Sunday, February 16, 2020

Review of Boudreaux’s “Questions for Immigration Skeptics”

Review of Boudreaux’s “Questions for Immigration Skeptics”
Thomas Allen

Like most libertarians, Donald Boudreaux is a proponent of open borders and unrestricted immigration from the third world. In his article “Questions for Immigration Skeptics,” he faults several issues that opponents of open borders and unrestricted immigration use to support protecting the borders and restricting immigration. Below, are responses to some of the issues that Boudreaux identifies.

Using a common libertarian argument, Boudreaux contents that the mostly unrestricted immigration between 1607 and World War I resulted in a boom in the culture and economy of the British colonies and later the United States. Virtually unrestricted immigration of northern and western Europeans during this era was economically beneficial to European immigrants.

However, was this unrestricted migration of Europeans an economic and especially a cultural boom for the North American Indian? It certainly was not a boom for the Indian tribes that are now extinct. Moreover, this unrestricted immigration was such a cultural boom for the Indians that many no longer know the language of their ancestors, with many of these languages having become extinct. Much of what remains of traditional Indian culture is fading.

Boudreaux complains that placing restrictions on immigration reduces the freedom of Americans, both Blacks and especially Whites, by reducing the opportunity to mate with people of other races and thus hastening their extinction by breeding themselves out of existence. Thus, for Boudreaux and other libertarians, flooding the country with third-world nonwhite aliens is a great benefit. These nonwhite aliens offer White Americans the great benefit of amalgamating with them. Because of such miscegenation, the hated White race becomes extinct, which is a goal of liberal democrats and progressives and apparently of libertarians and neoconservatives. As most libertarians and neoconservatives are White, they must be consumed with self-hate.

Oddly, many libertarians agree with the desire of the liberal democrats, progressives, and neoconservatives to destroy the White race, Christianity, and Western Civilization — that is to destroy the foundation of libertarianism. (Has libertarianism ever risen in any other culture, religion, or race?)

Paradoxically, Boudreaux and other libertarians prefer flooding the country with evermore statists, as though enough of them are not already here. They want more people who have little used for a free market economy and see the government as the solver of all problems. Does not the country already contain enough people with this mentality?

Boudreaux complains that placing restrictions on immigration reduces the freedom of Americans to interact with non-Americans commercially. If so, such restriction of interaction is not significant. Most products that Americans buy are manufactured by non-Americans or contain parts manufactured by non-Americans. Furthermore, many agricultural products that Americans eat are grown by non-Americans. Even much of their computer services are provided by non-Americans. Apparently, Americans do not have to import non-Americans to interact with them commercially.

Another freedom that Boudreaux identifies that restricted immigration obstructs is learning from non-Americans. This complaint is so absurd that it hardly requires a response. With today’s internet and electronic communication systems (cell phones, television, radio, etc.), little restrictions exist for learning from non-Americans outside of China, North Korea, and a few other extremely authoritarian countries.

As an argument for open borders, Boudreaux notes that from Washington through the Garfield administration, the US government did not restrict immigration. If a duty of the government is to protect and control the country’s borders, the US government failed to perform this fundamental duty.

He fails to notice two important things. First, the people who were entering the country then came as true immigrants; they did not come as invading hordes of colonists as they are coming today. Second, except the Negro slaves and Chinese laborers, who were considered more as guest workers than immigrants, nearly all these immigrants were White Europeans and, therefore, of the same race (White), culture (Western Civilization), and religion (Christianity) as the Americans for whom the founders wrote the Constitution.

One great benefit of not restricting immigration during the antebellum era was that a large number of radicals from the failed Revolution of 1848 fled to the United States. Uniting with the Puritan Yankees, they succeeded in bringing Lincoln to power in 1861. To him, Americans owe the type of government that they have today — an all-powerful central government that claims the right to control everything, not only in this country, but also throughout the world, and seeks to do so. Bordeaux and other libertarians should rejoice; for this is the fruit of unrestricted immigration. Instead, they object to the results of their policy of unrestricted immigration.

One aspect that Boudreaux and other libertarians ignore is that before the early nineteenth century, Europeans came to the United States as colonists and not as immigrants. They came to supplant the Indians. They did not want to assimilate into the Indian culture. If any assimilation were to occur, the Indians would have to assimilate into the European culture.

Likewise, a large number of people entering the United States today come as colonists and not as immigrants. They have no intention of assimilating. Some, such as La Raza, admit as much. They want to retake the Southwest through colonization. Whites can assimilate with them or leave.

Like many libertarians, Boudreaux is so myopic that he only sees the potential benefits of unrestricted immigration, if all the things that he claims result from unrestricted immigration are truly beneficial. He all but ignores the culture, social, and racial destruction; to the extent that he does consider them, he finds their destruction desirable. However, liberal democrats and progressives are well aware of the destructiveness of unrestricted immigration, which is why they promote it.

Just as the Eastern Indian tribes learned earlier, the Plains Indians came to learn what happens when a people fail to protect their borders from unrestricted immigration. Failing to stop, much less restrict, immigrants from entering their country, the Plains Indians, like the Eastern Indians, lost their country. Moreover, these immigrants, who were really colonists, drove the Indians who had survived the genocidal wars to exterminate them to reservations, most of which were on undesirable land. Apparently, these open-borders-unrestricted-immigration proponents, who are mostly White, want Whites and, for that matter, Blacks to go the way of the North American Indian.

Open borders and unrestricted immigration have reduced the North American Indian to insignificance. Therefore, Bordeaux and other libertarians who promote open borders and unrestricted immigration must not care much about the North American Indian. Moreover, they do not care much about Whites or the American Negro. Unrestricted immigration will reduce them, if they survive the genocide, to the status of the North American Indian because Melanochroi and especially Turanians are coming to colonize the country. In general, Melanochroi and Turanians have little uses for Whites (Aryans) and none for Blacks (Negroes). Thus, libertarians, liberal democrats, progressives, neoconservatives and other proponents of open borders must disdain Whites and Blacks and adore Turanians, except the North American Indian, and Melanochroi.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Allen.

More political articles.

Friday, February 7, 2020

The Difference Between Government and State

The Difference Between Government and State
Thomas Allen

In Fugitive Essays: Selected Writings of Frank Chodorov (Charles H. Hamilton, editor; Indianapolis, Indiana: Liberty Fund, Inc., 1980). Chodorov gives an excellent, concise explanation of the difference between government and state. (Here, state means a political entity and not a territorial entity as commonly used in the United States.) Referenced page numbers to quotations from this book are enclosed in parentheses.
Chodorov defines government as:
a specialized service arising out of community life. It owes its existence to the individual’s interest in himself. Its specific job is to maintain the peace necessary to productive enterprise. Its related job is that of providing such services as may enable each of the specialists in the community to carry on more efficiently. And that’s all (p. 95).
Among the services that government provides are police, courts, and other services that prevent trespass against or endangerment of a person and his property. Government may also provide some services that are beneficial to all members of a community such as a uniform system of weights and measures, road maintenance, and sanitation. Much beyond these, it becomes a state.
He adds:
The distinctive characteristic of government is that in performing its functions it may have recourse to the use of coercive authority. Its particular attribute is power, vested in it by the producing specialists for the specific purpose of maintaining a condition necessary to their production (p. 95).
(Producing specialists are farmers, workers, businessmen, and others who are involved in producing real wealth.)
  Unfortunately, these protective measures can be used against producing specialists. Protectors can use their power to plunder the producing specialists. (For this reason, the producing specialists should always outgun the protectors.) When the protectors use their power to plunder instead of protect, as happens in a welfare state, which is built on plunder, the government “ceases to be a service and becomes a state” (p. 96).
“[T]he the moral basis of political authority is the right of life and the related right of property. But when that political authority is so exercised as to deny these basic rights, it divests itself of all ethical validity; and that is so even if those who so exercise the political authority surround themselves with law, custom, and a desire to do good. . . . [W]hen the exercise of political authority deprives the individual of his rights it ceases to be a service and becomes a disservice” (p. 96).
Chodorov defines the state as “those in whom the political authority is vested and who use it for other than protective purposes — [justifying] its action by invoking a ‘higher law’ (p. 96).” Thus, it replaces the rights of the individual with the rights of the community, nation, humanity, etc. The justification of the state rests on the chimera of a group of people acting together having rights that supersede the rights of the individual.
When the people in power use government to “engage in projects which jeopardize the life or property of the individual, or utilize that power so that either they or a favored group benefits at the expense of the producing public, that government is transformed into state” (p. 295).
Chodorov writes:
The state by virtue of the power of government which it acquires, perpetuates the purpose of conquest; by legal methods it regularizes the exploitation of the producer, in favor of the nonproducer, and by an elaborate system of education it obfuscates the immoral relationship and even covers the exploiters with an aura of respectability (p. 97).
Continuing, he explains:
The state is a person or a number of persons who exercise force, or the threat of it, to cause others to do what they otherwise would not do, or to refrain from satisfying a desire. That is, the state is political power, and political power is force exerted by persons on persons. The superhuman character given it is intended to induce subservience” (pp. 388-384).
Thus, the state is a group of morally responsible people combining together to plunder the wealth of producing specialists and to create and grant special privileges to themselves and their allies.
He notes that government is a social instrument and the state is an unsocial perversion of government. Government is healthy, and the state is pathological. Consequently, the state is the enemy of the individual.
He concludes:
The distinction between government and state, then, is in the use to which political coercion is put. When it is used negatively, for the protection of life and property, with which must be included the adjudicating of disputes among citizens, it is a service; when it is used positively, in the interests of one group of citizens, including politicians, against the interests of other groups, it is a disservice. In the one case it makes for harmony, in the other it is the cause of discord (p. 98).
  Thus, government is used to protect life and property. When government is used to plunder property and to grant special privileges, it becomes a state.
Although the Bible supports civil governments, it does not support the state. When a government degenerates into a state, it ceases having biblical support because the state is a form of idolatry.

An Illustration
Ancient Israel illustrates the difference between a government and a state. During the era of the judges (1441–1065?), Israel had a government, but it did not have a state. Judges, who were usually men of wisdom and integrity, ran their government. Judges ruled by natural selection and common consent. Custom and tradition restricted the judges to applying the laws that Moses had delivered from God and that had become traditional customs (common law). Violations of these laws carried their own penalties. Thus, the judges normally considered only crimes that were mala in se; that is, acts that are inherently immoral, such as, murder, thief, perjury, and adultery (miscegenation) — for God had declared such acts immoral. However, the judges did not execute their rulings; the people executed them usually by public opinion. (Judges also led the Israelites in war against invaders.)

In ancient Israel, the state arises with the kings. Samuel warned the Israelite against establishing a state (having a king). He warned:
11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: he will take your sons, and appoint them unto him, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and they shall run before his chariots; 12 and he will appoint them unto him for captains of thousands, and captains of fifties; and he will set some to plow his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and the instruments of his chariots. 13 And he will take your daughters to be perfumers, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. 14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. 15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. 16 And he will take your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your flocks: and ye shall be his servants. 18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king whom ye shall have chosen you; and Jehovah will not answer you in that day (1 Samuel 8:11–18). (If only the tax level today was just 10 percent.)  
However, the Israelites rejected his advice, and Samuel gave them a king.
What Samuel had prophesied happened. With the rise of the state, enforcement of mala prohibitum became more important than mala in se. Mala prohibitum acts are acts that are illegal because the government declares them illegal. Examples of mala prohibita are failure to file the proper paperwork, failure to pay taxes, failure to obtain the government’s permission (licenses, permits, etc.) before undertaking certain actions, failure to follow regulations, and traffic laws.
Unlike malum in se, which is an act that is wrong in and of itself, malum prohibita is an act that is wrong only because the government prohibits it. (If a country today had a government without a state, which none do, most likely, some mala prohibita, such traffic laws, would exist.)


Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Wednesday, January 29, 2020

Review of “Resurrecting the Old Right”

Review of “Resurrecting the Old Right”
Thomas Allen

In his article, “Resurrecting the Old Right” in Chronicles (September 2019), Paul Gottfried presents himself as a paleoconservative and a disciple of the Old Right. In his article, he stresses the need to resurrect the Old Right.
He may be a paleoconservative, but his racial views are indistinguishable from neoconservatives, libertarians, progressives, liberals, and communists, and a majority of Americans. Like them, he is a racial nihilist and, therefore, cares nothing about the White race or any other race as unique species that God created, and, consequently, none is worthy of preservation. (Gottfried’s attitude toward Whites is based solely on this article.) Moreover, like all neoconservatives, libertarians, progressives, liberals, and communists and most Americans, he believes that the United States are a propositional country. He definitely does not believe that they are a genetic country as the founding father established.
He strongly condemns the establishment conservatives, the neoconservatives. They avoid discussing homosexual marriages, feminism, and other divisive social issues (and especially the sin of miscegenation, which Gottfried seems not to consider a sin). They often defend progressive and liberal social positions. On immigration, distinguishing between establishment conservatives and liberals is often difficult. Typically, liberals want to flood the country with an unlimited number of third-world immigrants, most of whom they expect to vote for Democrats. On the other hand, most conservatives want to flood the country with large numbers of third-world immigrants albeit via streamlined legal means. Other conservatives prefer restricting the number of third-world immigration to a level low enough to amalgamate them into the population. Gottfried seems to support the amalgamators. Almost no one favors prohibiting nonwhites entering the country.
At least, he rightly condemns conservatives, such as Rich Lowery, editor-in-chief of National Review, for supporting and promoting the destruction of Southern monuments and history.
Also, Gottfried denounces neoconservatives for kowtowing to the liberal controlled old media. They also fail to mention all the Zionist funding that conservative organizations receive — and that these Zionists support the left-wing social agenda.
Neoconservatives condemn anti-intervention Southern conservatives and all who are labeled “racist” or “antisemitic.” Gottfried identifies a few prominent conservatives whom the establishment conservatives have condemned, such as, M.E. Bradford. For its opposition to the Vietnam War, the establishment conservative William Buckley chastised the John Birch society. (Buckley was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and, perhaps more important, Skull and Bones. He also worked for the CIA and participated in the Bohemian Grove. Thus, Buckley was an establishment insider whose job was to control conservatives.)
Another group whom the establishment conservatives condemn is the White nationalist. (Does any White nationalist organization exist that does not have some federal agency or left-wing organization behind it?) Gottfried also denounces White nationalism and considers it an “obstacle to a credible, authentic right.” About White nationalism, he writes, “Its adherents represent a moribund ideology that offers an imaginary antidote to a misdiagnosed pathology.”
For Gottfried, the war is cultural and not racial — as though culture can exist independently of race. Thus, he thinks one-dimensionally. He thinks solely in terms of culture and ignores race. He refuses to recognize that culture depends on race. As race preceded culture, it created culture. Therefore, culture is racial. Consequently, each race has a different culture with each ethnicity of that race having its own subculture. To use some trite analogies, race and culture go together like hand and glove, love and marriage, and horse and carriage.
Contrary to what Gottfried may believe, most White nationalists are not as one dimensional as he is. Most recognize the connection between race and culture.
However, Gottfried is correct in that the leaders of the war to destroy the culture that he wants to save are White. Nevertheless, that does not mean that the war is not racial. Luciferians, self-hating White, and White racial nihilists are using nonwhites to bring down America and the civilization that Whites created and to genocide White race (species) — and, by that, annihilate everything that Gottfried values. Gottfried seems to be acting like the typical libertarian by condoning, if not outright promoting, policies that result in the death of his goal.
Unlike Gottfried, White nationalists at least dimly see that the war is racial. Unfortunately, they mostly ignore the primary leaders of this war to genocide the White race because these leaders are White. Thus, they focus on the nonwhite pawns instead of the White kings and queens.
Why would Whites seek to destroy the White race? All the top leaders are Luciferians. Lucifer, Satan, seeks to destroy the race (species) created in God’s image. They are merely doing their master’s bidding. Another group is the self-hating Whites like members of Antifa. However, like Gottfried, most are racial nihilists, who see no need to preserve the White race, the Black race, or any other race.
Gottfried reproves White nationalists for being too willing to accept the agenda of the left on nonracial issues, such as sexual immorality. (Gottfried does not seem to recognize that miscegenation is a sin; at least White nationalist acknowledge this sin and denounce it.) For White nationalists, the issue is Whites against everyone else. Correctly, Gottfried condemns White nationalists for having too narrow of a focus. They ignore the cultural aspects of the war just as Gottfried ignores the racial aspects.
Furthermore, Gottfried condemns White nationalists who seek to become acceptable in the national debate. These White nationalists typically hold left-of-center views except they are staunch Zionists and advocates of an aggressive, missionary foreign policy. Unfortunately, to receive positive support from the establishment, they have to compromise significantly their racial views. At least, he credits them with attempting to raise the self-esteem of Whites about their race. Nevertheless, for a racial nihilist like Gottfried, why should self-esteem about one’s race matter?
According to Gottfried, for anyone on the right who wants to be “acceptable to large numbers of people on the right,” he has to free himself from being seen as a White nationalist. Thus, Gottfried shows that most people on the right are racial nihilists who loathe racial identitarians. In this respect, they are indistinguishable progressives, liberals, and libertarians, and even self-hating Whites of Antifa and Luciferian Whites. Therefore, the White race (species) is doomed to extinction.
Moreover, Gottfried is “especially bothered by the reductionist argument about racial IQ.” He recognizes the importance of IQ to society and civilization and the possibility of some parts of the world (he avoids “race”) having a cognitive advantage over others.  However, he questions general intelligence being the only precondition for managing human development.
Gottfried is correct about highly intelligent people leading the destruction of America and Western Civilization. Again, he fails to recognize that the annihilation of the White race is part, the most important part, of this destruction.
Furthermore, Gottfried is proof that being White and highly intelligent does not automatically make one an albusphile. He is White and highly intelligent, yet he is completely indifferent to the fate of the White race. He does not care whether the White race lives or dies if the culture that it created survives.
Gottfried claims that he never stopped believing in the Old Right. However, from my reading of the works of the Old Right, none gave me the impression that he believed in the new morality of sacrificing the races, especially the White race, on the altar of humanity. To the contrary, they all seemed to believe in the old morality of racial preservation. Unlike Gottfried, who seems to have no concerns about the sin of miscegenation, they seem adamant in opposing interracial mating. (Gottfried claims to want to restore social morality. Yet, he ignores the sin of miscegenation, the amalgamation of the species of men.)
In conclusion, Gottfried is a racial nihilist and abhors racial identitarians. He is a disciple of the new morality. His revival of conservatism would be void of any race consciousness.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political issues articles.

Monday, January 20, 2020

Issues with Trinitarianism and its Christology — Part 3

Issues with Trinitarianism and its Christology — Part 3
Thomas Allen

    36. How could the preexisting God the Son become a man without any diminishment of his deity? How could God the Son live a fully human life while continuing to exercise his divine function?
    37. How can Christ be both finite (human) and infinite (Deity) simultaneously? How can one be both God and the Son of God simultaneously?
    38. Do today’s Trinitarians follow the early Trinitarians and believe the Trinity Doctrine and its dual-nature Christology because it is impossible?
    39. Jesus states that God is spirit. If Jesus is God, how could he be flesh — unless the heretical Docetists are correct?
    40. How can the Son be God’s equal if God has appointed the Son heir? If the Son is the heir, there must have been a time when he was not the owner. If Christ were God, he would be the owner, or under the Trinity Doctrine, part owner. Therefore, he could not be an heir.
    41. If the Son were equal to the Father, why did he derive his power from the Father? Would not he, being God and equal to the Father, already have these powers and authority?
    42. The Bible states that blaspheming the Son will be forgiven, but blaspheming the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. If the Son and the Holy Spirit are coequal persons in one God, should not the result of blaspheming one be the same as blaspheming the other? Why are these coequal persons treated unequally?
    43. Many verses of the Bible clearly and plainly call Jesus a man. Also, the Bible declares that “God is not a man” (Numbers 23:19), If God is not a man and if Jesus is a man, then how can Jesus, a man, be God, who is not a man? Likewise, if God is not “a son of man,” how can Jesus, who is called “a son of man,” be God?
    44. If Jesus Christ is God, why does he lack the attributes of God: self-existent, immortality, unchanging, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent? The Trinitarian would reply that Jesus’ human nature lacks these attributes, but his divine nature does not.
    45. In developing their Christology, the Trinitarians abandoned the Scriptures in favor of the Church Fathers. The Scriptures did not support their dual-nature doctrine. However, they could find statements in some of the writings of the Church Fathers that did.
    46. Both God the Father and God the Son have thrones in heaven. However, God the Holy Spirit does not have a throne in heaven. Why not? (Anyone who claims that the Holy Spirit does have a heavenly throne, needs to provide the Scriptural support that explicitly states that the Holy Spirit has a heavenly throne.) If the Holy Spirit does not have a heavenly throne, how can he be equal to God the Father and God the Son as the Trinity Doctrine declares?
    47. According to the Trinity Doctrine, God the Holy Spirit is omniscient. Yet, Mark 13:32 declares that only God the Father knows when the end will occur. Not knowing when the end will occur, God the Holy Spirit is not omniscient. Nor is God the Son. However, Trinitarians avoid God the Son lacking omniscience in the passage by claiming that Jesus is speaking in his human nature and not in his God nature. Yet, unless Jesus had two minds, which Trinitarians deny, how could his mind both know an event and be ignorant of it simultaneously? Further, they do not have the dual-nature out for the Holy Spirit. Lacking omniscience, which is an essential characteristic of God, God the Holy Spirit is not equal to God the Father, who is omniscient. Thus, the Trinity Doctrine of three coequal Gods collapses.
    Further, Trinitarians may not even use the Jesus-speaking-in-his-human-nature argument to avoid God the Son’s lack of omniscience without risking heresy. Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas or Twelve Chapters were accepted as orthodox at the Council of Ephesus (where Mary was formally declared the Mother of God) and the Council of Chalcedon (where Jesus was declared to have two independent natures and wills). The fourth anathema reads: “If anyone distributes between the two persons or hypostases the expressions used either in the Gospels or in the apostolic writings, whether they are used by the holy writers of Christ or by him about himself, and ascribes some to him as to a man, thought of separately from the Word from God, and others, as befitting God, to him as to the Word from God the Father, let him be anathema.” (The Word is the God the Son.) Thus, whenever Jesus spoke, he always spoke as God the Son and never as a mere human. As Mark 13:32 clearly shows, Jesus, who spoke as God the Son, was not omniscient. Not being omniscient, God the Son cannot be equal to God the Father. Thus, the Trinity Doctrine falls.
    48. If the Holy Spirit is one of the three coequal Gods of the triune God, how can he be given to people? How can such a divine person be given by another divine person unless he is under the authority of the giver? Coequals cannot be under the authority of other coequals and remain equal. Moreover, if the spirit of God is the third person of the triune God, how can he be divided and distributed?
    49. If the Holy Spirit is the third person of the triune God, why does the Bible fail to command the worship of the Holy Spirit? Being a coequal person of the triune God, should not the Holy Spirit receive the same amount of worship as the Father, who is his coequal?
    50. The description of the Holy Spirit given in the Bible suggests that he not be independent or self-existent, and, therefore, should be referred to as “it” instead of “he.” Moreover, the relation of the spirit of God is to God as the spirit of man is to man. If the spirit of man is not another person distinct from himself, and it is not, then the spirit of God is not another person distinct from Himself.
    51. Since the “breath of God” is synonymous with the “spirit of God,” is the breath of God a distinct person from God — one of the coequal Gods of the triune God? It is if the Trinity Doctrine is correct. Moreover, if the breath of God is a distinct person, then the breath of man has to be a distinct person from man. Likewise, the “spirit of God” is synonymous with the “hand” and the “finger.” Does this make the hand and finger coequal Gods of the Godhead? Or, are they and the spirit of God subordinate to the will of God?
    52. Every writer of the New Testament epistles identifies himself with God and the Lord Jesus Christ, yet none identifies himself with the Holy Spirit. Did they fail to understand the Trinity Doctrine and its importance, even its necessity, for salvation? Further, did they fail to believe in a triune God?
    53. The Greek word for “spirit” is neuter; therefore, the appropriate pronoun referring to the Holy Spirit should be “it” instead of “he.” (In Hebrew, the word for spirit is feminine.)
    54. Except for a few difficult verses that are often misunderstood, the Bible offers no incontrovertible proof or even indication that the Holy Spirit is a coequal, coeternal person with the Father and Son.
    55. God usually speaks through one or at most a few people. Almost never does he speak through councils and committees: for example, the 400 prophets of Ahab versus the one prophet of God. The unanimous majority of Ahab’s prophets were wrong, whereas the minority of one prophet was right. A majority in some council has adopted all the major creeds of Christendom.
    56. Trinitarians are notorious for changing the meaning of everyday words, e.g., person and begotten, when they apply to God. As most of the Bible is about God, how does one know what the words in the Bible really mean? Are they being used in the ordinary sense, or are they being used in a theological technical sense? Does a word mean what it means in its ordinary, everyday use, or does it mean something else? Only a trained, enlightened theologian knows. Therefore, only a trained and enlightened theologian can really understand the Bible. Unless such a theologian explains the Bible and its meaning to the laity, the laity forever remains ignorant even if he reads and studies the Bible daily. (Were the Bereans who searched the Scriptures to see if what Paul told them was true trained theologians? If not, were they wasting their time because they were searching in ignorance?)
    57. Trinitarians maintain that biblical truths are incomprehensible mysteries. Examples of such truths being mysteries are the Trinity Doctrine and the doctrine of the dual nature of Christ. Thus, Trinitarians depend on mysticism instead of the Scriptures and reason. Yet, speculation about this mysterious, unknowable God has brought forth the Trinity Doctrine. If God is incomprehensible, then how does one know that he is a triune God?
    Moreover, honest Trinitarians admit that they worship an incomprehensible Deity. Furthermore, no attempt should be made to try to understand their God.
    58. Most Trinitarians maintain that God had to die so that man could be saved; the crucifixion of a human who possessed no divine nature is not enough for salvation. Salvation depends on God dying. Besides the human egotism involved in this assertion, it also suffers from the inability of God to die and still remain God.
    59. An underlying premise of the incarnation of God is that it is necessary for the deification of man. Maximus the Confessor, Athanasius, and other Orthodox Trinitarians declared that God had to become man so that man could become God. Was not the desire to become like God the great sin of Eve and Adam? (Additionally, one of the Mormon doctrines that cause Trinitarians to consider Mormonism a heresy is the doctrine of man becoming a god.)
    60. Under the creeds related to the Trinity adopted by the ecumenical councils, salvation ceased depending on faith in Jesus or even good works. Salvation came from believing, or at least claiming to believe, in what some council said about Jesus.
    61. The notion that only an uncreated, eternal being, i.e., God Himself, can redeem mankind comes from Gnosticism and was incorporated into orthodox Christology. Where is the scriptural support for this notion? According to the Scriptures (v. Romans 5:15), redemption came from a man, Jesus Christ.
    62. If belief in the triune God of the Trinity Doctrine is necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians claim, why did Jesus never teach such a doctrine? Further, why did Jesus never even teach the doctrine of the Trinity? Nowhere does the Bible give a systematic presentation of the Trinity. Nor does it state that God is a triune God of three coequal, coeternal persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Moreover, it does not claim that Jesus is 100 percent God and 100 percent man.
    63. Do Trinitarians agree with Bernard of Clairvaux that “faith in God has no merit, if human reason provides proof for it”? Is faith believing what one does not comprehend, or does faith require some kind of mental understanding?
    64. Why did Jesus teach his followers to pray only to the Father? Why did he not also teach them to pray to the Father’s coequal Gods: the Son and the Holy Spirit?
    65. Often, Trinitarians seem to stress the theoretical over the practical, a system of dogmas over the development of principles, and a series of unknown and unintelligible propositions that must be subscribed to and believed in over a revelation of truths which common minds may understand and sincere and honest hearts appreciate.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2

More religious articles.

Saturday, January 11, 2020

Issues with Trinitarianism and its Christology — Part 2

Issues with Trinitarianism and its Christology — Part 2
Thomas Allen

    15. Expect for the heretical subordinationists and modal trinitarians, one question that Trinitarians have never been able to answer satisfactorily, except perhaps to themselves, is how three distinct persons, each of whom is fully God, are not three Gods. That is, how can God consist of three distinct Gods without being three Gods? Most Trinitarians just assert that three Gods are one God with no real Scriptural proof. Others claim that it is all a mystery beyond human comprehension, although they offer no Scripture that explicitly states such mystery. How can the Godhead consist of three persons, each of whom is fully God, while not having three Gods? Furthermore, where do the Scriptures explicitly claim that God is three persons, three beings, three Gods, three modes, three attributes, or three somewhats, etc.?
    16. The more honest Trinitarians admit the doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere expounded in the New Testament. It cannot be found in either the Old Testament or the New Testament. Neither Paul nor any of the other apostles taught it — and would not understand today’s orthodox Trinity Doctrine. The Trinity Doctrine rests upon the authority of the Church, i.e., the Pope: The Church declares that the Trinity Doctrine is true; therefore, it is true.
    17. The Trinity Doctrine seems to have been developed — albeit, most likely, subconsciously — primarily to justify error. Christ instructed people to pray to and worship God the Father, whom Christ claimed was the only true God (John 17:3). He never instructed them to pray to or worship the Messiah; neither did Paul, Peter, nor other apostles. After the apostles died, people began praying to and worshiping Christ. Instead of correcting this error, the leaders and intellects of the Church began applying Greek philosophy to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles to justify worshiping Christ. The same can be said for other errors that became doctrines of the Catholic Church. Examples are praying to saints and Mary and declaring Mary to be the mother of God (she eventually supplanted Christ, who had become God, as the mediator between man and God). Instead of correcting errors, Church leaders and intellects sought to justify them.
    18. Platonic philosophy and Gnosticism have defined and defended the Trinity Doctrine. They provide the terms, e.g., one substance, person, and trinity, used to define the Trinity.
    19. Unlike various subordination doctrines, the orthodox Trinity Doctrine did not grow organically from the Scriptures. Moreover, many Scriptures that Trinitarians use to support their doctrine testify against it.
    20. If the Trinitarians are correct, then the God of the Old Testament cannot be the God of the New Testament. In the Old Testament, God is described as a unipersonal God. Most Trinitarians now admit that the Old Testament describes a unipersonal God and not a triune God. However, according to the Trinitarians, the New Testament describes God as a triune God. That is, three Gods, persons, or whatevers are one God. Moreover, a triune God of three Gods, three persons, or three whatevers differs significantly from a unipersonal God of one God, one person, or one whatever. Now more Trinitarians, especially Catholics, are admitting that the Scriptures do not support the Trinity Doctrine as expressed in the Athanasian Creed or other similar creeds. It relies on revelation and Church tradition.
    If the Trinitarians and Jewish rabbis are correct, then Marcion was correct when he said that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are two different Gods. However, his explanation of the two different Gods was incorrect.
    21. Honest Trinitarians acknowledge that they worship a triune God. Thus, they are not monotheists in the sense of the Old Testament worship of a unipersonal God, whom good Jews worship. If Christians claim that the God of the Old Testament is a triune God and the Jews claim that he is a unipersonal God, then either one is wrong or God suffers from dissociative identity disorder. (If Christians assert that the Jews are wrong, then they need to explain their antisemitism.)
    22. Trinitarians claim that God became flesh so that he could experience suffering, ignorance, death, etc. like humans. Such a claim impinges on God’s omniscience. If God is omniscient, he knows how it is to suffer and die like humans. He knows how it is to be a dog or a flea without becoming one.
    Furthermore, if most theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, are correct about God being impassible, how could he experience pain, etc. like a human? Yet, many Trinitarians claim that God had to become man so that he could suffer like man.
    Moreover, how could God really die and still be eternal? If he were to die, he would cease being eternal. Or, is the pagan Greek idea of death, which most Christians believe, correct: Death is not a cessation of consciousness; it is a metamorphosis from one state of conscious being to another state of conscious being. And, the Hebrew idea of death is wrong: Death is the cessation of consciousness; this is the concept taught in the Old Testament. If death is a metamorphosis, then the Son changed state or condition. An attribute of God is that he is unchangeable. In any event, God the Son either ceased being eternal or changed state. Therefore, he ceases being equal to God the Father, who is eternal and unchangeable. Thus, the Trinity Doctrine collapses.
    According to the Hebrews, the body and soul are one. When the body dies, the soul also dies. All consciousness ceases at death.
    According to the pagan Greeks, the body and soul are two. When the body dies, the soul continues to exist in a conscious state.
    23. The triune God is not a personal God, a real being with a personality, will, and desire. He, or perhaps more correctly, it, is an essence, substance, and entity — an abstraction.
    24. If Jesus is God, why does he always pray to the Father and never to himself, who is also Deity, or to the Holy Spirit? Why does he ask the Father for what is in his own power as God the Son?
    25. If God the Father is the God of God the Son (Jesus declares that his Father is his God in John 20:17), then who is the God of God the Father? For God the Son, who has a God, to maintain his equality with God the Father, God the Father must also have a God. Likewise, God the Holy Spirit must also have a God. Who is the God of God the Holy Spirit? Moreover, if Jesus is God, how can he have a God?
    26. According to the Trinity Doctrine, the Son is eternal and is also begotten. He who is begotten cannot be eternal because he has a beginning — when he is begotten. An eternal being has no beginning or ending. Thus, the Trinity Doctrine contradicts itself with an oxymoron: the Son being begotten and eternal.
    Moreover, God is self-existing. He who is begotten, the Son, is not and cannot be self-existing. Furthermore, how can an unbegotten being, the Father, be the same kind of being as a begotten being, the Son?
    27. Unless the separationists are correct, why did Jesus cry out while he was dying on the cross? After all, according to many Trinitarians, Jesus’ God nature did not abandon his human nature while he was dying on the cross. As God the Son indwelt him, why did he need to cry out to God? God was already a part of him.
    28. To prevent God from dying on the cross, Trinitarians must have Jesus’ divine nature abandoning Jesus’ human nature by or at the time Jesus dies. The Valentinians solve the problem of God dying by having Christ, who is the divine nature, separating from Jesus, who is the human nature, just before the crucifixion. To avoid having God die, Trinitarians must adopt a Valentinian-like doctrine. However, to avoid the heresy of Valentinianism, Trinitarians seem to have the human nature of Jesus leaving the divine nature of Jesus at death. Whereas Valentinians have the divine leaving the human, Trinitarians have the human leaving the divine.
    29. Trinitarians subvert the title of the “Son of God” into “God the Son,” a title that the Scriptures never give Jesus. The two phrases mean different things. “X the son” has an entirely different meaning than “the son of X.” Isaac the son means Isaac as the son of Abraham; he is not Abraham. The son of Isaac means Jacob; he is not Isaac; nor is he Abraham. Likewise, “God the Son” has a different meaning than “the Son of God” and refers to a different person, being, entity, or whatever.
    30. When Jesus speaks, is he speaking in his divine nature as God or is he speaking in his human nature as man? Most assume that when he says something that sounds godly to them (e.g., “I and the Father are one” – John 10:30), he speaks as God. However, if he says something that sounds humanly to them (e.g., “the Father is greater than I” – John 14:28), he speaks as man. How do they know with absolute certainty which is speaking? Moreover, being ignorant of a triune God and the incarnation of God, which thus made Jesus have two natures and two wills, his audience would have always understood him speaking as a man. (Clergy often preach “context relevance” and the “way the audience at that time who received the remarks would have understood them.” Jesus’ audience at that time would have always understood him to be speaking as a man. If he intended otherwise, he was deceiving, i.e., lying to, his audience.)
    Where does the Bible expressly state that Jesus has two natures and two wills? Where does the Bible even strongly imply such?
    31. The doctrine of Jesus possessing two natures raises several questions. Did the two natures exist before the Incarnation? If they did, how did or could the Father and Son still be of one substance? If they did not, when and how was Jesus’ human nature combined with his divine nature? What prevented the divine nature from dominating? How can Jesus’ humanity be like the rest of humanity if he lacked the ability to sin like the rest of humanity? What Scriptures support the answers to these questions?
    Jesus was tempted like all other men (Hebrews 4:15). If he were God or had a divine nature, he could not have been tempted like other men. Being tempted like other men implies the ability to sin. Under the Christology of the Trinity Doctrine, Jesus could not sin. An attribute of God is his inability to sin. If Jesus consisted of two natures, divine and human, then his divine nature would have coerced the human will not to sin.
    32. An angel strengthened Christ in the garden of Gethsemane. However, if he possessed divinity in conjunction with humanity, why would he have needed such assistance? Such assistance would have been wholly unnecessary.
    33. When Christ speaks of himself, he uses the pronoun “I.” He is speaking of his whole person and not of only part of his person. According to Trinitarian Christology, Christ is one person who consists of a divine nature and a human nature. So, when he says, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28 ), he is speaking of himself as the whole person consisting of both divine and human natures. Therefore, by this assertion, he declares himself, both of his natures, inferior to God the Father.
    34. If Thomas calling Jesus God (John 20:28) identifies Jesus as one of the Persons of God, then God making Moses God (Exodus 7:1) should make Moses a Person of God. If not, why not? After all, God speaks much more authoritatively than Thomas.
    35. An important part of the Christology of Trinitarianism is the doctrine of the Incarnation. Not until 451 was this doctrine formerly defined when the Council of Chalcedon promulgated it. The reason that 350 years were needed to develop it was that nowhere does the Scriptures described such a doctrine — although the first chapter of John may weakly hinted at it. Moreover, the doctrine of the Incarnation resembles pagan mythology more than biblical truth. That is, the notion that God Himself descended from Heaven, took the form of a man, and dwelt among humans strongly resembles pagan mythology.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1 Part 3

More religious articles.

Thursday, January 2, 2020

Issues with Trinitarianism and its Christology — Part 1

Issues with Trinitarianism and its Christology — Part 1
Thomas Allen

    Trinitarianism and its Christology may be 100 percent correct, which would be surprising because they are manmade. The following issues and problems with Trinitarianism and its Christology are presented in no order of importance.
    1. The way that the creeds relating to the Trinity Doctrine and its Christology were developed and adopted is a disgrace to Christianity and an insult to Jesus. Their development and adoption depended mostly on speculation, intrigue, and violence and little on Christian charity, forgiveness, humility, restraint, and the Scriptures. They were long on speculation and short on Scripture. Their adoption depended much more on conniving and coercing than on reasoning and persuading. The doctrine of the faction that excelled in cunning, scheming, bribing, and wielding the sword won and became orthodox. Most of the leaders at the councils that adopted these doctrines seemed to be extremely egotistical and void of humility. More often than not, individual egos seemed to be more important than God, Christ, or the Scriptures. The winner got everything, and the losers were anathemized and were often exiled and stripped of their property. Thus, the dissidents were not allowed the dignity of maintaining their opinion. They had to agree with the majority of the council or be anathemized and, otherwise, punished.
    Especially in the Eastern Empire, Christians believed in the vendetta and carried their grudges for a century or more. When they gained enough power in a council, they would declare the theological ancestors of their theological opponents heretics, even if they had been dead for more than a century.
    Furthermore, the discussions of the various councils often concerned church politics more than Christian doctrine. Usually, the side that won the debate had imperial support and became orthodoxy. Imperial support came not only from the emperor, but also his family, courtiers, and the bureaucracy. Moreover, religious issues were often used to advance political issues. Thus, the development and adoption of the Christian creeds on the Trinity and related issues depended much more on politics, both secular and church, than on theological debate.
    When these doctrines were adopted, the behavior of Christians was like that of radical Muslims of today. Both the clergy and laity behaved like today’s college students who seek to oppress all with which they disagree; they disdained the free exchange of ideas. The councils that developed these Christian doctrines often behaved like political conventions at their worst. All sorts of corruption (bribery, threats, violence, etc.) and political influence were used to win the agreement. Slogans, symbols, stereotypes, and guilt by association were used much more frequently to advance doctrinal discourse than reasonable, intelligent, and logical debate.
    Moreover, the laity did not behave any better than their leaders in the councils. Often, they acted worse. Although the laymen were ignorant of the theology involved, they were hostile toward anyone who disagreed with them.
    Arguments for the various competing doctrines were often written so convoluted, complex, and technical that few could understand them.
    If it were not for several emperors of the Roman Empire, the Nicene Trinity may never have become the orthodox doctrine of the Catholic Church. These emperors enforced the Nicene Trinity doctrine, while suppressing competing doctrine.
    Christianity would have been a more peaceful and Christlike religion if both the “orthodox” and “heterodoxy” had followed the Scriptures instead of abandoning them in favor of speculation. In developing their doctrines, both the orthodox and heterodoxy seem to prefer speculation to the Scriptures, although both used selected Scripture to support their speculations. Moreover, to have used persuasion instead of coercion to convince opponents of the error of their doctrine would have resulted in a more peaceful, trusting, and loving society.
    If the clergy had expended the effort of living as Christ taught instead of forcing their speculations about his being on everyone else, this era would have been much more peaceful and probably would have made greater advancement in Christianity. Moreover, a united Roman Empire would most likely have lasted longer, and Islam may never have left the Arabian peninsula.
    2. Jesus’ rise to become God Himself, i.e., the eternal God the Son, who is equal to the Father, had much more to do with Christianity becoming the state religion of the Roman Empire than with anything in the Scriptures. Jesus had to lose his image as a human rebel against the Empire. Furthermore, having Jesus as God suited the autocratically ruled Empire much better than having Jesus remaining a humble man. As a result, the gospel texts that stressed Jesus’ humanity and supported his subordination to the Father, were minimized. Paul’s letters describing Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection were transformed from the political context in which these events occurred to a cosmic event.
    3. How many orthodox Trinitarians realize that the prevailing (orthodox) idea of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for about 200 years before Constantine made Christianity the state religion was similar to the heresy of the Jehovah Witnesses: the preexisting Son was subordinate to the Father and was not eternal and the Holy Spirit was an attribute or operation of the Father instead of a person of a triune God (however, many believed that the Holy Spirit was a person, but inferior to the Father and the Son). Before then, the prevailing idea of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit was similar to the heresy of the Biblical Unitarians (not to be confused with Unitarian Universalists) and Christadelphians.
    4. In the early days of Christianity, people believed that if the state (country) practiced an incorrect form of Christianity, God would punish that state and society with wars, plagues, famines, and other disasters. If true, Orthodoxy must have been an incorrect form of Christianity because the Roman Empire collapsed under Christianity. Furthermore, Orthodox Christianity in North Africa and the Middle East fell to Islam.
    5. The Church Fathers who developed the Nicene Creed used Platonic philosophy and speculative reasoning in deriving their Creed. Scriptural support in its development was scant. Scriptural support came later when the Scriptures were interpreted to support a predetermined dogma.
    6. A majority vote in a council of bishops decided to change the unipersonal God about whom Jesus preached and to whom he prayed to a triune God of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Thus, they elevated the man Jesus to Deity (Paul, Peter, and John referred to Jesus as a man and never as God Himself). Moreover, the council was not even representative of the Church as a whole — as though a council could change God.
    7. From the late fourth century onward, anyone who disagreed with the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity (or any other Catholic doctrine) has been branded a heretic. For more than a thousand years, free religious debate ceased. Apparently, the Trinity Doctrine is so insecure that Trinitarians must suppress any questioning of their doctrine. Moreover, Trinitarians became notorious for their book burning.
    8. Ask a Trinitarian if there is only one God, and he will answer, “Yes.” Ask him if Jesus is God, and again he will answer, “Yes.” Next, ask him if the Heavenly Father is God, and he will answer, “Yes.” Finally, ask him if Jesus is the Heavenly Father, and he will answer, “No.” Thus, the Trinitarian says that there is one God, and then he says that there are two Gods. Which is correct? For there to be only one God, the answer to one of the questions must be incorrect: Jesus is not God; the Heavenly Father is not God; or Jesus is the Heavenly Father. This is the logical and reasonable conclusion. However, the Trinitarian would muster all the logic that Trinitarianism allows and declare, “Not two Gods, but three Gods who are one God” and then quote the Athanasian Creed, “So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God.” Thus, he shows that the Trinity Doctrine is void of logic and reason and relies mainly on mere assertion (and for hundreds of years, on political power).
    9. For many Trinitarians, the test of a true Christian is not believing Jesus, loving him, and striving to follow his example and teachings. It is believing what some ancient councils, about which most Christians know nothing, said about his nature.
    10. Why do Protestants reject the doctrine of Mary being the Mother of God? It is such a component part of the Nicene Trinity Doctrine that for a thousand years any Trinitarian who questioned it was excommunicated and condemned as a heretic.
    11. Jesus, Paul, and John had plenty of opportunities to explain clearly this previously unknown triune God, yet they failed to do so. Why? Completely alien to their Jewish audience, who believed in a unipersonal God, was the concept of a triune God. So obscure is the support of the doctrine of the Trinity and dual nature of Christ in the New Testament that around 400 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, a good application of Greek philosophy, and the frequent use of force against dissenters were needed to discover it.
    12. Nowhere does the Bible declare that there are three equal, eternal beings, each of whom possesses all the attributes of Deity, yet they together constitute but one God. Moreover, nowhere does the Bible claim that Jesus had both a human nature and a divine nature and that these two natures made one person. As these concepts would have been completely new to the Jewish audience to whom Jesus and the apostles preached, one would think that they would have explained these new concepts in detail.
    13. The Trinity Doctrine and its Christology of Jesus having two natures are two dogmas that have been so deeply inculcated in the Christian mind that few Protestants question it — and the few who do are usually condemned as heretics. Yet, these two dogmas are based on Catholic tradition instead of the Scriptures. Whatever scriptural support is given for them it is via Catholic traditional interpretation of Scriptures. However, these supporting verses can just as easily and usually more legitimately be interpreted such that they do not support the Catholic dogma of the Trinity Doctrine and its Christology. (Another Catholic doctrine based more on tradition than on the Scriptures is that of the unity of man, i.e., all humans are descended from a common set of parents. It has been so ingrained in the minds of men that even secular humanists, atheists, and nearly all other non-Christians do not question this dogma. The disagreement between them and the traditional Catholic dogma is when the initial set of patents came into being and how they came to be. Moreover, both believe in Darwinism although many of the followers of the traditional Catholic doctrine deny it.) So much for Protestantism’s boast of freeing itself from Catholic dogma.
    14. Beyond the comprehension of mere Christians are the Trinity Doctrine and its concomitant Christology. Only an enlightened elite, the illuminated ones, can truly understand them — so asserts Gregory of Nazianzus, a principal force behind making the Holy Spirit a coequal, coeternal God along with the Father and the Son. Moreover, Gregory rejected the notion that one can come to know God by applying rational thought to the Scriptures. Apparently, a great deal of philosophical speculation is necessary to really know God. Consequently, Gregory’s claim that only the enlightened can understand the mystery of God is akin to Gnosticism, for the Gnostics maintained that only the enlightened can comprehend the mystery of God.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2

More religious articles.

Tuesday, December 24, 2019

Addendum to “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?”

Addendum to “For Whom Is 
the Constitution Written?”
Thomas Allen

Additional evidence that the US Constitution was written by and for Whites is that the US Supreme Court ruled that Blacks were not citizens, and the fourteenth amendment was needed to make them citizens. Unfortunately, the fourteenth amendment, which is discussed below, also changed the construct of the country and the US Constitution.

Missouri Compromise
Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 1 of the US Constitution, reads: “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.” During the debate on the Missouri Compromise in 1821, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, who was the author of this clause said, “At the time I drew that Constitution, I perfectly knew that there did not then exist such a thing in the Union as a black or colored citizen, nor could I then have conceived it possible such a thing could ever have existed. .  . .”[1] The most important clause in the Constitution about citizenship is this comity clause, and its author says that it applied only to Whites and not to Blacks; therefore, the US Constitution is only for Whites.

Dred Scott Decision
The Dred Scott decision ruled that Negroes were not citizens under the US Constitution. Contrary to the popular myth, the Dred Scott decision did not declare or make the Negro nonhuman or subhuman. It merely declared that Negroes like foreigners were not citizens of the United States. Not being a citizen under the Constitution, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Scott, a Black slave, could not sue in a court of the United States government.
The Supreme Court ruled that Negroes were not, and were not intended to be included, under the word “citizens” in the Constitution, and, therefore, they could claim none of the rights and privileges that it provided and secured to citizens of the United States. Moreover, the Court acknowledged that a State could grant Negroes the rights and privileges of the citizens of that State, as some of the New England States had done. However, having the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State did not make a Negro a citizen of the Union or grant him rights in other States. (It also recognized that some States had given foreigners who intended to become citizens of the United States the rights and privileges of citizenship in that State, but this action did not make them citizens of the United States until they had been naturalized according to the nationalization law of the United States.)
Further, the Court declared that at the time of its adoption, the Constitution recognized as citizens the citizens in the several States. This recognition made them citizens of the new political body created by the Constitution when it was adopted. No other classes of people were included in this citizenship. They formed the Constitution for themselves and their posterity, and for no one else. All the personal rights and privileges guaranteed to citizens under this Constitution were intended only for those who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterward, by birthright or otherwise, become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded.
The Court identified two clauses in the Constitution that point directly and specifically to the Negro race as a separate class of people. These two clauses clearly show that the Negro was not considered part of the people or citizens under the Constitution. One was the clause that reserves to each State the right to import slaves until the year 1808 (Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 1). This sanction unquestionably referred to the Negro. The other provision was the pledge of the States to each other to maintain the right of property of the master by delivering up to him any slave who escaped if he were found within their respective territories (Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 3).
Thus, with the Dred Scott decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Negro could not be a citizen of the United States although a State could grant him the rights and privileges of a citizen of that State. By inference, no nonwhite could be a citizen of the United States under the Constitution.
Although the Supreme Court did not rule on the status of Indians in the Dred Scott decision, the Constitution strongly implies that Indians were not and could not be citizens of the United States. However, some States had granted Indians rights and privileges of citizens of their States. (Even after the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, Congress declared that Indians not taxed were not citizens under that amendment.)

Fourteenth Amendment
Because of the Dred Scott decision, the fourteenth amendment was necessary to make Negroes citizens of the United States. Unfortunately, it did more than that. It destroyed the original Constitution and changed the whole concept and construction of the country. Not only did the fourteenth amendment make the Black man a citizen of the United States, but it also made the White man a citizen of the United States. Before, one was a citizen of a State, and by virtue of being a citizen of a State, he was a citizen of the United States. Under the fourteenth amendment, any citizen of the United States became a citizen of the State in which he resided. Thus, the fourteenth amendment changed the construction of the United States from a confederation of sovereign States to a consolidated union of States.
Before the fourteenth amendment, no national citizenship existed; a person was a citizen of a State. The term “citizen of the United States” was a term of convenience that meant that someone was a citizen of a State. According to one of the promoters, Senator James Blaine, of the fourteenth amendment, its intent was to change the status of citizenship by replacing citizen of a State with a citizen of the United States. Senator Blaine said, “. . . we are not confining the breadth and scope of our efforts to the Negro. It is for the white man as well. We intend to make citizenship national. Heretofore, a man has been a citizen of the United States because he was a citizen of some-one of the states: now we propose to reverse that.”[2]
Besides changing citizenship, another purpose of the fourteenth amendment was and still is to humiliate and shame Southerners by making the Negro their master. Its purpose was and still is to degrade the Southerner to the level of the Negro and even below that level. Its objective was to degrade the Southerner by creating conditions that would encourage interracial mating. Sacrificing their beloved Negro to destroy the Southerner was of little concern for the Radical Republicans; they were just so much collateral damage. After all, Puritan Yankees considered Southerners to be subhuman at best and most likely a nonhuman beast.
Unfortunately, for the Northerner, but not the Radical Republicans, who were Puritan Yankees, whose descendants are Liberal Democrats, this degradation spread across the country as the Negro became elevated above Whites everywhere. Not only has the Negro been elevated above Whites, so have all other nonwhite races.
The fourteenth amendment was illegally, unlawfully, and unconstitutionally ratified. Most of the so-called legislators of the Southern legislatures who voted to ratify the fourteenth amendment were not citizens when they voted on the amendment. They did not become citizens entitled to vote until after the amendment was ratified. Moreover, the fourteenth amendment has other irregularities in its proposal and adoption, such as failure to achieve two-thirds of the votes in the Senate needed for its proposal.
When it was first sent to the States, 11 States rejected it (only 10 were needed to kill the amendment). Then, Congress refused to recognize the governments of the Southern States and replaced them with Negro governments controlled by carpetbaggers and scalawags backed by the US army to ensure the ratification of the amendment. Besides the ten Southern States voting to reject the fourteenth amendment, seven other States also voted to reject it. Although military might forced these 10 Southern States to change their rejection of ratification, two States, Ohio and New Jersey, that had previously voted to ratify the amendment changed their vote to reject it. While accepting the approvals of the unlawful governments of the Southern States, the Secretary of State refused to recognize the disapproval by these two States.
The Southern States that had rejected the fourteenth amendment were stripped of their representation in the US House of Representatives and the Senate and had their constitutions voided. Then, Congress through the army forced them to draft and adopt a new constitution for Congress’ approval and to ratify the fourteenth amendment before they were allowed any representation in Congress. Male inhabitants who were not disenfranchised because of participation in the rebellion elected delegates to the convention for drafting the new constitutions. Thus, most White males were disqualified. The legislature elected under the new constitution had to ratify the fourteenth amendment. Only then would Congress readmit that State and allow its Representatives and Senators be seated in Congress. Consequently, according to the law enacted by Congress to reorganize the governments of the Southern States, these States had no legitimate government when they ratified the fourteenth amendment.
Thus, many whites were disenfranchised for participating in the rebellion, and therefore, Negroes elected most of the delegates to the States’ constitutional conventions, although they had no legal right to vote. The constitutions drafted by these conventions were presented to the voters of the State for ratification. These voters were largely male Negroes since most Whites were disenfranchised for participating in the rebellion. Again, these Negroes had no legal right to vote.
The legality of the Southern States was not questioned when they ratified the thirteenth amendment, which forbade slavery. However, these same governments became illegal when they rejected the fourteenth amendment.
The Congress that passed the fourteenth amendment for submission to the States did so without Representatives and Senators from the Southern States although all, except Texas, had been entirely restored to all their functions as States in conformity with the organic law of the land.
To get the fourteenth amendment ratified, Congress had to enfranchise the Negroes and disfranchised the White men. Then, Congress had the Negroes, with the aid of carpetbaggers and scalawags, elect delegates to a convention to draw up a constitution that gave Negroes the right to vote. Afterward, the constitution was adopted without the vote of most White men. Next, a legislature was elected without the votes of most Whites. Thus, the State legislature consisted mostly of Negroes with some carpetbaggers and scalawags. After that, the Negro dominated legislature ratified the fourteenth amendment to make Negroes citizens of the United States. Consequently, people who were not citizens and could not vote elected a body that ratified the amendment that made them citizens with the right to vote. Such is the infamy of the fourteenth amendment.
The most hideous consequence of the fourteenth amendment was to destroy the original Constitution and the original construct of the United States. The United States were established as a federation of free and independent sovereign States. These States were a genetic nation, and they established the United States as a genetic country, that is, a country of, by, and for the White race. However, by making Negroes citizens, the fourteenth amendment changed the construct of the United States. They cease being a genetic federation and became a propositional empire. As a result, the purpose of the United States ceased being to protect, preserve, and promote the White residents thereof. A new purpose had to be found to include the Negro. That purpose became equality and democracy. From now on the United States would war to make the world safe for equality and democracy.
To accomplish this goal all men had to be changed into faceless beings called citizens. Moreover, each citizen was as good as another citizen. That is, citizens became interchangeable with one another. Importantly, people cease identifying themselves by race and identified themselves as citizens. Then, these citizens could be united to fight for democracy and equality. As long as these citizens would fight for democracy and equality, the United States fulfilled its purpose. Provided that these citizens would fight for democracy and equality, the type and quality of citizens mattered little: whether the citizen was White or Black or some other race did not matter. (Not only do liberals and libertarians revel in the conversion of the United States and the Constitution from a White country and Constitution to a propositional country and Constitution, so do nearly all conservatives.)
Thus, the fourteenth amendment completely destroyed the United States and subverted the US Constitution. It changed the country from one dedicated to protecting, preserving, and promoting the White race (the Aryan race) to a proportional country dedicated to spreading democracy and equality. Moreover, what the repeal of the prohibition amendment (the twenty-first amendment) did to the prohibition amendment (the eighteenth amendment), the fourteenth amendment effectively did to the ninth and, especially, the tenth amendment.
When the Negro became a citizen and the equal of the Aryan, the United States as originally founded died. The Hamiltonian-Lincolnians, Puritan Yankees, Marxists, Cabalist Jews, and their ilk won, and they have ruled the country ever since. Liberty has waned, and the US government and its despotism have waxed. Nearly all the governmental programs that many conservatives and most libertarians rail against have grown out of the fourteenth amendment.

Endnotes
1. Erst LaFlor, The Betrayal of the White Race (LaFlor Publishing Co., 1970), p. 4.

2. Bill Ivy, “Attention Constitutional Celebrities.”

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.