Thursday, February 15, 2018

Newton on the Trinity Doctrine

Newton on the Trinity Doctrine
Thomas Allen

    After an intense study of the Bible, Isaac Newton concluded that the Trinitarian doctrine was wrong. “The doctrine of the Trinity means that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons — the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Stated differently, God is one in essence and three in person. These definitions express three crucial truths: (1) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, (2) each Person is fully God, (3) there is only one God.”[1] Newton summarizes his argument in “Twelve Articles on God and Christ.”[2]
    1. 1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus,”[3] and 1 Corinthians 8:6: “yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.” From these verses, Newton concludes that there is only one God, who is the Father, and not a triune God, i.e., Jesus Christ was not God Himself, God absolute. [According to Colossians 1:15, Christ is the image of God.] The man Jesus Christ is the mediator between God and man. Moreover, God is everliving, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Jesus Christ is not. [See Matthew 24:36 for Christ’s lack of omniscience, which is discussed below. Also, his lack of omnipresence is discussed below.]
    2. Colossians 1:15: “who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation”; 1 Timothy 1:17: “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.”; and 1 Timothy 6:16: “who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power eternal. Amen.” From these verses, Newton concludes that no human has ever seen God as He is invisible. Only God is immortal and eternal. Jesus was visible and died [or did only part of him die?]. [Furthermore, being “the firstborn of all creation” also conflict with the Trinity Doctrine because being the firstborn, Christ is not eternal.]
    3. John 5:26: “For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself:”. From this verse, Newton concluded that only the Father, God, has life in Himself, and He gave the Son life in himself. This implies that God the Father existed before the Son. Thus, the Son is not eternal.
    4. Matthew 24:36: “But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.”; Mark 13:32: “But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” John 5:19-20: “Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth: and greater works than these will he show him, that ye may marvel.” Revelation 1:1: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John”; Revelation 5:3: “And no one in the heaven, or on the earth, or under the earth, was able to open the book, or to look thereon.”; Revelation 19:10: “And I fell down before his feet to worship him. And he saith unto me, See thou do it not: I am a fellow-servant with thee and with thy brethren that hold the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”; and Revelation 19:13: “And he is arrayed in a garment sprinkled with blood: and his name is called The Word of God.” From these verses, Newton concludes that only the Father is omniscient; the Son lacks this divine essence (does not know the day or hour). However, the Father communicates the knowledge of the future to His Son Jesus Christ, as only he is worthy of that knowledge. Thus, “Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy and Jesus is the Word or Prophet of God.”
    5. God the Father is immovable and fills all space. All other beings, including the Son, can move from one space to another. [Acts 1:9-11 describes the resurrected Christ moving from earth to heaven with a promise that he will return from heaven to earth in the future. Thus, being able to move from one place to another, Jesus Christ cannot be omnipresent. Moreover, the “Jesus in his humanity” argument the Trinitarians like to use to explain away Jesus’ lack of knowledge and other divine traits cannot be used here because he had already shed his human shell. God’s omnipresence is discussed further below.]
    6. Moreover, all worship due to God the Father before the advent of Christ is still due to him. Christ does not and did not come to diminish the worship of his Father.
    7. Therefore, prayers should be directed to the Father in the name of the Son.
    8. 1 Timothy 6:8: “but having food and covering we shall be therewith content.” From this verse, Newton concludes that Christians should thank the Father alone for their creation and for providing them with food, raiment, and other blessings. All prayers of thanks or requests should be in the name of Christ.
    9. Moreover, Christian should not pray to Christ. Christ will intercede if Christians pray to the Father.
    10. Ephesians 5:20: “giving thanks always for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father.” From this verse, Newton concludes that all that is necessary for salvation is to direct prayers to the Father in the name of Christ. Praying to any other is not necessary.
    11. Calling angels and kings god does not violate the first commandment. [See John 10:34, Exodus 21:26, Deuteronomy 1:17, Psalms 58:1.] However, giving worship due God to angels, kings, or others does violate it.
    12. 1 Corinthians 8:6: “yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.”; Matthew 5:35: “nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.”; John 1:29 “On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!”; John 1:36: “and he looked upon Jesus as he walked, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God!”; and Revelation 5:9-10: “And they sing a new song, saying, Worthy art thou to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, and madest them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests; and they reign upon the earth.” From these verses, Newton concludes that there is but one God, who is the Father. Christians “are to worship the Father alone God Almighty and Jesus alone as the Lord the Messiah the great King the Lamb of God who was slain and hath redeemed us with his blood and made us kings and Priests.”
    Newton summarized his belief as follows:
And we are to believe in one God, the father, almighty in dominion, the maker of heaven & earth & of all things therein; & in one Lord Jesus Christ the son of God, who was born of a Virgin, &; sacrificed for us on the cross, &; the third day rose again from the dead, & ascended into heaven, & sitteth on the right hand of God in a mystical sense, being next unto him in honour & power.[4]
    Moreover, Newton believed “that there is one everliving omnipresent omnipotent (invisible) God the creator of heaven & earth & (of), all things therein . . . [and] therefore to acknowledge . . . one God infinite eternal omnipresent, omniscient & omnipotent (. . . the creator of all things most wise, most just, most good most holy;) & to have no other Gods but him.”[5]
    Newton also notes that in several places Christ confesses his dependence on the will of the Father. He also confesses that he himself is less than the Father and the Father is greater than he and calls the Father his God. [According to John 5:19, 30; 10: 29; 14:28 and 1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:28, the Son is subordinate to the Father. In John 14: 28, Jesus even admits that the Father is greater than he is: “for the Father is greater than I.” Thus, this conflicts with the Trinity Doctrine that the Father and Son are equal. It also leads to the question if the Father is the God of the Son, then who is the God of the Father? Also, how can God have a God?] Moreover, the Son confesses that only the Father has knowledge of all future events (Matthew 24:36).
    Furthermore, Newton contends that “word” (“logos”) as used in Chapter 1 of John should be understood in its ordinary, everyday use and not in the mystical way Trinitarians explain it. John was trying to avoid Jesus being seen as a mere man or as the supreme God. John attempted to avoid these extremes by referring to him as the “word.” He intended that “word” be understood in its ordinary, everyday use. When John wrote, “word” was used in the sense of the Platonists [that which is spoken] when applied to intelligent beings.
    Moreover, Newton does not believe that Jesus had a human soul as such. He finds no evidence or mention in the Scriptures of him having a human soul. He was the word incarnated, and by the word itself, he was made flesh and took on himself the form of a servant.
    Also, only the Father is God almighty. However, this does not limit the power of the Son, who does whatever he sees the Father doing. Nonetheless, all power is originally in the Father, and the Son has no power in himself; he derives his power from the Father, for the Son professes that he can do nothing of himself (John 5:19). [The Son’s admission that he is inferior to the Father conflicts with the Trinity Doctrine of three coequals.]
    Moreover, in all things the Son submits his will to the will of the Father. Such submission argues against the Trinity Doctrine of the Son being equal to the Father. [How could and why would an equal submit to an equal?]
    The union between the Son and the Father, Newton understands to be like that of the saints with one another. It is in agreement of will and counsel. It is a unity of purpose.
    Newton believes that “God is one not only in essence (as in Trinitarian Theology) but also in person.”[6] God is the Father; the Father is God. The two words are synonymous.
    Newton declares that there is only one God, who is the God of the Patriarchs and the Christians. He is the father who has life in Himself and who has given the Son to have life in himself. Moreover, the Father is the author of life to all intelligent beings, the Almighty (universal monarch, that is, the supreme and universal governor of the Universe), the maker of heaven and earth and of all things therein visible and invisible.
    As for Christ, Newton declares that he is Lord, who has received life from the Father and who was slain for us, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. To express his being next to the father in dignity and dominion, he sits at the right hand of God the Father. Christ will come again to judge and reign over those who remain alive in the flesh and the dead whom he will raise again to life and reward according to their works at his coming. He will establish his kingdom, for he must reign till he had put all things under his feet, the last of which is death.
    “For Newton, the unity Christ shared with the Father was moral rather than essential.”[7] Nevertheless, although Christ is not very God in the Nicene sense, “Christ is divine in origin (literally the Son of God) and that he pre-existed his birth by Mary.”[8]
    Newton believes that the Father alone is the invisible God of the Bible. God is the first cause and consequently eternal and omnipresent. Thus, He is always invisible, present at all times and in all places, and knows everything that everyone does, says, or thinks. Being everywhere at once, He does not move from place to place. He is void of external shape or bounds, intangible, and invisible, whom no human has ever seen. “Because God is by nature invisible, Trinitarian theologians were wrong to discuss God’s substance.”[9]
    Unlike God, who is always invisible, Christ was visible and will be visible again. Newton writes, “The son can do nothing of himself but what he seeth the father do John 5.19. The father judgeth no man [visibly] but hath committed all judgment unto the son, that all men should honour the [visible] Son even as they honour the [invisible] father, John 5:22,23.”[10] Thus, he distinguishes between the invisible Father and the visible Son. [If the Father and Son are of the same substance as the Trinity Doctrine claims, then no such distinction should exist.]
    According to John 5:26 (“For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself:”), the Father has life in Himself, but the Son does not; he gets his life from the Father. Thus, the Son is subordinate to the Father. Newton concludes that the God of the Patriarchs and the Christians is the Father who has life in Himself, and He has given to the Son to have life in himself.
    Being omnipresent, God is everywhere at once throughout space and time. About space, Newton writes:
Absolute space, of its own nature without reference to anything external, always remains homogeneous and immovable. Relative space is any movable measure or dimension of this absolute space; such a measure or dimension is determined by our senses from the situation of the space with respect to bodies and is popularly used for immovable space, as in the case of space under the earth or in the air or in the heavens, where the dimension is determined from the situation of the space with respect to the earth.[11]
Thus, God, being immovable, is coextensive with immovable absolute space. “Just as relative space is measured against the benchmark of absolute space, so all changing creation (of which Christ is a part) is distinguished from the immutable God.”[12] [Being omnipresent, God is everywhere simultaneously. He surrounds every atom and fills all voids between and in every atom. Moreover, he fills all the electrons, protons, and all other parts of every atom.] Therefore, God is absolute and Christ is relative. [This is another conflict with the Trinity Doctrine.]
    Newton holds that Christ should not be worshiped as God. Christ should be worshiped, but not the point of distracting from the proper worship due God the Father Almighty; to do so violates the First Commandment (1 Corinthians 8:5-6). Christ should be worshiped, not as God Almighty, but as a king of kings and lord of lords, who has redeemed his elect with his blood. Thus, God is to be worshiped as God and Christ as Lord.
    Newton notes that the term “God” is occasionally applied to angels and Israelite kings in the Bible as an honorific title. However, bearing the title God does not grant them the privilege of receiving the worship due to God alone. According to Newton, the term “God” is relative in nature. It obtains its meaning not from essence, as in the Trinitarian Doctrine, but from dominion. He explains:
[God] rules all things, not as the world soul but as the lord of all. And because of his dominion he is called Lord God Pantokrator [i.e., Almighty]. For “god” is a relative word and has reference to servants, and godhood is the lordship of God, not over his own body as is supposed by those for whom God is the world soul, but over servants. . . . And in this sense princes are called gods, Psalms 82.6 and John 10.35. And Moses is called a god of his brother Aaron and a god of king Pharaoh (Exod. 4.16 and 7.1). And in the same sense the souls of dead princes were formerly called gods by the heathen, but wrongly because of their lack of dominion.[13]
    1 Corinthians 8:6 (“yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.”) distinguishes a separation not only between Father and Son but also between God and Christ.
    In summary, Newton believed there is one God the Father, who is everliving, omnipresent, omniscient, and almighty and who is the maker of heaven and earth, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. The Father is the invisible God, whom no eye has seen or can see; all other beings are visible. The Father has life in Himself and has given the Son to have life in himself. Moreover, the Father is omniscient and has all knowledge of future things originally in His own breast. He communicates knowledge of future things to Jesus Christ, for none in heaven or earth or under the earth is worthy to receive knowledge of future things immediately from the Father except the Lamb. Therefore, the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, and Jesus is the Word or Prophet of God. Furthermore, the Father is immovable, and no place can become emptier or fuller of Him than it is by the eternal necessity of nature. Prayers are most prevalent when directed to the Father in the name of the Son, and Christians are to give thanks to Father alone. Moreover, whatever Christians are to thank God for or to desire that He would give them, they should ask of Him immediately in the name of Christ. Also, Christians need not pray to Christ to intercede for them; if they pray to the Father correctly, Christ will intercede. Furthermore, it is not necessary for salvation for Christians to direct their prayers to any other than the Father in the name of the Son. For the Christian, there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things (1 Corinthians 8:6). Christians are to worship the Father alone as God Almighty and Jesus alone as the Lord, the Messiah, the King, and the Lamb of God (1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:5-6, Matthew 5:35 and John 1:29,36). Jesus is the Lamb who was slain and has redeemed Christians with his blood and made them kings and priests.
    [For more details on the above discussion, see Endnote 4.]

1. Matt Perman, “What Is the Doctrine of the Trinity?”, January 23, 2006,, downloaded July 29, 2017.

2. “Isaac Newton’s Twelve Articles on God and Christ c. 1710s-1720s,” Keynes Ms 8, King’s College, Cambridge,, downloaded July 29, 2017.

3. Quotes from the Bible are from the American Standard Version, which some theologians consider the best translation of the New Testament.

4. Stephen D. Snobelen, “Commentary on Isaac Newton’s Twelve Articles on God and Christ,”, downloaded July 29, 2017.

5.  Ibid.

6.  Ibid.

7.  Ibid.

8.  Ibid.

9.  Ibid.

10.  Ibid.

11.  Ibid.

12.  Ibid.

13. Ibid.

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on religion.

Wednesday, February 7, 2018

Poor on Fawcett

Poor on Fawcett
Thomas Allen

    In 1877, Henry Varnum Poor (1812-1905) wrote Money and Its Laws: Embracing a History of Monetary Theories, and a History of the Currency of the United States. He was a financial analyst and founder of a company that evolved into Standard & Poor’s. Poor was a proponent of the real bills doctrine and the classical gold-coin standard and, thus, the quality theory of money. He gave little credence to the quantity theory of money — especially if credit money, such as bank notes, were convertible on demand in species. Also, he contended that the value of money depends on and is derived from the value of the material of which it is made and with paper money, its representation of such value.
    In the latter part of his book, he discusses leading monetary theorists from Aristotle (350 B.C.) to David A. Wells (1875). Most of the economists whom he discussed were proponents of the quantity theory of money. We will look at his discussion on Henry Fawcett. My comments are in brackets. Referenced page numbers enclosed in parentheses are to Poor’s book.
    Henry Fawcett (1833-1884) was a British academic, statesman and economist. He was a professor of political science at the University of Cambridge, England. Among his works are Manual of Political Economy (1865), which Poor reviews, Democracy in America (1875), and Free Trade and Protectionism (1878).
    Fawcett writes, that “a bank-note, whether issued by a State establishment or by a private firm, is simply a convenient form for bringing into practical use the credit which may be possessed by the Bank. . . . A banker, therefore, whose credit is good can circulate a great number of his notes in his own neighborhood; his notes being willingly accepted by those to whom he is known. . . . It is manifestly to his advantage to issue notes” (p. 376). Using an example, he illustrates his statement. If £60,000 of bank notes are kept in circulation and if the banker keeps legal-tender reserves equal to £20,000, he has £40,000 at his disposal to invest. In England, the circulation of bank notes is placed under various restrictions. Fawcett investigates the effect on prices that the removal of these restrictions would have. “[T]he effect which would be produced entirely depends upon circumstances” (p. 376). If “there is no change in the population, or in the commercial condition of the country[,] . . . [and if] an increased issue of notes were added to the money circulation of the country, prices would manifestly rise; because there would be now more money in circulation to carry on the same amount of buying and selling which was previously conducted by a smaller amount of money” (p. 376). However, if “the additional notes which are issued simply cause a corresponding amount of bullion to be withdrawn from circulation, it is manifest that no effect is produced on prices” (p. 376). Continuing, Fawcett states:
[G]eneral prices depend upon the quantity of money in circulation compared with the wealth which is bought and sold with money, and also upon the frequency with which this wealth is bought and sold before it is consumed. If more wealth is produced, and an increased quantity of wealth is also bought and sold for money, general prices must decline, unless a large quantity of money is brought into circulation. . . . In fact, if there should be an increased production of wealth, if there should be more buying and selling, or if any other circumstance should occur the effect of which is to require the circulation of a larger amount of money, the value of money must rise; or, in other words, general prices must decline, unless an increased supply of money is forthcoming, so that a larger amount may be brought into circulation (p. 377).
    Next Fawcett discusses bills of exchange. If bills of exchange ceased to be used, then the money supply would have to be increased to replace the bills of exchange. Thus, “bills of exchange, in many classes of transactions, are a convenient and complete substitute for money” (p. 377). “Consequently, if it were not for bills of exchange, one of two things must happen: either the money in circulation must be increased, or the money already in circulation must become more valuable, since a greater amount of money will be required to carry on the trade and commerce of the country” (p. 377). Therefore, whether an increased issue of bills of exchange affects prices cannot be answered affirmatively or negatively. “All that can be said is this: if the buying and selling now carried on by bills of exchange were effected by money, then one of two things must occur, — either more money must be brought into circulation, or general price most decline” (pp. 377-378). Fawcett concludes, “The influence, however, which is exerted upon prices by bills of exchange is not due to any thing peculiar in the nature or form of a bill of exchange: it is not the bill which produces the influence, but the influence is produced by the credit which is given. The bill is not this credit; but is simply a testimony or record of its existence” (p. 378).
    Poor responds that Fawcett errs in his example. All £60,000 of notes would be returned for redemption within 60 to 90 days of the issue for gold coin or the equivalent to coin. Explaining how this would happen, Poor writes:
If the banker discounted bills representing merchandise, his notes would be returned to him by their makers in their payment. If he discounted those that would not be paid, then the notes issued would have to be presently taken in by him, by paying out a corresponding amount of his reserve. The debts created by their issue are to be discharged by their use, or by that of coin. Every note issued, therefore, must have a provision of an equal amount of capital for its discharge, and must be discharged by such provision. Its value depends upon its capacity of being discharged, of being retired from circulation. If it could never be discharged, it could have no value. Such is the law of all convertible currencies. Notes get into circulation upon the credit of the issuer; but it is always upon the assumption that means, their equivalent in value, are first provided for their redemption. Without such confidence, no one would take them. The basis of their circulation is not credit, but capital. Credit is but another word for confidence that such capital exists, and can always be had when wanted (p. 378).
    Poor continues, “The reserve is not held to meet such notes as occasionally return, such as are assumed to be issued in excess; for the reason that all will return within their appointed periods” (p. 379). Thus, “Mr. Fawcett wholly misconceived the law or nature of paper money” (p. 379). [Poor gives an excellent explanation of the operation of the real bills doctrine. If the principle of the real bills doctrine is adhered to, currency cannot be overissued. It ensures that the currency available to clear, buy, new goods entering the markets is sufficient to clear the market with little or no effect on prices. Here is where the advocates of Social Credit err. Under the real bills doctrine, new goods entering the markets produce the money needed to buy them, i.e., the bill of exchange. Without resorting to borrowing, it also provides the money to pay employees and suppliers before the goods are sold. Thus, the real bills doctrine is far superior to the Social Credit scheme, which requires the government to print and give government notes to the people to close the gap between national income and the gross domestic product. The real bills doctrine closes the perceived gap between the national income and gross domestic product more quickly, accurately, and precisely than does the Social Credit scheme. Moreover, unlike the Social Credit scheme, the real bills doctrine closes the gap without resorting to governmental force or making the people dependent on the government or leading them to believe that they are getting something for nothing. Unlike the Social Credit scheme, which requires about two years to deliver the money to the people necessary to close the gap that occurred two years earlier, the real bills doctrine does so within a few months at most. Furthermore, the real bills doctrine is far superior to the Social Credit scheme at getting the right amount of money at the right place and at the right time.]
    Moreover, according to Poor, Fawcett errs with “his statement that notes can be substituted, as currency, for a corresponding amount of gold; the saving to the country being in the amount of the substitution, ‘because notes, which are simply pieces of paper of no intrinsic value, perform with equal efficiency all the purposes which were previously fulfilled by the gold which is now supposed to be dispensed with’” (p. 379). Poor remarks:
Notes which are constantly being retired from circulation cannot take the place of gold which remains, as currency, unchanged and permanently in circulation. Whether convertible or not, they cannot perform, with equal efficiency, all the purposes which are fulfilled by gold. Their value is representative, not intrinsic; that of gold is intrinsic, not representative. Notes become valueless if their constituent become valueless; the value of gold depends upon nothing but itself (p. 379).
[With today’s paper fiat money, notes have replaced gold. That paper notes and their electronic equivalent “cannot perform, with equal efficiency, all the purposes which are fulfilled by gold” explains much of the monetary and economic problems that the world now faces.]
    In comparing gold with bank notes, Poor writes:
Gold can be used in the arts; notes cannot. Gold can discharge indebtedness to foreign countries; notes cannot. Gold can discharge balances arising in the domestic trade of a country; notes cannot. Gold can be held as reserves by the issuers of paper money, and by society, and for all time; notes cannot in either case, as they are necessarily speedily retired by the use, or disappearance from any cause, of their constituent. Notes are accepted within the country in which they are issued, by reason of their representative character. They can perform only one function of gold, — that of effecting domestic exchanges (p. 379).
[Poor fails to mention that gold, which is no one else’s obligation, can extinguish debt; notes cannot. Notes can only discharge debts by transferring them to another. Moreover, gold can transport value over millennia; notes cannot.]
    Also, according to Poor, Fawcett fails to see “that the less cannot include the greater. Paper discharges gold from use in one particular; but can no more be substituted for it in all the functions which the latter has to perform in the economy of society than a mere promise can be substituted for the performance, or sugar for iron” (p. 379). Poor adds, “Great advantages result from the use of paper money, and in ratio to its use, in the same way that great advantages result from the use of ships and railroad” (p. 380). [Trying to substitute completely paper for gold is the major flaw of modern-day economics and today’s monetary system that will cause their downfall. It is also the major and fatal flaw of all schemes of the fiat monetary reformers. Even worse, is the movement to reduce all money to electronic bytes, as they are even more nebulous and abstract than paper notes.]
    Next Poor comments on “Mr. Fawcett’s theory of the effect upon prices of credit in the form of paper money is singularly unphilosophic and inadequate. With him, the whole thing is a mere piece of mechanism: so much money, so much price; and the reverse. His conclusions are based upon assumptions wholly impossible in themselves” (p. 380). Contrary to Fawcett’s belief that doubling production and purchases while the amount of money remains the same will cause price to fall one-half, “production and consumption cannot be doubled, the amount of money remaining the same; both must, as a rule, proceed in ratio to the amount of money in circulation” (p. 380). Moreover, Poor adds, “Paper money is the symbol of merchandise: the one must be in ratio to the other, as the necessary condition of production and consumption” (p. 380).
    About Fawcett’s belief, Poor remarks:
He [Fawcett] might as well have assumed the commerce of a country to be doubled for the reason that the ships employed carried twice as much as they have the ability to carry. His statements and illustrations are nothing less than contradictions in terms. Credit in the form of money has an effect entirely different from that due to its quantity. ‘If,’ says Fawcett, in effect, ‘one would lift two pounds of merchandise with a one pound weight, he must double, or reduce one-half, the length of one arm of the scale.’ The true object of paper money is to raise the two pounds of merchandise without the employment of any weight whatever. So far as this can be done, can the cost of the operations of weighing be saved, and prices reduced in like ratio; and so far can the coin of a country be employed in the discharge of functions peculiar to itself, and which neither symbols nor paper money of any kind can discharge (p. 380).
        According to Poor, depending on Fawcett’s definition of currency, Fawcett may have erred in assuming that an increase in currency is followed by an increase in prices (pp. 380-381). If currency is capital or the representation of capital, then Fawcett is wrong because “prices must be in ratio to the amount of merchandise fitted for consumption, or in ratio to the perfection of the instruments for its distribution” (p. 381). However, if currency “be neither capital nor the representative of capital (merchandise); if it be that kind of currency which can be substituted for gold, like legal tender [notes],” (p. 381) then Fawcett is right because “an increase of such currency always tends to advance prices in being in excess of the means of consumption” (p. 381). [Although general prices fluctuated under the gold standard, they were much more stable than general prices have been under today’s paper fiat monetary system. {An ostensible goal of today’s monetary system used to be to maintain stable prices.} Under the gold standard, general prices trended upward for years and then downward for years; however, over a few decades, they remained fairly stable with perhaps a downward bias because of improved technology. Under today’s fiat paper monetary system, general prices have trended upward as the monetary unit loses purchasing power year after year.]
    About inconvertible currency [e.g., today’s currency], Poor writes, “People accept an inconvertible currency of government notes, as it will discharge their own debts existing at the time, by virtue of its being legal tender, and from a belief that it will speedily be redeemed by an equivalent in some form. If government be competent to issue it, it would have a high value for a time, even if it were believed that it would not be paid” (p. 384). [No one really believes that today’s currency will be paid, i.e., redeemed in gold or in anything else with intrinsic value.]
    According to Fawcett, a country can increase the issue of its currency without disturbing the finances of the country “if its issue were confined within reasonable limits” (p. 384). “If, for example, the United States, in the late civil war, had issued notes only in ratio to their increased necessity for money, the issue could have exerted no influence over prices” (p. 384). About U.S. notes issued during the war, Poor comments, “The demand for money, measured by the price of the notes issued, exceeded sixteen-fold the amount of previous expenditure” (p. 384). Then he asks, “how could the expenditures of a government be increased sixteen-fold, or even eightfold, without any increase of capital, or fund to draw upon, and prices remain at their old figures? It is the same as to say that a demand multiplied by one per cent equals a demand multiplied by eight or sixteen per cent” (p. 384). Continuing, Poor remarks, “If gold could have been supplied wherewith to meet all expenditures growing out of the war, prices would still have increased enormously, from the excess of demand over supply” (p. 384). About the rise of prices during the war, Poor writes, “Prices rose, therefore, in ratio to the demand; in other words, in ratio to the inflation of the currency” (pp. 384-385).
    In his concluding remarks about Fawcett, Poor writes:
If Mr. Fawcett had paused long enough to ask himself weather [sic] or not a sovereign to be received six months hence had the same value to the person who was to receive it as a sovereign in hand; or whether a government note having one year to run, without interest, equalled in value its note having the same time to run, bearing interest, — the answer, properly made, would have unlocked to him all the mysteries of money. Instead of this, he contented himself with a mild restatement of all the old dogmas, every one of which he accepted without reservation, and every one of which is exactly opposed to the principles upon which money is based. It must, however, be said in his favor, that his style is in agreeable contrast to the incoherent extravagance of Macleod and the fantastic nonsense of Bonamy Price (p. 385).

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More money articles.

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Mencken on the Eternal Christian Mob

Mencken on the Eternal Christian Mob
Thomas Allen

    In 1926, H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) wrote Notes on Democracy in which he expressed his views on democracy and related issues. He was a journalist, satirist, and critic and a libertarian and one of the leaders of the Old Right. In his book, he describes the eternal Christian mob, pages 74-76. Below is an overview of his discussion on the eternal Christian mob; my comments are in brackets.
    Mencken notes that in the past two thousand years, the inferior man has moved “from the obscenities of the Saturnalia to the obscenities of the Methodist revival. So he lives out his life in the image of Jahveh.”
    Mencken questions the inferior man’s “simple piety, his touching fidelity to the faith.” He continues, “Is it argued by any rational man that the debased Christianity cherished by the mob in all the Christian countries of to-day has any colourable likeness to the body of ideas preached by Christ? . . . The plain fact is that this bogus Christianity has no more relation to the system of Christ than it has to the system of Aristotle. It is the invention of Paul and his attendant rabble-rousers — a body of men exactly comparable to the corps of evangelical pastors of to-day, which is to say, a body devoid of sense and lamentably indifferent to common honesty.” [Paul did not change the teachings of Christ; he merely explained and applied them.] Then he adds, “The mob, having heard Christ, turned against Him, and applauded His crucifixion.” The mob turned against Christ because “His theological ideas were too logical and too plausible for it, and his ethical ideas were enormously too austere.” [The mob did not turn against Jesus because his theological ideas were too logical and too plausible. It turned against him because the Pharisees and the Sadducees excited it to demand the execution of Jesus. These two groups and, to a lesser extent, the Herodians were the aristocrats and superior men of their society. Thus, the superior men were behind Jesus’ execution. They turned the mob against Jesus because his logical, plausible theology condemned them.]
    What the mob “yearned for was the old comfortable balderdash under a new and gaudy name, and that is precisely what Paul offered it. He borrowed from all the wandering dervishes and soul-snatchers of Asia Minor, and flavoured the stew with remnants of the Greek demonology. The result was a code of doctrines so discordant and so nonsensical that no two men since, examining it at length, have ever agreed upon its precise meaning.” [Paul’s teachings are no more confusing than Jesus’. What makes Paul’s writings seem confusing are theologians reading into his writings what is not there and reading out of his writings what is there. Moreover, if his writings are so confusing and, thus, difficult to understand, why does the ignorant, uneducable inferior man seems to grasp them, for as Mencken notes, the inferior man tries to destroy what he does not understand. Nevertheless, Paul’s writings, which are usually fairly straightforward, are easier to comprehend than most of the Prophets and Revelations with their flowery, allegorical, and metaphorical language. Furthermore, Jesus’ teaching may not be as logical and plausible and as clear and simple as Mencken asserts. If they were, theologians agree about what Jesus taught. For example, in Matthew 24:36, Christ says that he does not possess the divine trait of omniscience. Antitrinitarians use this statement to prove that the Trinity Doctrine is wrong. Trinitarians ignore it or try to explain it away. Another is Matthew 24:1-31. Some claim that this prophecy of Jesus was fulfilled in 70 A.D. Others claim that only part of it was fulfilled in 70 A.D.; the remainder is yet to come. Thus, Jesus’ teachings are at least as confusing as Paul’s.] Nonetheless, “Paul knew his mob: he had been a travelling labour leader. He knew that nonsense was its natural provender — that the unintelligible soothed it like sweet music.” Moreover, Paul was the progenitor “of all the Christian mob-masters of to-day, terrorizing and enchanting the mob with their insane damnations, eating their seven fried chickens a week, passing the diligent plate, busy among the women.” [Many ministers in Mencken’s day, and even today, were charlatans, hustlers, and scoundrels, who manipulated Christians for their own benefit. That Paul was such a person is highly doubtful, and such a notion is certainly not supported by the Scriptures. No such person would have endured what Paul endured.]
    Continuing, Mencken writes, “Once the early church emerged from the Roman catacombs and began to yield to that reorganization of society which was forced upon the ancient world by the barbarian invasions, Paul was thrown overboard, as Methodists throw Wesley overboard when they acquire the means and leisure for golf, and Peter was put in his place. Peter was a blackguard, but he was at least free from any taint of Little Bethel. The Roman Church, in the aristocratic feudal age, promoted him post mortem to the Papacy, and then raised him to the mystical dignity of Rock, a rank obviously quasi-celestial.” [The theology of the Catholic Church fits much closer the animadversions that Mencken pours on Paul than Paul’s theology.]
    Nevertheless, “Paul remained the prophet of the sewers. He was to emerge centuries later in many incarnations — Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and so on. He remains to-day the arch-theologian of the mob. His turgid and witless metaphysics make Christianity bearable to men who would be repelled by Christ’s simple and magnificent reduction of the duties of man to the duties of a gentleman.” [Mencken is not the only one who believes that Paul corrupted the teachings of Jesus. Some have accused Paul of Judaizing the teachings of Christ, which he did not.]
    [As can be seen from the above, Mencken has a low opinion of Christianity. On that point, he agrees with Marx. Moreover, Mencken seems to believe that only inferior men, scoundrels, and demagogues are religious, and the scoundrels and demagogues are fakers, who use religion to manipulate the inferior man. He seems to believe that one cannot be both religious and of the better sort simultaneously.]

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Southern Universities

Southern Universities
Thomas Allen

    Bigotry is alive and well in Southern universities. Students and teachers may say and write what they please and do what they please provided that it is politically correct. What is politically correct? It is affirmative action, integration of White institutions and groups, self-segregation by blacks, gay rights and homosexuality, feminism, animal rights, abortion, Marxism, anti-Christianity, anti-Western Civilization, and other leftist icons. To question any of these is to be politically incorrect. Politically correct is attacking and discriminating against and seeking to destroy White males (albeit Whites of non-European White ancestry, e.g. Semites, are not usually classified as “White”), Western Civilization, and Christianity. To a politically correct person, the most loathsome creature in the universe is the White Southern male who is a Christian, heterosexual, and without physical handicap. Even animals should have more rights than this subhuman hideous creature. But woe unto him, especially a White male, who makes any kind of remark that could possibly be construed as derogatory towards Blacks, feminists, homosexuals, or other such politically correct group. Orwellian thought is healthy and growing in Southern universities.

    The following are a few of the odious activities occurring in Southern universities:
    –    Many universities have adopted formal speech codes that forbid unacceptable bigotry. Discrimination against White heterosexual males is desirable and, therefore, not really bigotry. Discrimination against Blacks, homosexuals, feminists, and other politically correct groups is bigotry and, therefore, is unacceptable and forbidden.
    –    Marxism, feminism, integration, animal rights, gay rights, and other leftist causes cannot be questioned or criticized.
    –    Free speech is a virtue when used to promote integration, affirmative action, feminism, animal rights, gay rights, abortion and other leftist causes. For a student or teacher even to question these icons of the antichrists is intolerable.
    –    Students and teachers are free to say and write whatever they want to, so long as it is politically correct.
    –    Students and teachers have been expelled or forced to attend indoctrination sessions to be reeducated for utterances contrary to the politically correct orthodoxy.
    –    Black students may segregate themselves from Whites, but Whites face severe penalties if they try to segregate themselves from Blacks. (There is an exception to this rule. White homosexuals may segregate themselves from Black homosexuals. That such segregation is allowed is strong evidence that the primary purpose of integration is genocide. Homosexuals do not often bred, there segregation is of little consequence to the cause of racial genocide.)
    –    Intolerance by Blacks, women, homosexuals, animal rightists, and other politically correct groups is acceptable and desirable. Intolerance by a White heterosexual male is an unspeakable crime.
    –    Male fraternities are under siege for not being politically correct — some of them object to force integration, homosexuality, and other politically correct positions.
    –    Traditional curriculum that emphasizes Western Civilization, which is considered the root of all evil and the cause of all problems, especially the Christianity aspects of Western Civilization, and is being replaced with Black “civilization,” women studies, etc.
    –    American business is equated with organized crime.
    –    Marxism has the answer to all economic, social, and political problems. Christianity at best is irrelevant and at worst is the cause of all the world's problems.
    –    The family is attacked; its destruction is sought. Homosexuality is presented as being as desirable as, if not superior to, heterosexuality. Abortion, fornication, and adultery, if not actually virtues, are not sinful or wrong.
    –    Any emphasis on standards and excellence is frowned upon and discouraged, if not forbidden.

    Thus, anything or any group that encourages, fosters, and advocates the politically correct is favored and promoted while anyone that questions the politically correct is ostracized.
    The time has come for Southerners to reclaim their universities. So long as the Southern States remain colonies of the United States, they cannot recover their universities because the United States government is the prime promoter of the politically correct. Only in a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States can Southerners take back their universities. Then Southerners will be able to regain control of their universities and drive out the antichrists, homosexuals, Marxists, and destroyers of Western Civilization and Southern culture. Then the evils of homosexuality, genocide via integration, abortion, destruction of the family via the feminism, lasciviousness, and other iniquities can be freely condemned without reprisal. Then the virtues of Christianity, Western Civilization, Southern culture, and everything else that today's universities seek to overturn and destroy can be freely taught and discussed. How much longer will Southerners procrastinate? Now is the time for them to reclaim what is theirs!

Copyright © 1995, 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern issues articles.

Sunday, January 14, 2018

Poor on Gilbart

Poor on Gilbart
Thomas Allen

    In 1877, Henry Varnum Poor (1812-1905) wrote Money and Its Laws: Embracing a History of Monetary Theories, and a History of the Currency of the United States. He was a financial analyst and founder of a company that evolved into Standard & Poor’s. Poor was a proponent of the real bills doctrine and the classical gold-coin standard and, thus, the quality theory of money. He gave little credence to the quantity theory of money — especially if credit money, such as bank notes, were convertible on demand in species. Also, he contended that the value of money depends on and is derived from the value of the material of which it is made and with paper money, its representation of such value.
    In the latter part of his book, he discusses leading monetary theorists from Aristotle (350 B.C.) to David A. Wells (1875). Most of the economists whom he discussed were proponents of the quantity theory of money. We will look at his discussion on James Gilbart. My comments are in brackets. Referenced page numbers enclosed in parentheses are to Poor’s book.
    James W. Gilbart (1794–1863) was an English banker and author. Among his works is Practical Treatise on Banking (1827), The History and Principles of Banking (1834), and Principles and Practice of Banking (1873), which is an abridged and combined edition of 1827 and 1834 books. Poor reviews Principles and Practices of Banking.
    About Gilbart, Poor writes, “Gilbart was a striking instance of a voluminous writer upon money, without any proper comprehension of its nature and laws. . . . As a Political Economist, he belonged to the school of Tooke and Mill, in holding that the convertible notes of no other Bank than that of the Bank of England could influence prices or the rates of exchange” (p. 368).
    Gilbart writes, “The bankers in issuing their notes do not make any reference to the quantity of gold in the country; but they make reference to their ability to discharge these notes when retained to them for payment” (p. 368). He argues that banks cannot issue bank notes in excess. However, if a bank has a monopoly on issuing bank notes and issues notes for gold, then an inflow of gold could lead to a large issue of notes, which could lead to speculation. When many banks are issuing notes, these notes are quickly returned to the issuing bank by other banks for redemption. When only one bank issues notes, those notes are only returned for gold when gold is needed for foreign exchange (pp. 368-369). [Thus, it is easier for a central bank with a monopoly on issuing bank notes to overissue notes than it is for competing banks to overissue notes.] According to Gilbart, paying interest on deposits also prevents the excessive issuance of notes by encouraging notes to be deposited. The criteria used by the Bank of England to issue notes causes prices to rise and reduce interest. (The criteria are issuing notes against gold bullion and to purchase Exchequer bills and government stock.) However, “if notes are issued merely to pay for transactions that have previously taken place, and are drawn out by the operations of trade, those notes will have no such effect” (p. 369).
    Poor summaries Gilbart’s explanation for the inability of private banks and bankers to overissue their notes: “1st, from their constant retirement ‘by the interchange by the Banks with each other of their different notes and checks, once or twice a week;’ and, 2d, for the reason that, by allowing interest on deposits, ‘all the surplus circulation is called in, and lodged with the Banks’” (p. 370). Poor does not believe that retiring notes by exchanges among banks reduces excess notes. [Poor errs somewhat. If bank notes increase in response to increased production as represented by buying real bills of exchange, then bank exchanges will remove currency and prevent excess. However, he has a point if bank notes are issued to buy financial bills like government treasury bills or to finance a speculative venture. These notes are more than what is needed to clear consumer goods from the markets. Therefore, they are inflationary as Poor describes. A major disagreement that Poor has with Gilbart is that Gilbart believes that the Law of Reflux is sufficient to regulate bank credit money and prevent its excessive quantity. {The Law of Reflux claims that banks cannot overissue bank credit money, bank notes and checkbook money, because any overissued currency quickly returns to the issuing bank for redemption.} Poor does not believe that it is sufficient. He believes that more is needed, such as adherence to the real bills doctrine.]
    Poor refutes Gilbart by noting, “An inflation may take place to a very large extent where exchanges are daily made, and where the Banks are on a specie basis, provided the issuers are all actuated by similar sentiments and move in a similar direction” (p. 370). [Most bankers prefer a centralized banking system, as countries now have, because it ensures that all bankers move in a similar direction. With a decentralized banking system, bankers usually vary greatly in their sentiment and move in various direction.]
    Poor argues that bank notes or checkable deposits used by a country bank for speculation, to buy government securities, or to finance businesses affect prices and interest as bank notes issued by the Bank of England to buy Exchequer bills (p. 371). “Once in the market, they perform precisely the same functions, and are subject to precisely the same laws. They are equally promises to pay coin on demand; and must be equally discharged within similar periods, by the payment of coin or its equivalent” (p. 371). [If the country bank’s loan of bank notes or checkable deposits comes from the bank’s capital or from savings deposits, then these notes and deposits should not have the same effect as the central bank issuing notes to buy government bills. The country bank has not added any additional currency, but it has merely transferred currency from one person to another. The central bank has added additional currency.]
    Poor remarks that since bank notes and checkable deposits issued by private banks far exceed those issued by the Bank of England, their effect must likewise be much greater. He writes, “It is certain that the former [private banks] do exert a much greater influence over prices and the rates of exchange, in ratio to their amount, than the latter [the Bank of England]; for the reason that they have a much more intimate connection than those of the Bank [of England] with the foreign commerce of the country, and are usually made upon securities, as a class, inferior to those which the rules of the Bank allow it to take” (p. 372).
    Poor summaries Gilbart’s comments before the Committee of 1840-41 about the actions that he would recommend for the Bank of England to follow in the event of war: “Mr. Gilbart, in the event of a war, would suspend specie payments, — would demonetize gold and silver, as a means of retaining them in the country” (p. 373). About Gilbart’s recommendation, Poor remarks, “He would cut off the handle of your axe, and render it useless, so as to prevent an enemy from striking off your head. But how was the enemy to get hold of the handle? By paying the price both for that and the axe. If he paid the price, he might thereby put in the hands of the owner that wherewith to defend himself far better than with the axe” (p. 373). He continues, “But if the gold of a country at war be demonetized, the enemy or some other nation will be sure to get it, not in exchange for powder and ball, but for wines and silks, — for that which, instead of arming and furnishing it for the fight, would inevitably tend to its emasculation, to the destruction of all patriotism and manhood” (p. 373). Moreover, Poor writes, “The effect of a war is always to turn the exchanges of a country engaged in it in its favor, for the reason that every one orders home the proceeds of his exports in coin, in order to have in hand that upon which he can certainly rely, should the event prove unfavorable, should domestic order be disturbed, or the wonted industries of the country fail” (p. 373). [This is not exactly true — especially if the prospect for one’s country winning the war is slim. If a person has the means, he may want to leave some of his wealth in a neutral country if he has to flee.] Poor notes that when Lincoln’s war to suppress Southern independence broke out gold and goods flowed into the United States. At the end of 1861, specie payments were suspended, and U.S. notes, greenbacks, were first issued in February 1862. After the suspension, exports far exceeded imports for the remainder of the war. [Some, perhaps most, of this difference is accounted for by the high tariff that the Republican Congress imposed. This tariff was the primary reason for the secession of the States of the Deep South.] Poor concludes his remarks about Lincoln’s war:
If legal-tender notes had not been issued, the United States would have laid all the world under tribute. The fast impulse of a people when they find themselves about to be plunged into a war is to forego every article that does not rank among the necessities of life. Their silver and gold are the first things they place beyond the reach of harm. Foreigners cannot get them, unless they pay more than they are worth. This they will not do, for the reason that they can get them of nations at peace, for their worth. The position of the United States, so far as its currency was concerned, was impregnable, but for its voluntary demonetization (p. 374).
The United States “lost their gold as soon as it could be taken away from them by lavish and wasteful expenditure” (p. 374). Poor is convinced that “[t]he civil war in the United States would have been ended in half the time, and at half the cost, but for demonetizing their coin” (p. 374).
    Gilbart states that banking capital is employed in discounting bills. According to him, when a bank of circulation [a bank that issues bank notes against bills] buys a bill, it increases the amount of money by the amount purchased. [This statement not exactly true as the bill of exchange can itself function as money in discharging debt and other financial obligations. However, other bills, such as treasury bills and bills of accommodations, seldom function as currency.] Gilbart claims that if a bank of deposit buys a bill, it does not increase “at all the amount of money in the country; but it will have put into motion . . . [money] that would otherwise have been idle” (p. 375). [This statement may or may not be true. If a bank buys the bill with money from its capital or from savings, then it is true. If it buys the bill by creating checkable deposits, it is not true. Checkable deposits are functionally the same as bank notes.] In both cases, Gilbart argues, the effects of bank notes issued by the bank of issue and the effects of checkable deposits created by private banks are the same. If notes issued by the bank of issue can cause high prices, overtrading, and speculation, so can checkable deposits created by private banks.
    Poor responds that the two differ in that one bank’s capital is in a form proper for loans [this comment applies to banks of deposit] and in the other “no capital whatever is created or provided” (p. 375) [this comment applies to the central bank of issue]. He writes, “To say that notes, without the least provision for their redemption, are the equivalent of deposits, which may be wholly in the form of coin or of notes representing coin, is to say that fiction equals reality, and shadow substance” (p. 375). Issuing bank notes without anything to support them may well result in problems for the bank while lending “the capital made up of deposits might prove most advantageous to all parties to the loan” (p. 375).
    Poor concludes, “Mr. Gilbart, undoubtedly, possessed a capacity of intuitively measuring the person who wanted to borrow his money; but he was wholly out of his sphere when he undertook to write upon its laws” (p. 375).

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on money.

Saturday, January 6, 2018

Mencken on the Inferior Man and Progress

Mencken on the Inferior Man and Progress
Thomas Allen

    In 1926, H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) wrote Notes on Democracy in which he expressed his views on democracy and related issues. He was a journalist, satirist, and critic and a libertarian and one of the leaders of the Old Right. In his book, he describes the inferior man and progress, pages 58-73. Below is an overview of his discussion on the inferior man and progress; my comments are in brackets.
    The inferior man is the natural enemy of progress, liberty, and justice. “[B]eing a natural slave himself, [the inferior man] is quite unable to understand the desire for liberty in his superiors. If he apprehends that desire at all, it is only as an appetite for a good of which he is himself incapable. He thus envies those who harbour it, and is eager to put them down.”
    For the inferior man, justice “is always unpopular and in difficulties under democracy, save perhaps that false form of so-called social justice which is designed solely to get the labourer more than his fair hire.” Moreover, “[t]he wars of extermination that are waged against heretical minorities never meet with any opposition on the lower levels. The proletarian is always ready to help destroy the rights of his fellow proletarian.” Mencken illustrates this with the use of the American Legion and the America Federation of Labor in the program against the Reds just after World War I. Another illustration is that “[t]he city workman, oppressed by Prohibition, mourns the loss of his beer, not the loss of his liberty.” [If the war on drugs is substituted for prohibition, the same is true today. How many are really concerned about the loss of liberties that the war on drugs has brought?] The inferior man, the proletarian, “is ever willing to support similar raids upon the liberty of the other fellow, and he is not outraged when they are carried on in gross violation of the most elemental principles of justice and common decency.” [As happens in the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on cancer, war on Confederate monuments, and all the other wars that the elite who controls the U.S. government creates.]
    The “few genuine believers in liberty and justice survive, huddled upon a burning deck. Is it to be marvelled at that most of them, on inspection, turn out to be the grandsons of similar heretics of earlier times?” Mencken thinks not because it “takes quite as long to breed a libertarian as it takes to breed a racehorse. Neither may be expected to issue from a farm mare.”
    According to Mencken, the inferior man, the masses, opposes progress. He writes, “The whole progress of the world, even in the direction of ameliorating the lot of the masses, is always opposed by the masses. The notion that their clamour brought about all the governmental and social reforms of the last century, and that those reforms were delayed by the superior minority, is sheer nonsense.” He cites several examples of these reforms — most of which extends the government’s control over the masses and which the masses initially opposed. In Germany, the elite enacted various types of social legislation, such as workman’s insurance, minimum wage, and child labor restriction laws. The United States and other countries followed Germany’s example. However, the masses tended to oppose these acts. [Libertarians naturally oppose such laws as they reduce liberty by forcing people to do what they would not naturally do. Socialists naturally support such laws as they provide for the security of workers, which socialists consider liberty. Since these laws reduce liberty by giving the government more control over the masses and, therefore, less real liberty, the masses were standing for liberty against the elites, their betters as Mencken called them, who were extending their control of the masses via the government. Here Mencken seems to contradict his arguments about liberty and the masses. That Mencken would consider these laws as progress is amazing since he claims to be a libertarian. If he does consider these laws as progress and an extension of liberty, he needs to congratulate the superiors, the elites, for educating the uneducable. Now, the inferior man would strongly resist their repeal.]
    Mencken writes, “Public policies are determined and laws are made by small minorities playing upon the fears and imbecilities of the mob — sometimes minorities of intelligent and honest men, but usually minorities of rogues.” In agreement with Maine, Mencken notes that universal suffrage would have prohibited the use of industrial inventions and machines, such as the spinning-jenny, power looms, and threshing-machines. [Sir Henry Maine {1822-1888} was a British comparative jurist and historian.] Moreover, universal suffrage “‘would have prevented the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar; it would have restored the Stuarts. It would have proscribed the Roman Catholics, with the mob which burned Lord Mansfield’s house and library in 1780; and it would have proscribed the Dissenters, with the mob which burned Dr. Priestley’s house and library in 1791.’” [As suffrage has been extended, the quality of political leaders has declined. First, the vote was given to Black males {1870}, next to women {1920}, and then to eighteen-year olds {1971}; along the way, the requirement to pay taxes was removed {1964}. Each time the quality of political leaders declined. The last Jeffersonian president was Cleveland {1885-1889 and 1893-1897}. Has not the time come to require voters to understand the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of their State and to pay a minimum but more than token direct tax? When voters had to meet these requirements, the country had much higher quality of political leaders.]
    In the United States, Mencken identifies democracy as leading to anti-vivisection and anti-contraception statutes, the licensing of osteopaths (which he considers a fraud), and restrictions on free assembly and free speech. [The police state laws enacted during the War on Terrorism has restricted assembly and speech, and the controllers of various internet sites, such as search engines and social media sites, have also restricted free speech. Also, Mencken’s attitude toward osteopathy appears like that of an inferior man. He does not understand it, and, therefore, fears it. Fearing it, he wants to suppress it as quackery. He has the same attitude toward chiropractic.]
    Mencken agrees with Lecky: “‘Nothing in ancient alchemy was more irrational than the notion that increased ignorance in the elective body will be converted into increased capacity for good government in the representative body; that the best way to improve the world and secure rational progress is to place government more and more under the control of the least enlightened classes.’” [William Lecky {1838- 1903} was an Irish historian, essayist, and political theorist.]
    Mencken explains the inferior man’s opposition to things that benefit him: “He is against it because it is complex, and, to his dark mind, occult — because it puts an unbearable burden upon his meagre capacity for taking in ideas, and thus propels him into the realm of the unknowable and alarming. His search is always for short cuts, simple formulae, revelation.” Continuing, Mencken adds “that all political platitudes and shibboleths [have] . . . one aim [and that] is to make the unintelligible simple, and even obvious.”
    Also, Mencken condemns Fundamentalism, creationism, chiropractic, “osteopathy, Christian Science, spiritualism and all the other half rational and half supernatural quackeries with it” as food for the ignorant, uneducable masses. [Mencken was an evolutionist and believed that creationism was a myth and a superstition — and so was much of Christianity. Being uneducable, the inferior man believed in creationism. Now, most inferior men believe in evolution, and even more theologians are evolutionists. Moreover, Christianity is waning. Would Mencken congratulate the superior man for doing the impossible of educating the uneducable inferior man? As science learns more about paleontology and genetics, evolution becomes more untenable. Would this new information cause him to change his mind about evolution? Would he recognize that today evolution has become a religion based on a set of beliefs?]
    Mencken laments, “It is a tragic but inescapable fact that most of the finest fruits of human progress, like all of the nobler virtues of man, are the exclusive possession of small minorities, chiefly unpopular and disreputable. Of the sciences, as of the fine arts, the average human being, even in the most literate and civilized of modern States, is as ignorant as the horned cattle in the fields. What he knows of histology, say, or protozoology, or philology, or paleontology, is precisely nothing. Such things lie beyond his capacity for learning, and he has no curiosity about them. The man who has any acquaintance with them seems to him to be a ridiculous figure, with a touch of the sinister. Even those applied sciences which enter intimately into his everyday existence remain outside his comprehension and interest.” [Unfortunately, he is close to the truth. For this reason, the nefarious elite finds the common man easy to manipulate.]
    About learning, Mencken writes, “Learning survives among us largely because the mob has not got news of it. If the notions it turns loose descended to the lowest levels, there would be an uprising against them, and efforts would be made to put them down by law.” He warns against putting the fine arts into the common school curriculum because once the ignorant uneducable masses discover them, they will seek to suppress them. [Instead of suppressing the fine arts overtly, they supplant them with trash that is promoted as art, with the elite doing most of the promotion.]
    Mencken adds that “there is a great deal less of yearning for moral perfection than there is of mere hatred of beauty.” Continuing he writes, “Beauty fevers and enrages him [the inferior man] for another and quite different reason. He cannot comprehend it, and yet it somehow challenges and disturbs him. If he could snore through good music he would not object to it; the trouble with it is that it keeps him awake. So he believes that it ought to be put down, just as he believes that political and economic ideas which disturb him and yet elude him ought to be put down. The finest art is safe from him simply because he has no contact with it, and is thus unaware of it.”
    Moreover, “[t]he common man, as a matter of fact, has no yearning for moral perfection. What ails him in that department is simply fear of punishment, which is to say, fear of his neighbours. He has, in safe privacy, the morals of a variety actor.”
    In summary, human progress passes the inferior man. “Its aims are unintelligible to him and its finest fruits are beyond his reach: what reaches him is what falls from the tree, and is shared with his four-footed brothers. He has changed but little since the earliest recorded time, and that change is for the worse quite as often as it is for the better. . . . He is still a slave to priests, and trembles before their preposterous magic. He is lazy, improvident and unclean. All the durable values of the world, though his labour has entered into them, have been created against his opposition. He can imagine nothing beautiful and he can grasp nothing true. Whenever he is confronted by a choice between two ideas, the one sound and the other not, he chooses almost infallibly, and by a sort of pathological compulsion, the one that is not. Behind all the great tyrants and butchers of history he has marched with loud hosannas, but his hand is eternally against those who seek to liberate the spirit of the race.” “Such is the pet and glory of democratic states.”
    [Mencken seems not to recognize that of the betters, the upper class, the superior man, the elite, only a few love liberty. Most superiors love power more than liberty and use their intellect to feed their lust for it.]

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Friday, December 29, 2017

Review of the Race Problem and Human Progress

Review of the Race Problem and Human Progress
Thomas Allen

    The following is a review of The Race Problem and Human Progress by Dr. Wesley Critz George (Ostara Publication edition, 2013). I have provided references to pages in his book and have enclosed them in parentheses. My remarks are enclosed in brackets, and most are supporting commentary.
    George argues that racial differences need to be considered and accounted for in formulating public policies (p. 4). [Unfortunately, for both Whites and Blacks, and the world, George and people like him have been ignored. The dogma that racial differences, especially in intellect and behavior, are nonexistent or at most insignificant has prevailed in the United State and Europe for decades. As a result, both the United States and Europe are fading away and will soon be no more than a historical footnote. Most of today’s social, economic, and political problems are caused by this nihilist, egalitarian dogma.]
    In the sixteenth century, tyrants suppressed the science of astronomy that declared a heliocentric solar system. Today, tyrants suppress the science of racial genetics that declares that human races differ significantly genetically and this difference extends to intellect and behavior (p. 7). Racial egalitarians and racial nihilists have distorted scientific and historical facts to promote their agendas and dogmas (p. 7).
    Socialists are racial nihilists, or at least act like they are. They promote the notion that racial differences are insignificant or unimportant. Their underlying principle “is that human beings are plastic creatures who merely reflect their exterior environment” (p. 7). [This is Lysenkoism. Lysenkoism denies that genes have any effect on an organism. Environment is the sole determinant of the characteristics that an organism has. Lysenkoism was the official policy of the Soviet Union under Stalin.]
    Archibald Roosevelt notes in the introduction that he wrote for George’s book that no “intelligent anthropologist will claim that one race is superior in all counts to other races. The only thing a scientist can say is that one race is better fitted to certain conditions — better adapted in mind, and better adapted in body” (p. 8). Then he states that Blacks can thrive and reproduce in tropical forests where Whites perish in a generation or two. Blacks fair even better than any other race except perhaps Indo-Australians in such habitat. On the other hand, Whites do better in the modern technical civilization than do Blacks. Unfortunately, for Whites and Blacks, the guiding dogma of the United States and Europe is “that all people must be forced into one common mold” (p. 8). Thus, people are forced to do things that are unnatural to them (pp. 8-9).
    Dr. Henry Garrett, who wrote the forward to George’s book, notes:
. . . all individuals are unequal at birth, and as they live and pursue their divergent ways tend to become even more unequal, i.e., their differences increase. This would be true even if we lived under identical conditions, ate the same bread, slept the same sleep, breathed the same air. No two individuals have the same complement of genes (except identical twins), and each of us possesses different qualities of mind and character. . . . What applies to the individual, applies in a broad sense to races of men. Races differ, too (pp 8-9).
    Garrett continues, “The equalitarian-collectivists argue — with no real evidence — that all men are born with equal endowment and can be kept equal if given the same opportunities and the same environment. . . . Yet this is the philosophy that dictates the social policies of our time” (p. 11).
    George writes:
If we can continue to develop a programme of friendly co-operation between the races, with separateness in social life, we can go forward in promoting the talents of the white man and the Negro and can contribute to the welfare and happiness of both. Otherwise, tragedy lies ahead for the American people (p. 13).
[America has ignored George’s advice. Now it is at the edge of the abyss that George feared.]
    He feared that integration and amalgamation of the races would lead to a breed of people incapable of maintaining the American civilization (p. 13). [In only a few decades, what he feared has happened. After nearly 60 years of forced integration, the American civilization is on its deathbed.]
    George observes that the White race has produced most of the civilizations of history. The Black race has produced none (p. 14). Then he remarks, “The creativeness, the productiveness, or the lack of such qualities, in man are related to and in large measure the result of their inherent natures. These inherent natures have a genetic or hereditary basis” (p. 14).
    Next George discusses heredity verse environment (pp. 14ff). Heredity dominates some characteristics, such as “general body form, skin texture and pigmentation” (pp. 14-15).
    He comments that:
. . . each race has a pool of genes different from the pool of genes of every other race, although some genes in the pool appear to be common to all races, probably to all mammals. This pool of genes is the major factor in determining the appearance of individuals of a race, and not only their bodily appearance but their reactions, their intellectual capacity and their accomplishments (pp. 15-16).
    Then he concludes, “The importance of heredity in the production of physical features is scarcely denied; but in the sphere of intellect and behaviour there is a campaign of denial of the importance of heredity” (p. 16). [This denial of the importance of heredity in the sphere of intellect and behavior is the guiding dogma of today. This dogma has brought a great deal of destruction to the Western world.]
    George goes into more detail about the influence of genes on intelligence (pp. 16ff). He cites several well-known authorities who show the importance of genes in determining intelligence.
    Then he discusses the intelligence of Blacks, whose intelligence on average is significantly less than that of Whites on average (pp. 17-19). He quotes Dr. Carothers, who spent his life working in mental hospitals in Africa:
The African has accordingly been described as conventional; highly dependent on physical and emotional stimulation; lacking in spontaneity, foresight, tenacity, judgment and humility; inapt for sound abstraction and for logic; given to phantasy and fabrication; and, in general, as unstable, impulsive, unreliable, irresponsible, and living in the present without reflection or ambition, or regard for the rights of others outside his own circle. To counteract these ruderies, he has also been described as cheerful, stoical, self-confident, sociable, loyal, emotionally intuitive, and eloquent, and as bearing no grudges and having an excellent memory, a large vocabulary, and an aptitude for music and the dance (p. 18).
    Next George comments on the high crime rate of Negroes (pp. 20-21) and Haiti (pp. 21-23). Haiti went from being the most productive colony in the Caribbean under White-man’s rule to one of the most impoverished countries in the world under Black-man rule.
    George continues his discussion of race, heredity, and civilization with a quotation from Ernest Hooten, formerly head of the department of anthropology at Harvard:
The errors of humanitarianism are based on the assumption that it is under-privilege that makes the underdog, and that the potentialities for intellectual and cultural development are essentially equal in all men — in short upon the delusion that mind and social capacity in man are independent of the organism and that an equalization of opportunity will bring the millenium (p. 23).
    Next George discusses the race problem, integration, differences in intelligence, and other race related issues (pp. 24ff).
    He discusses some of the political and religious slogans used to promote racial integration (pp. 26-27). [Many of these same slogans can easily be used to promote sexually integrated restrooms and locker rooms — and some have been.]
    First slogan: “[C]ompulsory mixing of the races is the democratic, American way” (p. 27). George replies, “That, of course, is false. The United States was founded and for 180 years has prospered on the principle of union and strength in diversity. Compulsory conformity and uniformity is not the American way; it is a perversion of the American way” (p. 27). [Today, diversity emphases and even demands conformity and uniformity.]
    Second slogan. “[T]here is no fundamental difference between men” (p. 27). George replies, “Most of us will admit that all men should be equal in their right to justice and fair play; but in the biological sense there is no truth in the quotation and it has no valid force or use in solving the race problem” (p. 27).
    Third slogan: “the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of man" (p. 27). To this slogan, George replies, “Fatherhood and brotherhood are fine ideas and factual states, but they do not solve social problems without regard to other facts any more than they solve family problems. In reaching decisions on vital social problems we are admonished to disregard ‘race, creed, colour and national origin.’ These are all major facts of life” (p. 27).
    Fourth slogan: “[I]ntegration is the Christian way and that separation of the races is un-Christian” (p. 27). George replies, “It is not clear why anything should be accepted as Christian when its virtue has not been demonstrated” (p. 27).
    George identifies several reasons for opposing racial integration. One is the low moral behavior of Blacks and their high rate of crime (p. 29). [Since integration Whites have adopted the low moral behavior of Blacks instead of Blacks adopting the high moral behavior of Whites. Moreover, integration has done nothing to reduce the Black crime rate.]
    Another reason for opposing racial integration is that racial integration leads to interracial mating. Interracial mating destroys the unique gene pool of both the White and Black races. Destruction of their gene pools devastates the unique abilities of both races (p. 30).
    George comments:
There is much evidence to show that the Caucasoid people, the white race, have creative talents and abilities that have not been demonstrated to any considerable extent by the Negro race. Great achievement in human individuals is correlated with a high degree of intelligence combined with a number of traits such as zeal, vigour, persistence, co-operativeness, adaptability, imagination, courage, self-confidence (p. 31).
    To dilute the gene pool of the White race with the genes of the Black race will bring to an end all the great religious, philosophical, political, artistic, engineering, medical, agricultural, and scientific advancements that the White race has given the world. Even the Negro has greatly benefitted from the achievements of the White race (pp. 33-34). [Is the annihilation of the White race being motivated by a desire to end these advancements?]
    Not only is intellect highly influenced by genetics, so are personality and various abilities (pp. 34-37).
    Some proponents of integration claim that integration will not lead to interracial marriages. [Marriage statistics disprove this claim.] George offers two examples to disprove this assertion: Portugal and Brazil.
    Portugal began importing Negro slaves in the mid fifteenth century. The Portugese interbred with these Blacks. Now many Portuguese display Negroid characteristics. Moreover, before racial amalgamation, Portugal was a first-class power. Now it is an insignificant nothing (p. 37).
    In Brazil, the Portugese first interbred with the Indians and then with the imported Negro slaves. Today, Brazil has a highly mixed-breed population. It is a large country with a large population and is endowed with great natural resources. Yet it is still a backward country depended on foreign aid (p. 37).
    Racial amalgamation will lead the United States down the road to Portugal and Brazil. [The United States are being so overwhelmed with non-White immigrants that amalgamation can only accelerate. Within a few generations, Whites will cease to exist in the United States. Furthermore, Europeans seem determined to annihilate the White race in Europe.]
    George overviews how the United States got into the racial mess that they were in when he wrote (pp. 38-40). [It is even worse today because Americans ignored the warnings of George and others like him. Because they ignored opponents of integration, White America will soon die. Sadly, many Whites look forward to that day with gladness. Oh, how they must hate themselves and their family. How they must hate the Negro to destroy him to destroy themselves.]
    He blames the clergy for America’s racial problems (pp. 38-41). About the clergy, George writes:
        They preach sociological sermons that will not stand the test of analysis, they pass resolutions, they quote the Golden Rule. They seem not to realize that quoting the Golden Rule does not answer the question. What is the right and moral thing to do? It merely raises the question. The admonition ‘Do unto others as you would have them do to you,’ applies not only to our relations with Negroes.
        It applies also to our children and to our children’s children through future generations. Do you think that the Golden Rule requires or permits that we make racial hybrids of our posterity? I hardly think so (pp. 38-39).
[The clergy is not only responsible for the race problem and the destruction of the White race; they are also responsible for many of America’s other problems — most of which are related to race. Because of them, the United States have become a tyrannical police state with the government spying on everyone. They are behind the endless war on terrorism to protect Israeli imperialism. The agendas of homosexuals and other sexual deviates have received much support from them. {Sexual integration is a natural outgrowth of racial integration.} Most support and promote unlimited non-White immigration, whether legal or illegal. Whether they support the destruction of America and the death of the White race out of ignorance or collaboration with the ruling elite is not known. However, most likely, it is the latter for most clergy.]
    George remarks, “The National Council of Churches and its predecessor, the Federal Council of Churches, have for many years made racial integration one of their main objectives” (p. 39). [The National Council of Churches is an illuministic front to promote the agenda of the ruling elite in religious circles.]
    George concludes his admonishment of the clergy, “By all means let us be kind, generous and helpful to Negroes and all men, but let us rid ourselves of the delusion that Christianity requires us to sacrifice our children and our children’s children to the cause of integration.” [Contrary to the teachings of the integrationist clergy, God does not demand the sacrifice of our children. He abhors such sacrifice.]
    Next George asks, “Shall we submit to programs designed to convert the American Caucasian race into an American mulatto race?” (p. 42). [As the last 50 years have shown, Americans chose to convert the American Caucasian race into an American mulatto race. The domestic Negro was not achieving this goal fast enough. So they open the borders to unlimited non-White immigrants. The White race, which many consider the cancer of the universe, must be eradicated! Naively, George thought that if the people knew the truth about genetics, race, and racial amalgamation, they would turn from the destructive effects of integration. Most did not and do not care to care to learn the truth — even those who opposed coercive big government. Of the few who care to learn, most will ignore it. All fear being called “racist” — a fear instilled with decades of propaganda by the ruling elite. So controlling has this fear become that nearly all Whites declare that they are not racists before they make a comment about race. Non-Whites can discuss race openly and frankly without fear. Whites cannot.]
    George remarks:
        It should make a great deal of difference in many of our human affairs whether man is in the main an environmentally dominated creature or whether genetic heredity plays a major role in our lives.
        Instead of seeking the facts bearing on these questions, environmentalism has been accepted and promoted as a dogma by those attempting to bring about socialism, communism, amalgamation of the races, and by the left wing generally. The scientific evidence they present is virtually non-existent, and yet we have been driven ahead into what may be very foolish programs (p. 43).
[The ruling elite and its lackeys and toadies do not care what the science shows. Environmentalism supports their dogma of statism, which transfers all wealth and power to them. To achieve this goal, they must annihilate the White race. Only the White race stands between them and their goal. The irony is that most of the ruling elite is White. Are they to be among those killed? Probably. Behind them is Lucifer, and his objective is to annihilate the White race by amalgamation or other means because it is the race created in God’s image.]
    About a minister who declared “that love is the ultimate solution of the race problem” (p. 43), George writes:
        Any one worthy of being the shepherd of a flock should know that unrestrained and unguided love has led many people to tragedy.
        By all means, love should be involved in considering human affairs including race relations; but love is not necessarily wisdom and it does not eliminate the necessity for making judgments based on fact and reason (pp. 43-44).
    Then he remarks that this type of sophistry fills academia. Academia tries “to instill the idea that in human affairs the inherent nature of the seed corn is of little concern — that only the conditions of cultivation are important” (p. 44).
    Committing on political, religious, and academic leader controlling and manipulating people, George writes, “In our present situation emotional words like ‘brotherhood’ and ‘love’ are made to do useful service for those who wish to manipulate people. ‘Prejudice,’ ‘racism,’ ‘bigotry’ are also signal words used to produce rejection responses while evading truth and reason” (p. 45).
    About funding racial genetics research, George observes, “No money seems available to search out the truth although money is available from government and foundations to establish the dogma without the truth” (p. 45). [The same situation is found with the global warming dogma. Plenty of research money is available to show that human activity is the primary, if not the sole, cause of global warming. {Such finding gives the ruling elite something that they can use to scare the masses into giving the ruling elite more power over the masses.} Little or no money is available for research that questions global warming and that shows man’s contribution is insignificant.]
    To refute the environmentalists’ assertion that good schools are needed to produce eminent men and, therefore, schools need to be integrated, George offers examples of some eminent men, most of whom were born in poverty, and all of whom had little or no formal schooling (p. 47).
        George notes two primary factors that determine one’s life and achievements:
    1. The pool of genes assembled when the egg is fertilized in the womb.
    2. The concatenation of events in the prenatal and postnatal environments in which the genes operate. As evidence continues to accumulate, the importance of genes becomes increasingly clear (pp. 47-48).
    Next George discusses the importance of genes on intellect and behavior (pp. 49ff). Genetics has a good deal of impact on personality traits, specifically dominance-submissiveness (p. 49). Intelligence has been found to have “about the same genetic correlation as do physical features” (p. 49).
    About the problem of low-grade intelligence, George quotes Bradley Patten, formerly head of anatomy at the University of Michigan:
The most serious defects of the nervous system from the standpoint of human progress are neither extremely manifest or clinically remediable. They become evident only as an individual develops and proves to have an intelligence level too low to cope successfully with the problems of living in our modern complex and highly competitive society. As far as we know the background of such situations, it is the old and inexorable law of ‘like begetting like’ . . . But the fact remains that to have a good brain one must choose ancestors with good brains, just as one must stem from physically sound stock if one is to have a good body. . . (p. 50).
    Then George adds:
A mouse, a seal, an elephant, a frog, a bird, or a man behaves according to his kind because he has inherited the brain of his kind. His brain, which guides his behavior, is of course embedded in and influenced by the matrix of his other organs and the body is embedded in and influenced by the matrix of the general environment (p. 50).
    Next George cites a few leaders in the field of neuroanatomy and neurology (pp. 49-53) to show that the brain is much more complex than “a mass of homogenous wax” (p. 51). People need “to look upon the mind as some transcendental essence” (p. 51). Studies have shown “that there is a striking relation between brain size, histological brain structure and learning capacity” (p. 53).
    George cites several studies on the development of the brain in infancy. These studies show “that most of the material substrate of mind (nerve cells and their fibers) develop before kindergarten age — only about ten percent after that age” (p. 57).
    He adds:
Experience, including schooling, undoubtedly exercises an important function in imprinting memory vestiges and in selectively facilitating synaptic transmission of impulses, but it is not evident that it can contribute significantly, if indeed at all, in adding to the inherited material basis of the mind (p. 57).
    George remarks, “That there are many hereditary racial features, not evident to the casual observer, has been revealed by scientific researches” (p. 57). Then he identifies some pathological conditions that are hereditary and vary with race (pp. 57-59). He concludes, “Race is not merely skin deep” (p. 59).
    Next George compares the Negro and White brains (pp. 59-62). Two important factors have been found:
    1. [T]he average weight of adult male Negro brains is about ten percent less than the average weight of adult male White brains. And it has been established that intelligence in mammalian animal groups is correlated with the size of the brain. We have seen above that there is such a correlation also in the growing child.
    2. Through microscopic study of many brains it has been revealed that there is a similarly significant difference in the two races in the thickness of the supragranular layers of the cortex — the layers that are credited with being those portions of the cortex most directly involved in the higher mental functions (p. 59).
    George concludes, “It appears then that the Negro race is at a disadvantage in his mechanism for intellectual activity just as he is at an advantage through pigmentation for protection against the harmful effects of a tropical sun” (p. 60).
    He notes that the anatomical differences in the brains of the two races probably account for “the average Negro score on IQ and educational achievement tests [being] about 20% below the average White score” (p. 60). Also, the “high scores near the gifted-child level are 6-7 times as frequent among White children” (p. 60). During the 1950s and early 1960s, after a generation of compulsory schooling, 67.2 percent of Black inductees and enlistees where rejected because they failed the military education tests while only 18.9 percent of the Whites were rejected (p. 60). [Anyone who claims this disparity was caused by segregated schools are in effect claiming that Black teachers were too stupid or too incompetent to teach Black pupils.]
    George notes that the differences in the brains of Whites and Blacks may explain “why extensive integration of Negro and White children in schools has been a failure and destructive of the educational process” (p. 61).
    George states:
But in light of the historical record of the Negro race and their current behavior it seems highly probable that the hybrid blending of Negro and White nervous systems in the formation of a mulatto race would have a harmful effect on our civilization (p. 62).
    He adds, “It becomes therefore a matter of great importance that our people and politicians should be made aware of racial differences known to exist and the nature of hybrid mixing of genetic characters” (p. 62). [Many are aware of racial differences, but have no desire to prevent racial amalgamation. Politicians like fail policies. Fail policies allow them to argue for more control and money, higher taxes. Moreover, if the genetic component is insignificant or nonexistent, the racial differences are caused solely by the environment. Attempting to manipulate the environment to overcome racial differences concentrates more power into the hands of the politicians and their owners. Also, environmentalism supports the prevailing and guiding ideology of the United States: equalitarian Marxism. {The 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto have been almost fully implemented.} Innate genetics differences do not. Furthermore, some desire total annihilation of the White race because they are filled with hatred. {Why would anyone want to breed a race out of existence, which is genocide, unless hatred is the motivation?} Most people just tremble in fear of being labeled a racist and, therefore, do not oppose racial amalgamation. {The great irony is that Whites who fear being called “racist” are already considered racists by non-Whites, and they can do nothing to change this no matter how much they grovel.}]
    George asks, “Is it too much to hope for an open minded consideration by politicians and the public of the facts vital to our problems?” (p. 62). [Yes. Most Whites would rather be tortured to death than to be thought of as racists. Most non-Whites like things the way they are: Whites cowering before their demands.]
    George states:
If intelligence, behavior, and achievement are primarily due to something within ourselves, then the genetic composition of our population is a matter of major concern for social planning but if they are brought forth primarily by external factors then social engineers and statesmen should be primarily concerned with manipulating environment (p. 63).
    He argues that social policies should be based on genetics being the primary determinant of intelligence, behavior, and achievement. He presents evidence to support his argument (pp. 63ff).
    To overcome the difference in achievement between Blacks and Whites, the government has made various programs to raise the socioeconomic environment of Black infants and preschool children. Being unable to overcome the genetic component, these programs have done little to close the gap (p. 64). [However, they have cost a great deal — thus, making some rich. More importantly from a statist perspective, they have given the government much more control over the people.]
    In conclusion, George writes, “We should try at least to ameliorate our race problems by more hopeful means than compulsory programs that violate established biological truths. The establishment of schools fitted to the Negroes’ intellectual talents would be a step in the right direction” (p. 66).
    Summarizing his book, he writes:
        1. Powerful forces in the world are trying to foist on the people an educational and social revolution based on the equalitarian dogma.
        2. This equalitarian dogma is unsupportable on the basis of scientific facts.
        3. Individual organisms including man vary in their genetic constitution, not merely in the effects of environment on body and personality.
        4. Genes are potent determining factors not merely for gross morphology and superficial features but for many, perhaps most, features down to molecular structure, including brains and consequently behavior.
        5. Biological racial features are numerous and all pervasive and involve the brain as well as externally visible characters (p. 67).
    [Racial integration is part of the illuministic program to transfer all wealth and power to a small number of illuminists. However, the primary purpose of racial integration is racial amalgamation. The purpose of racial amalgamation is the annihilation of the White, Aryan, Adamic, race — the race created in God’s image.
    At the time that George wrote, the major racial issue was White verses Black. For the most part, the American Indian issues have faded. If he were to write today, he would have focused a good deal on the exploding Turanian invasion — mostly from Mexico and other Latin American countries and the Far East (Japan, Korea, China, and the Philippines). Another important race that he would need to consider is the Melanochroi — mostly from India, Pakistan, the Arabian peninsula, and Somalia. Percentage-wise, the Melanochroi is probably the fastest growing race in the United States. He would surely be weeping over the death of the White race and, thereby, the death of the American civilization.
    George feared that the mongrelization of the White race with the Black race would bring down America. As important as mongrelization is to the demise of the White race, genocide through replacement has become more important. Massive third-world non-White immigration is overwhelming White America and annihilating it. Whites will soon be a minority in their own country.]

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.