Monday, June 19, 2017

For Whom Is the Constitution Written?

For Whom Is the Constitution Written?
Thomas Allen

    For whom is the Constitution for the United States of America written? The answer is easy. The preamble clearly states for whom the Constitution is written. The preamble reads:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
    “We the People of the United States . . . to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Who are “ourselves” and “our posterity?” They are the people who wrote and adopted the Constitution and their descendants. That is, they are Aryans, Whites. As Aryans wrote and adopted the Constitution, it is solely for Aryans. As almost all Aryans then abided by the Biblical prohibition against interracial mating, they expected their posterity to be Aryan. (If any Aryan sinned and had a child by a person of another race, that child was not considered an Aryan.)
    Therefore, the Constitution is not written for Negroes. It is not written for Melanochroi from India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Somalia, etc. Moreover, it is not written for Turanians from China, Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Southeast Asia, etc. Nor is it written for the Turanian Indians and mestizos from Latin American. Likewise, it is not written for Indo-Australians and Khoisans.
     Supporting the notion that the Constitution is written for Aryans is the first naturalization law, which was enacted in 1790. It restricted naturalization to free Whites. It excluded Blacks, American Indians, Muslims, and later Asians. Furthermore, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and other founding fathers declared that the United States was and should be a White man’s country. By the way, nearly every President, if not every President, held this sentiment until John Kennedy.
    In conclusion, Aryans wrote and adopted the Constitution for the United  States of America for Aryans. They did not write it for Negroes, Melanochroi, Turanians, Indo-Australians, or Khoisans. Until Whites in the United States realize and admit that the Constitution is written solely for them and for no other race, species of humans, the social, political, and economic problems affecting the United States will not be solved. Until ministers start teaching the Biblical prohibition against interracial mating, these problems will not be solved. Moreover, constitutionalists need to acknowledge that the Constitution is solely for Aryans and need to proclaim such. A necessary part of solving the social, political, and economic problems of the United States is returning to the Constitution in its original intent. Admitting that the Constitution is only for Aryans, Whites, is a necessary and essential part of this return. A return to Constitutional government cannot be made without this acknowledgment.
    The biggest hindrances to returning to Constitutional government are Christian ministers and constitutionalists. Because of political correctness, ignorance of the Bible, or fear of being called a “racist,” ministers fail to teach that the Scriptures prohibit miscegenation and interracial mating, that Adam was an Aryan, White, and only Aryans are created in the image of God, and that God is a segregationist and a racial separationist. (God confusing the languages of man as a result of constructing the Tower of Babel is perhaps the greatest act of segregation and racial separation every experienced by mankind in recorded history.) Likewise, because of political correctness, ignorance of the Constitution, or fear of being called a “racist,” constitutionalists fail to identify the people for whom the Constitution is written and to teach that it is written solely for Whites.
    Before ministers and constitutionalists can return to the proper understanding of the Bible and the Constitution, they need to abandon the Deity of King. They need to cease the idolatry of bowing before his idol. To do this, they need to realize, acknowledge, and teach that Martin Luther King was a rabble-rouser, a scoundrel, a front man for the Communist Party, and a leader of one of the most destructive movements that the United States have ever endured, the civil rights movement. (As a result of the civil rights movement, the immigration laws were changed to discriminate against Whites and to flood the country with non-Whites such that in a few years, Whites will be a minority in their own country. It also brought the war on poverty, racial and sexual quotas, affirmative action, effeminized and emasculated men, degraded women, homosexual marriages, legalized abortion, growth in out-of-wedlock children, genocide via interracial mating, etc.)

Appendix 1.
    Most people incorrectly refer to the Constitution for the United States of America as the Constitution of the United States of America. According to the preamble, the correct title is the “Constitution for the United States of America.”

Appendix 2.

    Most people refer to the United States in the singular: the United States is. However, the Constitution refers to the United States in the plural: the United States are. For example, Article III, Section 3, Paragraph 1 reads, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” The plural pronouns, “their” and “them” are used to refer to the United States.
    Some historians argue that Lincoln’s War to Suppress Southern Independence was fought over a verb. Lincoln and his supporters fought for “is” while the Southern States fought for “are.” Before the War, most people referred to the United States in the plural: they, them, their, are, etc. After the War, most people referred to the United States in the singular: it, its, is, etc.

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on politics.

Saturday, June 10, 2017

Discounting Accommodation Bills

Discounting Accommodation Bills
Thomas Allen

    Some proponents of the real bills doctrine and many opponents of the real bills doctrine present accommodation bills as legitimate bills for discounting. Some do so out of ignorance. Others do so to disparage the real bills doctrine.
    An accommodation bill is essentially a promissory note where the borrower secures accommodation from a bank on his own note, single name paper, or on an endorsed note of his customer, double name paper. Whereas real bills of exchange represent past transactions, accommodation bills represent future transactions. With a real bill of exchange, goods are in the process of being purchased or have been purchased. With an accommodation bill, the goods are not in the process of being purchased; they are to be purchased in the future.
    A real bill of exchange provides for its own payment; it is self-liquidating. When the retailer sells the merchandise represented by the bill of exchange, the retailer receives the gold necessary to pay the bill. Thus, a real bill of exchange is self-liquidating.
    An accommodation bill is not self-liquidating. As it represents goods not yet produced, whatever the accommodation bill represents does not provide the gold necessary to pay it.
    Discounting accommodation bills leads to inflation, i.e., more bank credit money (bank notes and checkbook money) enters the community than new goods. This inflation is eventually followed by an economic contraction.
    Discounting a real bill of exchange leads to a smooth operating economy. Credit money represents goods in the process of being sold, i.e., the goods represented by the bill of exchange, and provides the money to purchase the new merchandise. It also provides the funds to pay workers before the goods are sold without resorting to borrowing. As this credit money is removed when the merchandise is sold, it does not lead to inflation or economic contraction.
    The following example illustrates the difference between discounting a bill of exchange and an accommodation bill. New products of a community are being produced and consumed at the rate of £100,000,000. The value of these products is represented by bank notes and checkbook money via the discounting of bills of exchange. As far as currency is concerned, business would remain in a normal healthy condition.
    To this example, let’s add the assumption that banks want to maintain a 20 percent reserve in gold coins. That is, bank reserves equal £20,000,000. Furthermore, let’s assume that some smooth-talking pettifoggers convince bankers to discount their accommodation bills equal to £10,000,000. Now the community has £110,000,000 of credit money with which to buy £100,000,000 of goods. We also assume no lost in confidence.
    The result is inflation and a rise in prices. As the community was producing only £100,000,000 in products, much of the new demand will be met by increasing imports to absorb the additional £10,000,000. Gold would be used to pay for the imports as the foreign sellers have no need of the community’s credit money. The remainder of new demand would cause additional unsustainable domestic production.
    Having consumed the money for the accommodation bills, the drafters, the pettifoggers, would have nothing with which to pay the bills when they mature. Thus, the holders of the bank credit money created by the accommodation bills become creditors of the banks of the amount of £10,000,000 when the bills mature. Thus, the outstanding credit money would be presented to the banks for gold.
    If the banks had maintained their 20 percent reserve ratio, they would have £22,000,000 in gold backing their outstanding credit money issued to buy bills of exchanges and accommodation bills. If the excess credit money created by discounting the accommodation bills were redeemed, bank reserves would fall to £12,000,000. Thus, banks have to reduce new discounting to £60,000,000 to maintain a 20-percent ratio. Instead of being able to discount £100,000,000 in bills of exchange as the community requires, they could only discount £60,000,000.
    As a result of discounting accommodation bills, the quantity of credit money drops from £110,000,000 to £60,000,000. Economic stagnation quickly follows and bank runs become highly likely. As the banks lack the means, gold, to pay all their outstanding notes and checking account moneys, bankruptcy and suspension of payment results — all from discounting non-self-liquidating bills.
    As the above overly simplified example shows, banks should only discount self-liquidating bills, real bills of exchange, with bank credit money. Otherwise, economic disaster can, and often does, occurs.

Copyright © 2015, 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Thursday, June 1, 2017

Poor on Law

Poor on Law
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 John Law. My comments are in brackets. Referenced page numbers enclosed in parentheses are to Poor’s book.
    John Law (1671-1729) was a Scottish financier and gambler. He attempted to revive France by opening a bank to issue paper money. In 1716, he opened his bank, which became the Royal Bank with Law as its director. Reckless lending by his bank led to the financial panic of 1720. Poor reviews Law’s Money and Trade Considered (1705).
    Law argues “that articles of property, other than silver . . . might be made into money, or might be made the basis for the issue of paper money in place of one of silver” (pp. 81-82). [At the time that Law wrote, silver was the primary species in circulation.] According to Law, using items other than silver as money or as the basis for paper money should greatly benefit the public.
    Law declares, “The value of silver as money is its value in barter” (p. 82). He continues:
The additional value silver received from being used as money was because of its qualities which fitted it for that use, and that value was according to the additional demand its use as money occasioned. . . . Money is not a pledge, as some call it; it is a value paid, or contracted to be paid, with which it is supposed the receiver may, as his occasions require, buy an equal quantity of the same goods he has sold, or other goods equal in value to them; and that money is the most secure value either to receive, to contract for, or to value goods by, which is least liable to change in its value. . . . Thus silver having a value and qualities fitting it for money, which other goods had not, was made money, and, for the greater use of the people, was coined (pp. 82-83).
    Poor agrees that “Law was entirely right in assuming that the value of silver was its value in barter” (p. 83). However, Law “was mistaken . . . in asserting that it derives a value from its use as money, unless by its use as money he meant its use as reserves” (p. 83). [Most people who believe that money has value because of the material of which it is made believe that its use as money adds to that material’s value, whether such money is used as reserves or as a circulating purchasing medium.] Poor adds, “It is not their [gold and silver] use as a medium of exchange that constitutes their value: it is their value in the arts and their capacity to serve as reserves that give them their value in exchange” (p. 83). [In Dawn of Gold: The Real Story of Money, Philip Barton argues that gold originally received much of its value as money from its use in religion. William Carlile argues in The Evolution of Modern Money that gold evolved into money from its use as ornamentation as an expression of status.]
    Law argues:
Silver money is more uncertain in its value than other goods, so less qualified to serve as money. . . . Silver in bullion or money changes its value from any change in its quantity, or in the demand for it. . . . [S]ilver or money is dearer or cheaper, being more or less valuable, and equal to a greater or lesser quantity of goods. . . . More durable goods, as metals, materials for shipping, &c., increase in quantity beyond the demand for them, so are less valuable (pp. 83-84).
    Poor comments that Law’s assumption “are exactly opposed to the fact. The value of silver is uniform from the uniformity of its production and of the demand for it. Should there be some excess in production for one or more years, such excess would be taken up at previous prices to be held as reserves (so long as silver is legalized as money)” (p. 84). Poor continues, “Unlike other merchandise, the market for silver is the world. Until the markets of the world are glutted, it cannot fall materially in value from increase of production.” (p. 84). [As long as a country is on the silver standard, the “price” of silver will not change because the monetary unit is defined as a specific weight of silver. When the United States were on a de facto silver standard under its bimetallic system, one dollar would always buy 371.25 grains of silver because the dollar was defined as 371.25 grains of silver. That is, the “price” of 371.25 grains of silver was always one dollar, which was 371.25 grains of silver. {The price of 371.25 grains of silver was not fixed at one dollar, the dependent variable. The dollar was fixed at 371.25 grains of silver, the independent variable.} Moreover, Benjamin Anderson argues in The Value of Money that the supply of money and the demand for money does not determine its value. He argues that the “value of money is a quality of money, that quality which money shares with other forms of wealth, which lies behind, and causally explains, the exchange relations into which money enters.”[1] “Value {of money} is prior to exchange. Value is not to be denned as ‘power in exchange.’”[2] According to Anderson, the social value theory best explains the value of money: “the social value theory is the only way of giving a psychological explanation to the demand-curve, and a marginal value explanation of marginal demand-price.”[3]  Thus, the value of money derives from the value of the commodity of which it is made and from its services as money. The value of the commodity as money combines with the value of the commodity in its nonmonetary use. Like all other commodities, and everything else, the value of the monetary metal and of its use as money is psychological. Anderson concludes, “The physical weight in gold, which itself is an object of social value, is commonly the immediate basis of the value of the dollar to-day, but money may get its primary value from other sources than valuable bullion. Given this primary value, the dollar may get an enhancement in that value from the services which it performs in the social technology of adjustment.”[4].]
    Poor remarks:
Although at the outset some of Law's propositions in reference to money were eminently sound, he was compelled to sacrifice them so soon as he began to unfold his scheme. Those who came after him were incapable of appreciating him where he was right, but were certain to follow him wherever he was wrong. . . . Economists have borrowed greatly from Law, from whom, from the disgrace attached to his name, they could copy without reference and with impunity. They constructed, in great measure, from the ruins he left behind, their grotesque and absurd edifices (pp. 84-85).
    Law proposes to substitute paper money based on land instead of silver. Unlike silver, Law believes that his land-based paper money would not fall in value. Land is more likely to maintain its value than any other goods because it does not increase in quantity. [Law’s notion that land maintains its value is wrong. The value of land can vary greatly, even over a few years. In 1991, the aggregate value of all the land in Japan was almost four times that of the United States. By 2005, land in Japan had lost half its value while land in the United States had more than tripled in value.]
    Poor remarks that no one would borrow or accept Law’s land notes unless they could use them “to obtain coin, or merchandise, the equivalent of coin, — capital that could be used in their industries” (p. 86). Holders of these land notes could not convert them to the land backing them. Whether well secured or not, Law’s land notes “could never get into circulation” (p. 86). To avoid this difficulty, Law declared, “Money is not the value for which goods are exchanged, but the value by which they are exchanged. The use of money is to buy goods; and silver, while money, is of no other use” (p. 86).
    Poor is convinced that Law doubts that people would willingly receive his land money for other articles. Poor remarks, “As he [Law] could not give up his scheme, his principles had to give way to his necessities, and he was forced to assert the exact opposite to that which he had affirmed, and the truth of which he had conclusively demonstrated” (p. 86). Thus, Law declares that money “was not the value for which goods were exchanged, but the value by which they were exchanged” (p. 86). Poor continues, to Law money “was the yardstick by which goods were measured off, — a contrivance to assist in numeration, — a tally or counter to register the delivery of certain quantities or values of merchandise; in other words, value was not a necessary attribute of money” (p. 86). [This notion that money is merely a counter and that value is not a necessary attribute of money is held by most of the writers whom Poor reviews and by today’s fiat money proponents.]
    Law identifies several criteria that make land superior to silver as money. One is that land produces everything, including silver. Thus, silver is just a product. Another is that, unlike silver, land does not increase or decrease in quantity and is, therefore, more certain in its value. Also, unlike silver, land can be improved and, by that, increase the demand for it. Land cannot lose any of its uses whereas silver can. When land is used as money, it does not lose any of its other uses; however, silver used as money cannot simultaneously be used for other purposes. [See “Land-Backed Currency” by Thomas Allen, which explains the inferiority of land as the basis for money.] Poor replies, “A mortgage on real property may possess a high value, and yet bare no other attributes fitting it to serve as money” (p. 87).
    Law also knew that his land money would not be accepted abroad. Therefore, he asserts “that it was not necessary that it ever should pass abroad; that the domestic trade of a nation was alone to be considered” (p. 88).
    About Law, Poor writes:
He took the short cut of throwing his principles overboard without the least compunction, whenever they came into conflict with his purposes. He was a man of action, who never stopped to explain, but pushed right forward to the object he had in view. For him to doubt and inquire would be to give up the contest altogether. His life was a mission to promote, in the first place, the welfare of his own country, by supplying it with money — capital; and every consideration was subordinate to this grand idea (p. 88).

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on money.

1. B.M. Anderson, The Value of Money (New York: The Macmillian Co., 1917), pp. 8-9).

2. Ibid., p. 9.

3. Ibid., p. 42.

4. Ibid., p. 591.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Commentary on Deuteronomy 23:2

 Commentary on Deuteronomy 23:2
 Thomas Allen

    In the King James Version, Deuteronomy 23:2 reads, “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.” In The New Jerusalem Bible, it reads, “No half-bred may be admitted to the assembly of the Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh.”
    The word translated “bastard” in the KJV and “half-bred” in the NJB is mamzêr, which Strong (4464) defines as “a mongrel.”[1] Thus, according to Deuteronomy 23:2, God prohibits mongrels (mamzêr) from entering into His congregation or assembly. God values racial purity so much that He does not want a racially mixed person to be part of His congregation or assembly.
    Mamzêr occurs in one other place in the Bible and that is in Zechariah 9:6: “And a bastard shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines.” Whereas, the King James Version translates it as “bastard,” The New Jerusalem Bible translates this word as “half-breed.”
    Several translations follow the King James Version in translating mamzêr as “bastard” in both Deuteronomy and Zechariah. The following translations translate mamzêr as “bastard” in Deuteronomy; however, they translate mamzêr as “stranger” or “foreigner” in Zechariah: the Geneva Bible, the Jubilee Bible 2000, the Living Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, the Young's Literal Translation, and the Lamsa Translation. Why do these translations translate mamzêr differently in these two passages? In any event, “stranger” and “foreigner” generally refer to a person of a different race.[2] However, that any of these translations intended to reference a person of a different race in the biological sense as opposed to the nationality sense is doubtful.
    Many translations erroneously translate mamzêr as a person of “illegitimate birth,” “illicit birth,” “illegitimate or unlawful marriage,” “forbidden marriage,” “born out of wedlock,” or a similar phrase in Deuteronomy. Some of these translations translate mamzêr as “stranger” or “foreign” in Zechariah: the International Children’s Bible, the New Century Version, and the World English Bible. Most of them correctly translate mamzêr as “mongrel,” “mixed people,” “mixed race,” “half-breed,” or a similar phrase in Zechariah: the Amplified Bible, the Amplified Bible Classic Edition, the Contemporary English Version, the English Standard Version, the English Standard Version Anglicised, the Expanded Bible, the GOD’S WORD Translation, the Good News Translation, Holman Christian Standard Bible, the Lexham English Bible, the Modern English Version, the Names of God Bible, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Translation, the New International Version, the New International Version - UK, the New King James Version, the New Life Version, the New Living Translation, the New Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version Anglicised, the New Revised Standard Version Anglicised Catholic Edition, and the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition. Why the different translations of mamzêr in these two verses? Are they attempting to deceive? As shown below, mamzêr does not mean born of an illegitimate marriage or born out of wedlock, although interracial marriages are illicit.
    Several commentators believe that mamzêr refers to a child born of an incestuous union in Deuteronomy 23:2 and to a mixed race people in Zechariah 9:6. In his commentary, Gore defines mamzêr or “bastard” in Deuteronomy as probably “the offspring of an incestuous union or of one within the prohibited degrees of affinity.”[3] According to him, it does not mean born out of wedlock. However, in Zechariah, he defines mamzêr as “a mixed breed, a rabble population of half-casts instead of proud Philistines.”[4]
    Laymon in his commentary agrees with Gore on Deuteronomy 23:2. However, he adds “presumably it means any child of an illicit union.”[5] Does he include interracial unions as the Bible clearly treats these unions as illicit?[6]
    Likewise, Peake defines mamzêr in Deuteronomy as the offspring of an incestuous union.[7] As do most other commentators, he defines mamzêr in Zechariah as a mongrel race.
    Dummelow defines mamzêr in Deuteronomy as one “not born out of wedlock (Jephthah was such, Jg 11:1), but the child of adultery or incest.”[8] Was not Jephthah born out of adultery? According to Dummelow, mamzêr in Zechariah probably refers to “a son of a mixed race.”[9]
    Following the above commentators, Pfeiffer believes that mamzêr in Deuteronomy refers to a child of an incestuous union,[10] and in Zechariah it refers to a mixed people.[11] Likewise, Eiselen believes that mamzêr in Deuteronomy refers to a child of an incestuous union.[12]
    “Bastard” means not only illegitimate, but also mongrel or spurious. (A mongrel child is illegitimate because racially mixed relations are scripturally illegitimate.) Those who object to this translation of mamzêr as “mongrel” claim that it means (1) one born of an incestuous relationship, (2) one born out of wedlock, or (3) one born of a prostitute. Someone born of one of these illicit relationships is denied entry into God’s congregation. The Bible refutes these suppositions.
    According to Leviticus 18:15 and 20:12, incest is a father having sexual intercourse with his daughter-in-law. Judah had such a relationship with his daughter-in-law Tamar (Genesis chapter 38). Perez (Pharez) resulted from this illicit union. Aaron’s sons were descendants of Perez (see 1 Chronicles 2:4-10, Exodus 6:23, and Numbers 3:2-3). They participated in God’s congregation. Descendants of an incestuous relationship are not banned from God’s congregation. Thus, supposition one is eliminated.
    Jephthah, who is listed as a hero of Israel (Hebrews 11:32-34), was born of a prostitute and out of wedlock. In Judges 11:1-2, Jephthah is described as the son of Gilead and a prostitute. The sons of Gilead by his lawful wife threw out their half-brother Jephthah to prevent him from inheriting any of their father’s property because Jephthah was the son of a whore. Judges and Hebrews identify Jephthah as part of God’s congregation. Being born out of wedlock or of a prostitute does not ban one from God’s congregation. Thus, supposition two and three are eliminated.
    If one of these three suppositions is true, then the Bible contradicts itself. As the Bible does not and cannot contradict itself, mamzêr cannot refer to someone born of an incestuous relationship, born out of wedlock, or born of a prostitute. It can mean only one thing — mongrel. Mamzêr is a mongrel, a racially mixed person. According to Deuteronomy 23:2, a racially mixed person is not to enter God’s congregation.
    God abhorred the racially mixed so much under the Old Testament disposition that He prohibited them from entering His congregation. What God abhorred under the Old Testament disposition, surely He abhors under the New Testament disposition. God does not change (Malachi 3:6). If He contemned the racially mixed under the Old Testament disposition, surely He contemns the racially mixed under the New Testament disposition. He did and He does, for He does not change.
    When Jesus ruled the minds of man, parents detested their children marrying outside their race. Now that Martin Luther King rules the minds of man, parents find their children marrying outside their race acceptable and often admirable. Thus, the sin that God abhors so greatly that He will not let the product of that sin into His assembly is no longer considered a sin. As a result, the races are committing genocide via breeding themselves out of existence.

1. James Strong, A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Hebrew Bible with Their Rendering in the Authorized English Version (Madison, New Jersey, 1890), p. 67.

2. See “Stranger in the Old Testament” by Thomas Allen.

3. Charles Gore, Henry L. Goudge, and Alfred Guillaume, editors, A New Commentary on Holy Scripture (New York: The Macmillian Co., 1928), p. 163.

4. Gore, p. 619.

5. Laymon, Charles M., ed., The Interpreter’s One-volume Commentary on the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971), p. 114.

6. See, Integration Is Genocide, False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of the Races and Interracial Marriages, and “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” all by Thomas Allen.

7. Peake, Arthur S., ed., A Commentary on the Bible (New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, n.d.), p. 240.

8. Dummelow, J.R., ed., A Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1936), p. 132.

9. Dummelow, p. 607.

10. Pfeiffer, Charles F., ed., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), p. 186.

11. Pfeiffer, p. 906.

12. Frederick Carl Eiselen, Edwin Lewis, and David G. Downey, editors, The Abingdon Bible Commentary (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1929), p. 335.

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on religion.

Sunday, May 14, 2017

Gold Confiscation

Gold Confiscation
Thomas Allen

    Many American buyers and potential buyers of gold express concern about the U.S. government confiscating gold. This fear is legitimate because rogue governments like the U.S. government can be highly unpredictable and destructive. It can steal not only gold but any thing else that the rulers want.
    Nevertheless, gold confiscation is not likely. Today’s monetary system differs greatly from that of 1933 when President Roosevelt’s great theft occurred. Then gold was the money. Gold coins actually circulated and were used for buying and selling. Federal reserve notes, U.S. government notes, and national bank notes were redeemable in gold coin on demand.
    Today governments officially shun gold and pooh-pooh it as money. Although their central banks hoard large quantities of gold, governments deny that it has any monetary value. It is a barbaric relic that used to interfere with their fiat monetary dreams and deserves to be banished forever from the monetary system. To confiscate gold today would be an admission that they have been wrong for the past eight decades. Moreover, today people who distrust government hold most of the gold outside investment houses, banks, and industry. They would not likely surrender it to the government.
    When Roosevelt stole the people’s gold, his theft was easy. The U.S. government and the Federal Reserve held 93 percent of the country’s monetary gold as trustees for backing gold certificates, federal reserve notes, and national bank notes. With the $100 exemption,[1] he did not have to take any gold coins held by individuals.
    The monetary statistics presented in this article are from Banking and Monetary Statistics, 1914-1941, published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Section 11, “Currency,” Table No. 110, “Currency in Circulation — By Kind, Monthly, 1860-1941,” page 412, gives the total currency in circulation for February 1933 as $6258 million. Of this amount, gold coins accounted for $284 million; gold certificates, $649 million; United States notes, $301 million; federal reserve notes, $3405 million; and national bank notes, $861 million.
    On page 506 of Section 13, “United States Government — Treasury Finance and Government Corporations and Credit Agencies,” the gold reserves for backing United States Notes are $156 million. Table No. 156, “Analysis of Changes in Gold Stock of the United States, Monthly, 1914-1941,” page 537, gives a monthly average gold stock of $4093 for February 1933.
    For February 1933, the U.S. government held $156 million in gold to back U.S. notes. It also held $649 million in gold to back gold certificates. Thus, the U.S. government held $805 million in gold. Federal Reserve Banks held $3004 million in gold, and $284 million in gold coins were in circulation. These give a total monetary gold stock of $4093.
    Of the $4093 million of the monetary gold, the U.S. government and Federal Reserve held $3809 million in gold or 93 percent of the country’s monetary gold. The people held $284 million in gold coins or about 7 percent of the monetary gold. If the coins were roughly evenly distributed among the population, each person would have had between $2 and $3 in gold coins (c. 123 million population). At this time the smallest gold coin in circulation was $2.50.
    As Roosevelt’s confiscation order allowed each person to keep $100 in gold coins, he did not have to steal any coins that the public held. Between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, he already had nearly all the gold. All he needed to do, and what he did do, was to violate the U.S. government’s, the Federal Reserve’s, and national banks’ contracts with the people by voiding the redemption clauses in the law and on the paper money.
    Since the U.S. government made using gold coins and gold certificates as money illegal, if a person who held them wanted to spend them, he had to exchange them for federal reserve notes, U.S. notes, or silver coins. Consequently, gold ceased being a medium of exchange in the United States.

1. Franklin D. Roosevelt, 34 ‒ Executive Order 6102 ‒ Requiring Gold Coin, Gold Bullion and Gold Certificates to Be Delivered to the Government, April 5, 1933,  http://www., April 28, 2011, from John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project [online], Santa Barbara, CA. Available from World Wide Web: ws/?pid=14611.

Copyright © 2011 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on money.

Friday, May 5, 2017

Poor on Aristotle

Poor on Aristotle
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 Aristotle.
    Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) was a Greek philosopher, educator, and scientist. He is the source of the monetary theories of the ancient world and even modern times. Also, he taught the unlawfulness of usury. He had many false ideas about money that took nearly two millennia to correct. Even today some people still promote several of his false ideas.
    Poor critiques Aristotle’s exposition on money in his Politics. My comments are in brackets. Referenced page numbers enclosed in parentheses are to Poor’s book.
    Poor quotes Aristotle’s Politics where Aristotle discusses barter and money (pp. 62-65). Aristotle distinguishes between acquisition with money and acquisition by other means, e.g., natural increases of flocks and herds, and the soil and the spoils of war. Money acquisition is not natural in that it arises from some act or skill. According to Aristotle, “barter in general had its original beginning in Nature, from the fact that some men had a surplus, and others less than was necessary for them. And hence it is evident that the selling provisions for money is not naturally a part of pecuniary science; for men were obliged to use barter as far as would supply their wants” (p. 62). From barter rose the use of money. Money became necessary to import and export goods over great distances.
    Aristotle continues:
Money, then, being devised from the necessity of mutual exchange, the second species of money-getting arose, namely, by buying and selling; and this was conducted probably at first in a simple manner, but afterwards it came to employ more skill and experience as to where and how the greatest profit might be made. . . . For men oftentimes suppose wealth to consist in the quantity of money which any one possesses, as this is that medium with which trading and trafficking are concerned; others regard it as a mere trifle, as having no value by nature, but merely by arbitrary compact; so that, if those who use it should alter their sentiments, it would be worthless and unserviceable for any necessary purpose. . . . [T]he mere getting of money differs from natural wealth, and the latter is the true object of economy; while trade only procures money, not by all means, but by the exchange of it; and it seems to be chiefly employed about trading, for money is the element and the regulator of trade, nor are there any bounds to be set to the wealth which is thereby acquired. . . . [I]n the art of acquiring riches, its end has no limits, for its object is money and possessions; but economy has a boundary, though the former has not; for acquiring riches is not its real end. And for this reason it should seem that some boundary should be set to riches, though in practice we see the contrary of this taking place; for all those who get riches add to their money without end. The cause of this is the near connection of these two arts with each other, for they sometimes change employment with each other, as getting of money is their common pursuit. For they each employ the same thing, but not in the same manner; for the end of the one is something beyond itself, but the end of the other is merely to increase it; so that some persons are led to believe that this is the proper object of economy, and think that for this purpose they ought to continue to save or to hoard up money without end. . . . Such persons make every art subservient to money-getting, as if this was the only end, and to this end every thing ought to contribute (pp. 63-64).
    Aristotle adds:
[A]s to money, in some respects it is the business of the master of the family, in others not, but of the servile art. . . . [S]ince these riches may be applied . . . to two purposes, the one to make money of, the other for the service of the house; of these the one is necessary and commendable, the other, which has to do with traffic, is justly censured, for it has not its origin in Nature, but amongst ourselves; for usury is most reasonably detested, as the increase of our fortune arises from the money itself, and not by employing it to the purpose to which it was intended. For it was devised for the sake of exchange, but usury multiplies it. . . . [U]sury is merely money born of money: so that of all means of money-making this is the most contrary to Nature (pp. 64-65).
[According to an old saying, a Yankee farmer ate what he could not sell; a Southern farmer sold what he could not eat. Thus, based on Aristotle’s reasoning, the Southern farmer acted more naturally than the Yankee farmer.]
    About Aristotle’s ideas on money, Poor writes:
His method of resolving all questions by verbal distinctions, by dialectics, relieved him of all necessity of investigation into, or analysis of their law. Of this, his treatment of money and of loans of it at usury affords a striking illustration. Money was an invention for the purpose of facilitating exchanges of property. To use it for any other purpose was against Nature; usury, — “money born of money,” — a crime (p. 65)!
Thus, Aristotle’s false methodology lead to false conclusions, which, unfortunately, received the status of dogma.
    According to Poor, Aristotle had “an eminently unscientific mind” (p. 65). Moreover, at the time that he wrote, “it was in the highest degree impious to question the beliefs and traditions of the past” (p. 65) on most subjects. and “[p]henomenon still stood for law” (p.65). Poor adds:
His method was necessarily deductive, from his utter ignorance of, or inability to use, the inductive; from the imperiousness and arrogance of his nature, and from the purpose he had in view, which was nothing less than to solve, in an age wholly incapable of any thing like an adequate investigation of natural law, every question coming within the range of human experience. . . . Never disturbed by a doubt as to the soundness of his premises, he assumed to dispose by a single stroke, not only of problems for which, with all the lights of the present day, ages will hardly suffice, but those which wholly transcend human capacity (p. 66).
    Poor continues, “The premises from, which he reasoned were the untrained observations of phenomena, or the extravagant fictions of an ardent and fanciful mind. The conclusions to which he came were as grotesque and fanciful as the premises themselves” (p. 67). Aristotle’s fatal fault was assuming the truth of the premises upon which his system was constructed (p. 70).
    Poor notes that theories and opinions about money and loans of money at interest, usury, during the Middle Ages and even into modern times come from Aristotle and usually without examination or reservation (pp. 72-73). [Usury, as used by Poor and during the Middle Ages, covered any kind of interest-bearing loan, not just loans with exorbitant interest rates. Some people claim that the Bible prohibits charging interest on loans, usury. They quote Deuteronomy 23:19: “Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury.” However, the Bible does not forbid usury per se. These people ignore the next verse, Deuteronomy 23:20, which reads “Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury. . . .” “Stranger” means a person of a different race {v. “Stranger in the Old Testament” by Thomas Allen}. Although the Bible condemns loans at interest to a person of the lender’s race, it allows interest-bearing loans to people of other races {v. “Questions for Anti-Usurers” by Thomas Allen}.]
    Summarizing Aristotle’s views on money, Poor writes:
With him, money was invented for a specific purpose, and was entitled to no consideration, for the reason that such purposes or objects were contrary to Nature. Those that were according to Nature were war, the chase, the care of herds, and the gathering of the fruits of the fields. Such only were worthy of freemen who had a part in the administration of the government. With him, trade and the mechanical arts were contrary to Nature, were servile; and, as such, were worthy only of those who occupied an inferior political or social condition, and of slaves. Money was held in the same indifference or contempt as were those by whom it was chiefly used. It was unworthy of notice or investigation; it was base because those who used it, and the employments in which it was used, were base (p. 73).
    Summarizing Aristotle’s views on usury, Poor writes:
The views of Aristotle on the subject of usury are a necessary sequence of his views upon the subject of money. If money-getting by trade, or by exchanges in which it was used, was contrary to Nature, loans of it at usury could be no less so. They were only an aggravation of the original wrong (p. 73).
    Poor concludes his discussion on Aristotle with a quotation from William Lecky (1838-1903):
This absurdity of Aristotle and the number of centuries during which it was so incessantly asserted, without being, so far as we know, once questioned, is a curious illustration of the longevity of a sophism when expressed in a terse form and sheltered by a great name. It is enough to make one ashamed of his species to think that Bentham, so late as 1787, was the first to bring into notice the simple consideration that, if a farmer employs borrowed money in buying bulls and cows, and if these produce calves to the value of ten times the interest, the money borrowed can scarcely be said to be sterile, or the borrower to be a loser (p. 73)!

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on money.

Thursday, April 27, 2017

Review of Putnam’s Race and Reality -- Part 3

Review of Putnam’s Race and Reality -- Part 3
Thomas Allen

    In Chapter 6, Putnam discusses questions sent to him after his book Race and Reason was published. [Only a few of these questions are presented below.]
    He is accused of increasing tension without offering a solution. Putnam responds:
The heart of the Negro problem lies in establishing the correct answer to one question, namely, are the Negro’s limitations the result of his bad environment or is his bad environment the result of his limitations? Can we, by making every effort to improve the Negro’s surroundings and education, reach the root cause of his comparative performance, or is it a matter of innate racial differences? Every public policy concerning race will be decided differently depending on the answer given to that question. . . . [I]f the answer is environment, policies will be the direct opposite of what they will be if the answer is genetics (p. 96).
[The race policies of the United States for more than 50 years have been based on the answer being environment. After spending hundreds of billions of dollars to improve and raise the environment of Blacks, little has changed. If anything, things are worse. According to most social indicators, such as divorce, abortion, illegitimate births, and crime, things are worse now than 60 years ago when the environmental dogma began being adopted into law. As Putnam notes, we need to adopt policies based on racial differences being predominately genetic.]
    Some asked, assuming the inferiority of the Negro, “[W]hy is it necessary to believe that intermarriage would necessarily lower the quality of human beings produced and thus the quality of American civilization?” Putnam answers:
Scientific evidence and practical experience regarding the intelligence of large unselected groups, and their creative achievements, show that Negroes as a group, in this country and across the world, have appreciably lower average intelligence scores and a vastly lower creative record throughout history. If we absorb twenty million largely uncreative Negroes into our White gene pool, the mixed product may be expected to lack the combination of qualities (insight, foresight, intelligence and drive) necessary to maintain and advance American civilization (p. 100).
[More important, God condemns interracial marriages (v. False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of the Races and Interracial Marriages, People of the Flood, and “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” all by Thomas Allen). Moreover, integration results in genocide (v. Integration Is Genocide by Thomas Allen).]
    One person noted studies showing that White and Black infants up to 40 weeks revealed no differences and concluded that differences after that result from socioeconomic factors. Putnam replies, “[T]he lower centers of the brain and nervous system, in human beings and in animals, are the ones which mature first; the higher centers mature last. Therefore similarity of performance in the early stages of life signifies nothing as to adult potentiality” (p. 102). [Furthermore, studies show that genetics is much more important than socioeconomic status in determining cognitive abilities.]
    Another comment is “man alone is capable of culture and that cultural influences counteract and invalidate all your animal analogies and your references to evolutionary structure” (p. 103). To this comment Putnam writes:
This question contains a non sequitur. It is true that man alone is capable of culture but it does not follow that these influences overbalance structure. On the contrary we have seen that in the case of human beings heredity overbalances environment by a ratio of about three to one. This is just another way of saying that structure overbalances culture by the same ratio (p. 103).   
He adds:
[W]henever you hear an integrationist talk about the “cultural deprivation” which the Negro has suffered. The expression has become a cliche to account for all the Negro’s limitations. It is meaningless because you cannot speak of depriving a race of something it is, on the average, incapable of possessing (p. 104)
    To the question that achievement (economic, academic, artistic, and managerial) depends on much more than innate intelligence and brain size, Putnam responds:
        I have mentioned the probability that the development of the frontal lobes has a relation to planning, foresight and motivation — the use of intelligence. If this be true, then the brain is still involved in many attributes which might not be called intelligence in the narrowest sense.
        Beyond this we may say that a man’s character is the product not only of his brain and entire nervous system but also of his glands and internal secretions, which interact with his nervous system. Negroes differ from Whites in these secretions.
        Finally, there is that one-quarter contribution by environment. But with full allowance for these things, it still remains true that brain size is related to achievement. There is no contradiction (p. 107).
    Putnam is asked, “How is the Government of Liberia so stable?” He answers:
Because it is essentially a political dictatorship, supported economically by Firestone and the Bona Hills Iron mines. Although Liberia was founded by supposedly freedom-loving Negroes from America, the League of Nations was obliged to intervene in 1930 to stop the slave trade. It was found that the President and some of his highest officials were implicated. The President had to resign (p. 110).
Then he gives some statistics about the deplorable conditions of Liberia (p. 110).
    Some offer Brazil as a good example of a multiracial society and ask should not the United States emulate Brazil. Putnam doubts if many Americans want the United States to become another Brazil. [It seems that the ruling elite who control the U.S. government want the United States to become another Brazil — not only as a multiracial society but also politically and economically.] He notes that the most backward parts of Brazil have the greatest concentration of Negro genes. The most advanced parts have the smallest concentration of Negro genes. He compares Brazil with the United States and shows that the United States have a much longer life expectancy (35-40 years for Brazil and 67 years for the United States) and a much greater per capita gross national product ($200 for Brazil and $2823 for the United States) (pp. 110-111). [Putnam’s data are circa 1967. In 2015, the life expectancy in Brazil was 74 and in the United State, 79. In 2015, the gross domestic product for Brazil was $8802 and for the United States, $55,904.]
    Some reference scientists who assert that the burden of proof for innate racial inequality is on the racists [v. "Who Is a Racist" by Thomas Allen] to prove their superiority. Putnam finds this assertion pathetic. He retorts, “The burden of proof is upon those who would contradict all previously accepted fact and experience, and who would alter all previously established custom. As for the evidence itself, there is no evidence for equality” (p. 112).
    One asked why most Negroes raised in the U.S. segregated schools cannot qualify for U.S. colleges while many foreign Negroes can? In response, Putnam cites a report commissioned by the Ford and Carnegie foundations that show that too many students from Asia and Africa had a difficult time in American colleges (p. 113). He also cites a report based on “a study of 1278 Northern college students, [which showed that] those Negroes from Southern segregated schools did better than Negroes from Northern integrated schools” (p. 113).
    One asks Putnam to explain Negro children having higher aspirations than White children. Putnam answers, “Negroes have very high aspirations, often based on envy, but these are not matched by their performance.  It is because of their high aspirational level that Negroes want the short cuts which they are unable to create themselves” (p. 115). [Thus, they cowed spineless politicians and judges into imposing integration, affirmative action, quotas, and the like that legally favored Blacks over Whites.]
    Some commenters remark that I.Q. increases when students in a poor educational climate are placed in a better one. Putnam replies “. . . when you give two groups of different potential the same education you do not decrease the gap between them. You increase it, because the group with the higher potential will derive more from the education” (pp. 116-117). [People who make these types of comments are implying that Black teachers are inferior to White teachers as teachers are the primary determinant of the educational climate. I.Q. is the primary determinant of how well a student will do.]
    One person notes that I.Q. tests have been standardized from White populations. He asks how they can have any validity for Blacks. Putnam answers:
The American Negro speaks English, has grown up in an American culture and should experience no handicap in taking “White tests.” The Japanese in California don’t. Moreover, the Negro must live in our White society. What we are trying to measure is his ability to adapt to our society and to contribute to it. To the extent that the Negro does experience difficulty in taking White tests to just that extent will the nature of his mind be alien to the White mind. We have a culture based on abstract thought. The Negro is poor at abstract thinking. If this shows up in a test it does not invalidate the test. It confirms its validity (p. 117).   
[Studies show that Blacks score better on “culturally bias” tests than they do on culturally neutral tests.]
    Another asks why should a democratic society care about intermarriage of different I.Q. groups, i.e., intermarriage of Blacks and Whites. Putnam replies:
A democratic society ought to care about the qualities in its population which have made it capable of becoming and maintaining a stable, free civilization. No Negro population has ever been able to do this; . . . therefore, to the extent that a successful free society absorbs a Negro population, to that same extent will its success decline (p. 121).
    Another question is that since the I.Q. of Blacks and Whites students overlaps, why not divide classes by individual ability instead of race? Putnam answers, “[E]ducability is a matter of more than I.Q., and overlap in I.Q. does not necessarily mean overlap in other important factors” (p. 122). He adds, “[T]here is a basic human need for self-identification with one’s own kind which is part of the healthy psychological development of every individual” (p. 123).
    One commenter states “that the lack of perfect evidence of the Negro’s inequality (inferiority) is no reason to assume that he is equal. Is it not equally true that imperfect evidence of his equality is no reason to assume he is inferior” (p. 127). Putnam responses that this person assumes “that the evidence is equal, in amount and in imperfection, on each side. The truth of the matter is that the evidence is overwhelming on the side of inequality — indeed I know of no evidence at all on the side of equality” (p. 127).
    When asked, “Is not the right to integrate a constitutional right,” Putnam answers, “There is no ‘right’ to integration, either in our constitution, our moral code, or our religious precepts” (p. 128). Then he uses the example of segregating restrooms by sex. Because he is not allowed to use the ladies’ restroom, he has not been denied “equal rights” or “civil rights.” Nor has he been made a second-class citizen deprived of “human rights” (p. 128). [As the transgender agenda moves forward, courts will begin to order the integration of restrooms. The plaintiffs will argue, and the courts will accept that argument, that when a transgender person, or anyone else, is denied the use of the restroom of his choice, he has been denied “equal rights” and “civil rights” and has been made a second-class citizen deprived of “human rights.”] He concludes, “The Negro’s so-called ‘constitutional’ right to integration derives solely from the Supreme Court's decision in the Brown case. . . .  [T]his case was based upon misrepresentation and concealment of vital evidence bearing upon the genetic issue” (p. 128).
    Putnam is asked if the treatment of the Negro limits his equality of opportunity. He answers, “In the majority of cases the Negro’s failure is not due to a lack of opportunity but to a lack of capability. It is always easy to blame the latter on the former because opportunity itself is not easy to define” (p. 133). [To prove that Blacks are nor deprived of equal opportunity, courts and federal agencies have force businesses and institutions to resort to quotas, usually covertly but often overtly. This action has resulted in hiring or promoting lesser qualified Blacks over more qualified Whites. So much for White privilege.] He notes, “Most Negroes with intelligence and character have made their way very well in the United States” (p. 133) He gives an example of a highly successful Negro.
    Some people blame segregation for the lynchings, bombings, shootings, beatings, and unjust jailing of Blacks in the South. Putnam responds, “Segregation has not been the cause of [these] crimes . . .; the cause has been the attempt at force integration” (p. 138). To which he adds, “To the extent that crimes against the Negro were previously committed by Whites in the South, these were few in comparison to those committed by the Negro against other Negroes” (p. 138). [Even today, Negro crime victims are much more likely to be a victim of a Black criminal than of a White criminal (v. “The Dirty War: America’s Race War” by Thomas Allen).]
    One person asked, “how much do you think segregation has to do with causing the Negro to have such low moral standards, low I.Q., and high rate of illegitimate births and disease?” (p. 138).  Putnam answered, “If a patient has a contagious illness and is segregated from the public, for the public’s protection, how much does this have to do with the patient’s having the illness?” (p. 139). [In other words, these attributes contribute to segregation; they are not caused by it.]
    To the accusation that segregation enforces poverty, Putnam replies, “Segregation does not enforce poverty. The Jews have frequently been segregated throughout history, but they have not been made poor” (pp. 138-139). [Jews have been discriminated against many more centuries than have Blacks. Yet their wealth far exceeds their numbers. Today, Whites are discriminated against in favor of Blacks, yet on average they are wealthier than Blacks. Segregation is not the cause of poverty. Low cognitive ability is.]
    After the Goldwater defeat in 1964, many believe that the Republican party needed a broader base and needed to be more attractive to minority groups. Putnam replies, “When you please the Negro bloc, without carefully examining what you do, you are apt to be injecting into the bloodstream of the body politic the virus of collapse. The body politic in our case may be strong enough to stand a certain amount of such a virus, but it is bound to be weakened by it, and can be destroyed in the long run” (p. 141). [Today we are living in the long run and are witnessing the destructive effects of the virus injected in the 1960s. The United States are close to collapse with open borders and unlimited immigration contributing to the deterioration of the economy and political system. The descendants of the White founders will soon cease being a majority in their own country. The federal republic of liberty, limited government, free market economy, and rule of law is on its deathbed. The United States are becoming a third world country with oppression, corruption, controlled markets, arbitrary rule of man, and anti-White socioeconomic policies. The egalitarians have won; liberty has lost.]
    One person noted that the Supreme Court decided the Brown case on “the grounds that separate but equal schools for Whites and Negroes are inherently unequal and thus violate the 14th Amendment” (p. 141). Putnam responses, “Vassar and Yale are separate, but they are not inherently unequal. The inequality, if such it be, in the case of the separation of Negroes and Whites can result solely from the implication of inferiority” (p.144). He continues:
Now when evidence exists, but is not introduced at a trial, which indicates not only that integration increases the sense of inferiority as compared with segregation, but also that neither segregation nor integration creates the inferiority which is due rather to innate limitations and is thus a fact of life, do you . . . or the Fifth Circuit mean to say that this evidence has no bearing on the issues . . . (pp. 142-143)
    To the comment that his views conflict with Christ’s view that all men are brothers, Putnam responds with a quotation from Weyl and Possony: “If my brother is a cripple, do I treat him as if he were physically sound? If he is mentally retarded, does a brotherly attitude consist in pretending that he is normal” (p. 144).
    One objects to discussing racial differences because it angers and humiliates the Negro. Putnam replies that this is a trained response by Negroes. The cause of the Negro’s anger results from the While liberal, communist, and other egalitarians teaching him that his differences result from White injustice. This inflames him against Whites. “The average Negro honestly believes himself the victim of injustice and oppression, whereas the truth is he has had endless help from the White race” (p. 145). Putnam notes that Blacks in America have received more aid than anywhere else in the world. He concludes, “The Negro’s present behavior is entirely a taught reaction based upon fraud. The cure for this sort of sickness is to teach the truth” (p. 145). [The only thing that has changed over the last 50 plus years is that Blacks demand more and receive more. Whites are literally killing themselves feeding the avarice of Blacks and other races. What will Blacks do once they have exterminated the White race? Look to Black Africa for the answer unless they fortunate enough to live under Chinese oppression.]
    When asked, “How do you know our culture is superior,” Putnam answers, “Because the other cultures envy us, not vice versa. They not only want our money and other fruits of our achievement; they would like to enter our society if they could” (p. 148).
    Putnam is asked to define “leftist.” He defines a leftist as:
a person who believes in taking the money out of the pocket of the man who earned it and giving it to somebody else. To be a bit more cynical, often he is a man who seeks legal ways of stealing from the top in order to buy the support of the bottom. He is a man who lays stress on the Commandment “Love thy neighbor” and never mentions the Commandments “Thou shalt not covet” or “Thou shalt not steal” (p. 148).
    Envy is the driving motivation behind the hardcore leftists. He adds:
        Envy of our Anglo-American civilization, and of the qualities of mind and character which built it, is widespread among certain races, and operates in the same way — there is a strong drive to dispense its benefits to everybody while denigrating the source as “Puritan” or “reactionary”. . . .
        The leftist in the racial area seeks to take by force the hard-earned and long cherished customs, traditions, standards and other social and political attributes of our White society and distribute and share them with Negroes. . . .
        [Leftist tax] success, enterprise and thrift to support failure, indolence and improvidence (Pp. 147-148).
[Leftist policies as defined by Putnam have brought the United States to the abyss of destruction. If things do not soon change, the United States will fall into the abyss and become irrevocably and irreplaceably lost.]
    Commenting on compassion and charity toward the poor, one person concludes that the government ought to take an active role in carrying out this idea. Putnam notes that when the government acts, it is no longer charity. “The government takes by force from some and gives to others” (p. 157). [The government not only takes money by force to give to the poor, it also takes money to give to the rich, e.g., corporate welfare like banker bailouts following the 2008 crash.]
    To the communist doctrine “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” Putnam offers an analogy:
Picture a thug with a blackjack on a dark street. He slugs a passerby and steals his wallet. The thug has a need, the passerby has the ability to satisfy it. So the wallet changes hands. Such a philosophy can only result in hanging a millstone around the necks of diligence, enterprise and foresight while encouraging indolence, shiftlessness and theft (p.152).
Then he notes that when government and society excuse and appease bad behavior, more bad behavior is generated (pp. 151-151).
    About the concept of a world unified in brotherhood, Putnam replies, “A man who loves all countries, and all races, as much as he loves his own, is like the man who loves all women as much as he loves his wife. He merits suspicion” (p. 152).
    About church leaders who claim that the Christian religion demands integration, Putnam writes:
        I am puzzled by the attitude of churchmen nowadays who seem to think the Christian religion demands they support policies which are certain to lead to the aforesaid plucking down. They appear to care little for the heritage bequeathed them by their forebears, or for the millenniums of self-denial and self-discipline that have been a part of the growth of Western civilization and its codes of honor and decency.
        They nimbly forget the effort and sacrifice — and the handing on of a torch — through countless generations. This is the trust which they now propose to abandon. But before they dissipate so many of those values which their ancestors committed to their keeping, let such as these remember the words of Paul to the Corinthians. “It is required in stewards that a man be found faithful” (pp. 153-154).
    When asked what he would do if he were a Negro, Putnam replied, that he would find work within his limitation and be content with it. Then he adds that Negroes often refuse jobs for which they are suited because they have been taught that they are too good for such jobs. Instead they “loiter or riot in slums, cursing society, and hugging the illusion that they are the victims of injustice. Instead they are the victims of a false conception of themselves, and the only injustice in the situation is due to the leftists who misled them” (p. 157).
    When asked about the treatment of Negroes in America, Putnam answers, “The White man owes the Negro nothing. If there are any debts outstanding, they are owed by the Negro to the White man” (p. 158). Then he lists some of the things that Blacks owe to Whites: “hospitals, medicines, schools, food, opportunity, and a standard of living he could not possibly have acquired for himself” (p. 158). [To this day, Blacks continue to maintain that Whites owe them. Most Blacks believe that Black labor in the form of slaves built America. They believe, if the thought ever occurs to them, that the White man’s intelligence, ingenuity, foresight, accumulated wealth, institutions, etc. contributed little or nothing to the building of America — only their exploitation of Black slave labor built the country. Regrettably, far too many Whites also believe this nonsense. America would have been built without any Black labor. It would be a better country if the Negro were never brought here. It would be a country without racial strife where people are hired based on their cognitive ability instead of their race. The highly destructive welfare state may have never come into being. Thus, the productive would not be debilitated by having their wealth stolen to support the indolent, unproductive, and poor. Furthermore, the indolent, unproductive, and poor would not be reduced to being wards of the state. Perhaps more important, if Blacks never came here, today’s Whites would not be sniveling, spineless, self-hating, cowards destroying themselves and their country and culture to feed the insatiable demands of Blacks. Today most Whites believe that no sacrifice made by Whites for Blacks is too great — including the annihilation of the White race, to which many Whites look forward with great joy. (This may in part explain why Whites are failing to reproduce at a rate high enough to replace their stock.)]
    A Southern commenter noted that if Southerners raised the question about racial differences, the South would “lose the sympathy and help of Northern conservatives who are with us on states’ rights, decentralized government, and similar issues” (p. 166). In response, Putnam voices his complaint against Northern conservatives:
The latter [Northern conservatives] make good whipping-boys for liberals and that is about all. When they win elections they do it by providing a slight variant in liberalism; when they lose, they do it on grounds that make them a public laughing stock. They appear as hard-bitten, discredited economic reactionaries, longing for a depression, while the American people are enjoying the greatest and most widely distributed prosperity in history (p. 166).
[Not much has changed. Once in office one can hardly notice any difference between “conservatives” and “liberals.” They may differ only slightly in philosophy and policies. Their biggest difference is in rhetoric.] Putnam notes that conservatives consistently avoid using the racial issue [except to exceed liberals in unconditional surrender to Blacks] although it is a winning issue. [With the declared war on the White race and the fear, self-hatred, and cowardice instilled in Whites, raising the race issue may now lose more votes than it would gain.]
    In response to how the South mistreats the Negro, Putnam quotes a Georgian businessman who served on several juries during his life. The businessman said, “In all my experience in the courts I have never seen a Negro get justice. What he got was mercy” (p. 168).
    In Chapter 8, Putnam makes some concluding remarks about suppressing the truth about racial differences. He saw:
         . . . an Anglo-American majority battered and divided on other issues, guilt-ridden and bemused by the equalitarian dogma; one observed a mass media saturating the public with a scientific fraud promoted by a hierarchy whose aim was not the search for truth but political propaganda; one found ignorant political and judicial leaders, with mediocre minds and little moral stamina, drawn from a society whose human resources had been emasculated by two generations of compromise and appeasement. These were some of the results of the destruction. But they were not the source.
        Nor could the source lie in the humanitarian impulse itself. The drive for social justice and the awakening of sympathy for the unfortunate were both good (p. 182).
    The real crime is using good to promote evil “. . . with the trend toward sympathy with failure — toward encouragement of the underdog — had grown a tendency to disparage the superior and to fawn upon the inferior” (p. 183). Thus, the egalitarian dogma contains “within itself not only the seeds of its own proliferation, but of general collapse as well” (p. 183). He writes:
[I]n condemning the concept of inferiority, our society necessarily had had to destroy the concept of superiority, for one could not exist without the other. With its destruction had come the death of respect for authority, of pride in the achievements of the past, of reverence for tradition, of the wisdom to honor the heritage of one’s family, one’s race and one’s country (pp. 183-184).
Worst of all has been “the death of that quality in superior men which sprang from confidence not only in their own personal excellence but in that of their kind and race” (p. 184). With his death “passed the genius of true leadership” (p. 184). It is  the quality that gives “men the courage to tell the truth” (p. 184). The only hope for America, the West, and the White race is to kill the egalitarian lie of racial equality. Only when Whites learn and accept the truth about racial differences can they save their race, countries, and civilization. [Unfortunately, it may be too late for Whites to save themselves and their country and culture. To reverse 60 plus years of lies and propaganda of the false dogma of egalitarianism within a few years that Whites have left may be too much to expect. Such a task will require such fortitude that the world has not seen since the Confederate army.]
    [Putnam believes that scientists have misled political leaders with their egalitarian, socialistic ideology promoting racial equality while suppressing the vast body of evidence showing the inequality of the races, especially of the White and Negro races (for example, see page 166). To the contrary, the political leaders, who lust for power, are not being misled. They know that the egalitarian philosophy of race, economy, etc. concentrates more power into their hands. Thus, they promote the egalitarian scientists while ignoring the honest nonegalitarian scientists. He believes that if our political leaders knew the truth about the races being unequal, they would act differently. Most likely, they would not. Most probably do know the truth.
    Putnam also fails to realize that the super rich, the moneyed interest, control the politicians, socialists, communists, and other egalitarians including egalitarian scientists. (V. the Illuminist series by Thomas Allen.) To the extent that he recognizes their involvement, he considers it irrelevant. To him discussing the involvement of international bankers is like discussing the Constitution or states’ rights. It avoids the issue of racial inequality.
    Each race, like each individual, differs in temperament, intelligence, character,  etc. These differences are as much, if not more, genetic as they are environmental. For the betterment of mankind, egalitarianism has to be abandon. As the lesser cannot be raised to the level of the greater, the greater must be suppressed to the level of the lesser. Thus, egalitarianism demands the suppression of the greater to the detriment of mankind. Society needs to be organized so that each race and individual can develop to its highest capabilities and potential.
    An irony of egalitarianism is that the more successful egalitarians are at equalizing the environment of the populace, the more genetics determines I.Q. For more about genetics dominating cognitive ability, see The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, The Inheritance of Mental Ability by Cyrll Bur, Man’s Racial Nature and Race and Politics: the Racial Controversy by H.B. Isherwood, Race Difference in Intelligence by John C. Loehlin, Major Findings from Twin Studies of Ability, Personality, and Interests by Robert C. Nichols, Racial Difference in Mental Growth and School Achievements by R. Travis Osborne. Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe by Roger Pearson, Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective by J. Philippe Rushton, A Question of Intelligence: The IQ Debate in America by Daniel Seligman, and Integration Is Genocide by Thomas Coley Allen.
    Dear reader, before you attempt to argue with an egalitarian about racial inequality, you need to heed the advice of a Southerner whom Putnam quotes:
“Any man who thinks that the average Negro is innately the intellectual equal of the average White man is too dumb to argue with” (p. 6).]
Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

More articles on social issues.