrannical or evil it is. Other denominations also hold this same position. (When it advances the liberal or progressive agendas, many liberal churches interpret Romans 13:1-7 and Matthews 5:38-42 as the Christadelphians do. However, when governments act contrary to the liberal or progressive agendas, these liberal churches reject the Christadelphian interpretation.)

The Glad Tidings’ article uses the Nazi government of Germany as an example. Good Christians should not have opposed the Nazis rounding up Jews and other undesirables and sending them to concentration and labor camps. This included not opposing the Nazis verbally as such opposition was illegal, either implicitly or explicitly. Later, when the Nazis executed millions of Jews, good Christians should not have objected.

On the contrary, good Christians, being obedient to the government, would have aided the government. If they knew where a Jew was hiding, they would have informed the government as required by law. They certainly would not have hidden or aided a Jew as that was against the law.

That is because the Nazis were only obeying God’s will. According to the Christadelphians, God wanted the Nazis to execute large numbers of Jews so that He could use the slaughter as an excuse to drive the Palestinians from their homes and turn Palestine into the Jewish state of Israel, which has the reputation of being the pornographic capital of the world.

To support their position of implicit obedience to despotic evil governments, Christadelphians cite Romans 13:1–7, which is a despot’s favorite biblical passage. A good Christian should not resist any government no matter how evil it is because no government is a terror to good works but is always a terror to evil. Moreover, governments are ministers of God for good and only punish doers of evil. (If Paul practiced what he wrote as most people interpret this passage, he would have never been jailed. However, he was jailed several times.)

Consequently, if a despot declared that all children less than 13 years old are to be turned over to the government for sexual pleasures and tortures, good Christians will turn their children over to the government. Thus, being implicitly obedient to the government, all good Christians would turn their children over to the government for the pleasures of their pedophiliac overlords, who want the children to satisfy their sexual deviations culminating in torturing the children to death. These Christians are obeying the government as the Christadelphian interpretation of Roman 13 tells them to do. Moreover, they would insist that the government take their teenagers per Matthew 5:38-42 as the Christadelphians interpret this passage.

If the government decrees that all Christians are to be executed and that they have to appear before the local magistrate to receive a lethal injection, Christadelphians would be first in line for their shots. Other Christians who understand Romans 13:1-7 as the Christadelphians understand it would be standing with them. (Moreover, following their understanding of Matthew 5:38-42, Christadelphians would report every Christian whom they knew to the authorities.) After all, all rulers are ministers of God (Romans 13:4) and have been ordained by Him (Romans 13:1). As such, they are God’s avengers to doers of evil (Romans 13:4). Since the government has decreed that Christians must be executed, then Christians must be doers of evil. If the mass execution of Jews were part of God’s plan, then the mass execution of Christians must also be part of God’s plan. No Christian could object without going against the will of God.

However, Christadelphians are pacifists who resist the draft and serving in the armed forces. Thus, they show their inconsistency and hypocrisy. By resisting being part of the Nazi army, they were resisting God’s will of mass execution of Jews.

Nevertheless, Christadelphians do give themselves an out. They cite Acts 4:19–20. According to their understanding of this passage, a Christian has to disobey the government when it tells them to act contrary to God’s will. How does a Christian know what is God’s will? If the Nazi murder of millions of people is God’s will, what is not God’s will?

APPENDIX

The following verses are quoted from the World English Bible.

Romans 13:1-7

13 Let every soul be in subjection to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those who exist are ordained by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authority withstands the ordinance of God; and those who withstand will receive to themselves judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Do you desire to have no fear of the authority? Do that which is good, and you will have praise from the authority, 4 for he is a servant of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid, for he doesn’t bear the sword in vain; for he is a servant of God, an avenger for wrath to him who does evil. 5 Therefore you need to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For this reason you also pay taxes, for they are servants of God’s service, continually doing this very thing. 7 Therefore give everyone what you owe: if you owe taxes, pay taxes; if customs, then customs; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Matthew 5:38-42

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I tell you, don’t resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 If anyone sues you to take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. 41 Whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and don’t turn away him who desires to borrow from you.

Acts 4:19-20

19 But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, judge for yourselves, 20 for we can’t help telling the things which we saw and heard.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Reason for the Loss

Reason for the Loss

Thomas Allen

As the red wave has turned into the red drop, Republican and conservative commentators look for an explanation to explain the loss. Following are some of the excuses for the loss.

1. Trump. Blaming Trump is the most popular one. If true, this means that people loathe Trump so much that they would rather have the Democrats destroy the country than have Trump as president and his endorsed candidates as Representatives, Senators, and governors.

2. McConnell. According to this excuse, Senator McConnell, a RINO, prefers being the leader of the loyal opposition and, thus, having no responsibilities. Moreover, McConnell failed to provide a vision for the Republican Party to follow or any programs and policies to solve the problems and disasters that the Democrats have inflicted on the country. Also, he failed to fund close races that Republicans could have won while funding races that the Republicans were going to win anyway.

3. McCarthy. PACs associated with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy spent money on Republican candidates running in primaries against make-American-great-again (MAGA) candidates. Consequently, money that could have been used against Democratic candidates in the general election was used against Republican MAGA candidates in the primary elections. Thus, McCarthy placed defeating MAGA candidates in primary elections above defeating Democratic candidates in the general election.

4. Abortion. Most Americans seem to want to offer their unborn and even born babies as sacrifices to Moloch. (Moloch is a pagan god who is worshiped by sacrificing children.) While most Democrats support abortion for any reason and up to and even beyond birth, many Republicans do not. (Most abortions are for birth control. Rarely is an abortion performed to save a mother’s life or for rape or incest.) Thus, Democrats turned abortion into the winning issue that exceeded the importance of the horrendous economic problems, the destruction of the country by third-world nonwhite aliens, crime, and the growing possibility of a nuclear war.

5. Failure to Keep up with the Times. Republicans have failed to keep up with the changes in how elections are conducted. Unlike Democrats, Republicans have not used these election changes. While Democrats have become masters of ballet harvesting, Republicans have not. Republicans still mostly depend on voting on election day. However, Republicans need to follow the Democrats’ example of voting early (but what prevents the Democratic vote counters from losing these early Republican votes). However, ballot harvesting and early voting are only minor issues. Voting machines malfunctions only in predominately Republican precincts and voting machines that switch votes from Republicans to Democrats are major problems and strongly suggest stealing elections. Other major issues that suggest stealing elections are shipping in truckloads of ballots even from other States mostly marked for Democrats, preventing Republican poll watchers from observing the ballot count, and frequently violating State election laws. Another scheme (scam) is mailing ballots to Republicans with incorrect addresses; the ballots are then returned to the board of election giving them legal ballots that can be filled out for Democrats. Republicans cannot overcome these disadvantages because Democrats and RINOs control the boards of elections and, therefore, the vote counting in key cities and the voting machines. Thus, Democrats can easily add Democrat votes and lose Republican votes. Moreover, Democrats can get judges to change the voting laws for the benefit of Democrats; Republicans have been unable or unwilling to do this. Furthermore, Republicans have difficulty in finding a judge to hear cases about election fraud and illegalities, and if they do find one, a higher court overturns the case. Consequently, for the Republicans to become the dominant party in the federal government ever again, they must out-cheat the Democrats.

6. Young Voters. Voters less than 30 years of age overwhelmingly voted for Democrats. Why? Because most young voters are stupid or ignorant. The ruling elite has brainwashed the young into supporting Democrats because Democrats support the agendas of the ruling elite with much more alacrity than do Republicans. Schools and universities have dumbed down and indoctrinated students so that they support the ruling elite’s agenda. The ruling elite has taught the young to hate America and Whites and to support globalism and sexual perversions. Consequently, the young vote for Democrats, who want to destroy America and genocide Whites and who promote globalism and sexual perversions.

7. Wokeism. Democrats promote the woke agenda with much more vigor than do Republicans. With alacrity, Democrats push granting special privileges to the alphabet people (LBGT+). As advocates for transgenders, Democrats are more likely to approve of mutilating children’s bodies. Democrats also champion critical race theory, which teaches the hatred of Whites because Whites are the cause of all America’s and the world’s problems — only people of color, excluding East Asians, can save humanity. Moreover, Democrats are much more likely to eliminate bail for violent crimes than are Republicans. Furthermore, Democrats favor open borders and unlimited nonwhite immigration while Republicans weakly oppose them. Thus, Republicans support and promote the woke agenda with less enthusiasm than do Democrats. Consequently, Republicans lost because they are not radical enough on social issues to satisfy wokesters. Wokesters hate Whites, Christianity, and Western Civilization and love Satan and sin so much that they will do anything to annihilate Whites, Christianity, and Western Civilization — even if it means annihilating themselves. Since Democrats are more supportive of the woke-driven agenda than are Republicans, wokesters, who seem to vote in greater numbers than their victims, voted Democrats into office.

8. January 6. Many voters vehemently disagreed with supporters of Trump taking action at the Capitol Building in an attempt to prevent a stolen election. What these people overlook are the Capitol guards opening the doors to the Capitol Building and waving people inside, Democratic provocateurs in the crowd trying to incite a riot, and Democrats refusing Trump’s offer of 20,000 natural guardsmen to protect the Capitol.

9. Money. The Democrats and their supporting PACs spent significantly more money than did the Republicans and their supporting PACs, especially in close races. Accordingly, the Democratic Party is no longer the party of the workingman and the little guy, except for welfare recipients and nonwhites. It is the party of big money and big business, and, consequently, it raises more money than the Republican Party.

Whatever the cause of the red wave becoming the red drop is, most Republican and conservative commentators are certain about one thing. Just as no election was stolen in 2020, so no election was stolen in 2022. However, when the number of ballots counted exceeds the number of registered voters, election fraud exists.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Review of Facts and Falsehoods – Part 2

Review of Facts and Falsehoods – Part 2

Thomas Allen

Negro Voting

Edmonds reveals the low opinion about Blacks held by the typical Republican. He quotes an 1880 issue of the Lemars (Iowa) Sentinel, which he describes as one of the boldest Republican organs that frankly betrayed its party’s real feeling toward the Negro race, “As an office seeker, the negro [sic] has more brass in a square inch of his face, more rapaciousness for office, than his barbarian masters ever dared to possess. The Southern brigadier wants office and place, but he is willing to fight for them, or vote for them; at the drop of the hat he will shoot and cut for them; he does not whine like a whipped cur, or demand like a beggar on horseback, as the nigger does. Let the nigger first learn to vote before he asks for office. The brazen-jawed nigger is but a trifle less assuming, insolent and imperious in his demands than the lantern-jawed brigadiers; the educated nigger is a more capacious liar than his barbarian masters ever were, or dared to be.

“The greatest mistake the Republican party ever made was taking the nigger at a single bound and placing on his impenetrable skull the crown of suffrage. It is a wrong to him and to us to let him wield the ballot. The nigger is necessarily an ignoramus. The free nigger, we repeat, is a fraud.” (p. 220.)

(The reason for giving the Negro suffrage was to maintain Republican political power. Thus, the reason for the fifteenth amendment, which gave Black males the vote, was to maintain Republican control in the North. This amendment only applied in the Northern States; the Negro already had the vote in all the defunct Confederate States when this amendment was ratified.)

Grant’s Drinking

About Grant’s alcoholism, Edmonds writes, “From early manhood General Grant was afflicted with the drink disease.” (p. 221.) Then he quotes Wendell Phillips, insane hater of the South, and General Don Piatt, an abolitionist (p. 221).

“Phillips said: ‘Grant can never stand before a bottle of whiskey without falling down.’

“General Piatt, in ‘Memories of the Men Who Saved the Union,’ says: ‘Grant’s habit of drink lost us thousands and thousands of patriotic lives. The attempt to conceal this is not only pitiable, but hopeless.’”

Continuing, Edmonds writes, “The terrible slaughter of Union soldiers at Cold Harbor was charged to Grant’s drunkenness. Major-General Wm. F. Smith, in a confidential letter to Senator Foote, July 30, 1864, states that soon after Grant had taken a pledge to drink nothing intoxicating, he (Grant) called at his (Smith's) headquarters, and asked for whiskey, and drank so often he went away drunk, and General Butler saw him. A short while before this Grant had written to Washington asking that General Butler be relieved from that department, because he (Grant) ‘could not trust Butler with the command of the troops in the movements about to be made.’ Instructions were sent to Grant to remove Butler. Butler heard of this and hurried to see Grant. General Smith wrote Senator Foote that he heard direct from Grant’s headquarters, and also from another source, that General Butler threatened Grant that he would expose his drunken habits if the order was not revoked. The order was revoked, and Butler remained in command, although Grant had said he was unfit to be trusted.” (p. 221.)

Some English Views of Reconstruction

Edmonds quotes two English historians on their views of Reconstruction (p. 238).

“Percy Gregg, the English historian, in his history of the United States, says: ‘The reconstruction policy was at once dishonest and vindictive. The Congressional majority (Republican) were animated not merely by selfish designs, but by rabid hatred of the South’s people which had fought so gallantly for what the best jurists of America believed to be their moral and constitutional right.’

“Another English writer of great eminence, Anthony Trollope, was in this country during the reconstruction period, and wrote of it thus: ‘I hold that tyranny never went beyond this. Never has there been a more terrible condition imposed upon a fallen people. For an Italian to feel an Austrian over him, for a Pole to feel a Russian over him, has been bad indeed, but it has been left for the political animosity of the Republicans of the North — men who themselves reject all contact with the negro — to subject the Southern people to dominance from the African who yesterday was their slave. The dungeon chains were knocked off the captive in order that he may be harnessed as a beast of burden to the captive's chariot.’

“We will give another passage from Gregg, the English historian: ‘The devastation of the Pallatine [sic] hardly exceeded the desolation and misery wrought by the Republican invasion and conquest of the South. No conquered nation of modern days, not Poland under the heel of Nicholas, not Spain or Russia under that of Napoleon, suffered from such individual and collective ruin, or saw before them so frightful a prospect as the States dragged by force, in April, 1865. under the “best government in the world.”’ (Page 375, Gregg's History of United States.)” [Palatine was a territory in Germany that lost about 90 percent of its population during the Thirty Years War.]

Not So Random Quotations

Wendell Phillips, an abolitionist:

– “He [Lincoln] is a first-rate second-rate man; that is all of him.”

– “Mr. Lincoln is a politician; politicians are like the bones of a horse’s fore shoulder; not a straight one in it.”

– “The Constitution is a mistake! Tear it to pieces! Our aim is disunion!”

– “The Republican party is in no sense a national party. It is a party of the North, organized against the South.”

– “We confess that we intend to trample on the Constitution of this country. We of New England are not a law-abiding community. God be thanked for it! We are disunionists; we want to get rid of this Union.”

William Lloyd Garrison, a New England abolitionist:

– “The Republican party is moulding public sentiment in the right direction for the dissolution of the Union.”

Rev. Andrew Forbes:

– “There never was an hour when this blasphemous and infamous Union should have been made; now the hour must be prayed for when it will be dashed to pieces.”

Parson Pryiic, a red hot Republican:

“A dissolution of the Union is what a large portion of the Republicans are driving at.”

William H. Seward, Lincoln’s Secretary of State:

– “Our Constitution is to us of the North a great danger. The Southerners are using it as a shield.”

– “Only a despotic and imperial government can subjugate seceding States.”

– “The attempt to reinforce Sumter will provoke an attack and involve war.” 

Ward H. Lamon, Lincoln’s self-appointed bodyguard:

– “As a people, Lincoln thought negroes would only be useful to those who were at the same time their masters, and the foes of those who sought their good.”

– “Lincoln always contended that the cheapest way of getting rid of the negro was for the Nation to buy the slaves and send them out of the country.”

– “He [Lincoln] never at any time favored the admission of negroes into the body of the electors in his State, or in the States of the South.”

General Don Piatt, an abolitionist:

– “Lincoln well knew that the North was not fighting to free slaves, nor was the South fighting to preserve slavery.”

– “I found that Mr. Lincoln could no more feel sympathy for that wretched [Negro] race than he could for the horse he worked or the hog he killed.”

Senator Benjamin Wade of Ohio:

– “There is really no Union now between the North and the South. I believe no two nations on earth entertain feelings of more bitter rancor toward each other than these two peoples.”

Senator Stephen Douglas:

– “The fact can no longer be disguised that many Republican Senators desire war and disunion under pretense of saving the Union. For partisan reasons they are anxious to destroy the Union. They want this done without holding them responsible before the people.”

the Lemars (Iowa) Sentinel, a Republican newspaper:

– “The Stalwarts do not care a fig for the Constitution, and will trample it under foot today as did Lincoln and the Union hosts from ’61 to ’65.”

an Iowa editor:

– “Abraham Lincoln kicked the Constitution into the Capitol cellar, and there it remained innocuous until the war ended.”

Judge Yaples, in the Cincinnati Enquirer of 1880:

– “Republican hate is grounded on the fact that the people of the South will not join the Republican party.”

Unknown:

– “The people of Raleigh, N. C, were astonished to find that Sherman’s army were Christian gentlemen.”

George Edmonds:

– “The underlying cause of every conflict between man and man, tribe and tribe, country and country, has been on the one side a craving for power, on the other side an effort to escape that power.”

– “So long had the gospel of hate been preached, those New Englanders had come to hate the South so venomously they wanted to force her out of the Union she loved.”

– “All abolitionists believed in the right of secession. All hated the Union and wanted to break it to pieces.”

– “Before the South seceded, the foremost men in the Republican party openly maintained the right of secession.”

– “Lincoln was the first President who usurped the power to rule the American people.”

– “The whole reconstruction period was a deadly war on Southern people, and the more base and cowardly because waged on unarmed men and women.”

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1.

More Southern articles.