Thursday, April 19, 2018

Mencken on Disproportional Representation

Mencken on Disproportional Representation
Thomas Allen

    In 1926, H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) wrote Notes on Democracy in which he expressed his views on democracy and related issues. He was a journalist, satirist, and critic and a libertarian and one of the leaders of the Old Right. In his book, he describes disproportional representation, pages 97-107. Below is an overview of his discussion on disproportional representation; my comments are in brackets.
    Disproportional representation “is intimately bound up with this question of disfranchised classes, for it must be plain that a community whose votes, man for man, count for only half as much as the votes of another community is one in which half of the citizens are, to every practical intent, unable to vote at all.” An example is the U.S. Senate. Regardless of population, each State has two Senators and no more. Moreover, the votes of Senators from States with small populations are the same as States with large populations. [Some democrats have proposed proportioning Senators among the States based on population. With no Constitutional authority, the U.S. Supreme Court imposed its democratic desires on the States by requiring them to proportion the legislative districts of both houses based on population. Before that ukase, most States proportioned at least one house of their legislature based on nonpopulation considerations. Also, before the Supreme Court ruling, rural areas and urban areas had approximate equality in State legislatures. After the ruling, rural areas lost their equality as urban areas gain control of both houses in most State legislatures.] Mencken comments on this issue of disproportional representation in State legislatures.
    To overcome disproportional representation, “certain romantic fuglemen of so-called pure democracy . . . [came] forward with complicated remedies, all of which have been tried somewhere or other and failed miserably.” Mencken notes “that disproportional representation is not a device to nullify democracy, but simply a device to make it more workable.” Thus, in the United States, “the sovereign people have voluntarily sacrificed a moiety of the democratic theory in order to attain to a safer and more efficient practice.” [In a true republic, the majority lacks the power that Mencken describes. In a true republic, absolute political power resides in no individual or body — not even the largest majority. Checks and vetoes always exist to everyone’s and every group’s power.] If they so desire, they could get rid of all disproportional representation. [Lacking the patience to allow the people to change their disproportional representation systems in the States, the U.S. Supreme Court usurped their power and did it for them. Obviously, the Supreme Court did not trust the people with this decision for fear that the people would not abolish disproportional representation.]
    Most people prefer disproportional representation because of a “wish to counterbalance an advantage lying in the very nature of things.” It “is not a wish to give one voter an advantage over another.” [Apparently, the U.S. Supreme Court believed otherwise. Based on its philosophy of “one man, one vote,” it swept away disproportional representation of the State legislatures.] Mencken explains that urban areas have a natural advantage over rural areas. The proximity of people in urban areas enables them to form opinions more quickly and uniformly and to maintain a solid front than people in rural areas, who are spread out more. Thus, people in urban areas “show all of the characters of men in a compact mob, and the voters of the rural regions, dispersed and largely inarticulate, cannot hope to prevail against them by ordinary means. So the yokels are given disproportionally heavy representation by way of make-weight: it enables them to withstand the city stampede.” In spite of disproportional representation, “the majority under democracy remains the majority, whatever laws and constitutions may say to the contrary, and when its blood is up it can get anything it wants.”
    Mencken remarks, “Most of the so-called constitutional checks, in fact, have yielded, at one time or other, to its pressure. No one familiar with the history of the Supreme Court, for example, need be told that its vast and singular power to curb legislation has always been exercised with one eye on the election returns.” Early Supreme Court decisions have been “completely reversed afterwards, as the second thought of the plain people has differed from their first thought. This responsiveness to the shifts of popular opinion and passion is not alone due to the fact that the personnel of the court, owing to the high incidence of senile deterioration among its members, is constantly changing, and that the President and the Senators, in filling vacancies, are bound as practical politicians to consider the doctrines that happen to be fashionable in the cross-roads grocery stores and barbers’ shops. It is also due, and in no small measure, to the fact that the learned and puissant justices are, in the main, practical politicians themselves, and hence used to keeping their ears close to the grass roots.” [Thus, the United States have the “rule of men” and not the “rule of law,” which exists independent of even the largest majority.]
    Mencken writes, “In boom times, indeed, democracy is always very impatient of what used to be called natural rights. The typical democrat is quite willing to exchange any of the theoretical boons of freedom for something that he can use.” Continuing, Mencken adds, “In most cases, perhaps, he is averse to selling his vote for cash in hand, but that is mainly because the price offered is usually too low. He will sell it very willingly for a good job or for some advantage in his business. Offering him such bribes, in fact, is the chief occupation of all political parties under democracy, and of all professional politicians.” [The welfare state has given the politician another avenue of offering legal bribes at the taxpayers’ expense.]
    Whether ideal or not, democracy “works, and the people are actually sovereign.” The system works: “Any conceivable change in the laws could be effected without tampering with the fundamental scheme.” Therefore, the “inferior American [is hostile] to the thing called direct action — the darling of his equals in most other countries. He is against it, not merely because he is a coward and distrusts liberty, but also, and maybe mainly, because he believes that revolution, in the United States, is unnecessary — that any reform advocated by a respectable majority, or even by a determined minority, may be achieved peacefully and by constitutional means. In this belief he is right. The American people, keeping strictly within the Constitution, could do anything that the most soaring fancy suggested. They could, by a simple amendment of that hoary scripture, expropriate all the private property in the land, or they could expropriate parts of it and leave the rest in private hands; they have already, in fact, by tariff juggling, by Prohibition and by other devices, destroyed billions of dollars of property without compensation, and even without common politeness, and the Constitution still survives.” Mencken identifies many other things that the American people can do if they so willed. He provides a list of the horrendous actions that the sovereign people can lawfully do: “They could enfranchise aliens if they so desired, or children not taxed, or idiots, or the kine in the byres. They could disfranchise whole classes, e.g., metaphysicians or adulterers, or the entire population of given regions. [They disfranchised Southerners following the War for Southern Independence.] They have done such things. . . . Finally, they could, if they would, abandon the republican form of government altogether and set up a monarchy in place of it: during the late war [World War I] they actually did so in fact, though refraining from saying so frankly. They could do all of these things freely, and even legally, without departing in the slightest from the principles of their fundamental compact, and no exterior agency could make them do any of them unwillingly.” [Thus, they can make the likes of Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Pol Pot look like saints.]
    Mencken adds, “The people, if they are actually sovereign, have a clear right to be wanton when the spirit moves them, and indifference to an issue is an expression of opinion about it. Thus . . . the masses are that part of the state which doesn’t know what it wants.” Next Mencken discusses what the people want: “What they want principally are safety and security. They want to be delivered from the bugaboos that ride them. They want to be soothed with mellifluous words. They want heroes to worship. They want the rough entertainment suitable to their simple minds. All of these things they want so badly that they are willing to sacrifice everything else in order to get them. . . .    The science of politics under democracy consists in trading with them, i.e., in hoodwinking and swindling them. In return for what they want, or for the mere appearance of what they want, they yield up what the politician wants, and what the enterprising minorities behind him want.” [Since 9-11, most people have wanted security. The powers behind the politicians, i.e., big money, the military-industrial complex, and the security complex, want ever-expanding wars and ever-expanding police state. In the name of security, the American people have received more wars and a growing police state. Thus, liberty dies under democracy.]

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Poor on Price

Poor on Price
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 Bonamy Price. My comments are in brackets. Referenced page numbers enclosed in parentheses are to Poor’s book.
    Bonamy Price (1807-1888) was an English political economist and a professor of political economy at the University of Oxford. Among his works are The Principles of Currency (1869), Currency and Banking (1876), Chapters on Practical Political Economy (1878). Poor reviews Principles of Currency.
    Price provides this profound observation:
It [political economy] never seems to make a final and permanent lodgement of any of its truths in the public mind. They float on a tide which often carries the vessel backward as fast as it progresses forward. The tendency to backslide seems to be incessant and irresistible, — not often from any fault of its own, or from want of ability and demonstrating power in its teachers, but from the strength of the adverse forces which every one of its conclusions is ceaselessly obliged to encounter. A centrifugal force is ever acting on some large section of society, — sometimes, even, on a whole population, — which makes it forget all that it has learned, and draws it back into the darkness of ignorance (p. 401).
[Ever since the abandonment of the gold standard accompanied by the real bills doctrine with World War I, mankind has been charging ever more swiftly into the “darkness of ignorance.”] In other sciences, once a truth is established, people do not return to the errors, fables, and falsehoods that it has corrected and replaced. For some reason, the political economist has difficulty in confirming his observations; about this issue, Price writes:
The reason of this difference of fortune does not consist in the certainty attached to the subject-matter of the one, and the inherent uncertainty of the other. Some of the positions reached by Political Economy attain the quality of demonstration; and yet they are denied or ignored as readily as if they were the hypothesis of an empiric. They are not argued against and refuted; no second trial is summoned to retest their value: they are simply passed over; and then the error which they were supposed to have dispelled resumes its possession of the public mind, just as if it were the infallible suggestion of instinct (p. 401).
    According to Price, the explanation for people continually returning to false economic principles “is to be found in the ceaseless action of selfishness, in the never-dying force of class and personal interests, in the steady and constant effort to promote private gains at the cost of the whole community” (p. 401). To Price,  promoting private gain at the cost of the whole community is just a manifestation of the mercantile theory. Price follows his explanation with a discussion on mercantilism (pp. 402-403).
    Poor strongly objects to Price attitude about merchants: “A reader of the Economists cannot fail to be struck with the hostility, not to say hatred, which all of them display toward merchants” (p. 404). Then Poor asks, “What is the reason of this hatred, with a sharper tooth even than that of the odium theologicum? — the practice of treating gold as wealth, and the highest form of wealth” (p. 407). Also, Poor expresses his low opinion of Adam Smith’s treatment of merchants. He writes, “Smith did his best to sustain his theory by sneers and flings at those who grew rich by its violation. He declared them to be a mean and selfish race, the abettors of the worst forms of monopoly, and the disturbers of the peace of the world” (p. 407). Then, Poor adds that “Price, in his grotesque way, attempts to paint them in still blacker colors” (p. 407). Moreover, Poor states that Price “admits that if the merchant, if the universal instinct of the race, is to be trusted, the teachings of Adam Smith, so far as they relate to money, are shams” (p. 407). Continuing, Poor writes:
The only refuge of the Economists is in crying that the science has been overborne by the selfishness of men of affairs. They cannot deny that these grow rich by pursuing methods precisely the opposite to those which they lay down. . . . The Economists fiercely reply that truth is sacrificed to mammon; but if it be the office of Political Economy to teach the method of wealth, why has not the man of millions the true method; and what need of going beyond his rules? As for the selfishness of the race, we fear that Political Economists have no prescription for its cure (pp. 407-408).
[If the merchant looks to the government to gain an advantage over others, he is a villain of society — and even more so are those in government who conspire with him to give him an advantage. {Governmental officials who seek to penalize merchants because they are merchants are also scoundrels.} However, if a merchant concentrates on providing the customer with goods and services of the highest quality at the lowest price instead of seeking governmentally protected advantage, then he is a great asset to the community.]
    Price rejects the notion that bills of exchange and checks represent money. Moreover, he declares that they are not money. They are “[o]rders to pay money, which can be legally enforced; title-deeds to money which lead directly to the obtaining of money. They are all warrants or evidences of debt” (p. 404). [Bills of exchange, checks, and even bank notes are forms of credit {credit money} and are not real money themselves. Price is correct in that they do not represent money, i.e., gold coin. However, they do represent the equivalent value of gold coin. That is a $10 bank note, or a check written for $10, represents the value of a $10 gold coin; it does not represent the $10 gold coin. Credit money is merely the promise to pay the value, i.e., the amount of gold, stated on the note, check, or bill. {Today, notes and checks are promises to pay some unknown nebulous abstraction. Moreover, it is a promise that the issuer has no intention of keeping.}]
    According to Price only a small amount of buying and selling is done with coin or bank notes. Most buying and selling and borrowing and lending are done with checks and bills, that is, it is done by exchanging debt (p. 405). [In today’s monetary system, all exchanges are made with debt. All “money” is credit. Therefore, the only way to extinguish debt is bankruptcy and reputation.]

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.


More articles on money.

Tuesday, April 3, 2018

Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?

Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?
Thomas Allen

    Does God abhor and condemn or approve and condone interracial marriages? Is God an integrationist or a segregationist? Both sides of these questions claim that the Scriptures support their position. Which side is correct: the segregationists and anti-miscegenationists or the integrationists and miscegenationists?
    The Bible describes God as the great segregationist and separationist. According to Acts 17:26 (“. . . having determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation”), God created humans and assigned them their habitat. Thus, God segregated and separated the various races (species) of humans. (Acts 17:26 is a favorite verse of the integrationists and miscegenationists. However, they ignore the second part of the verse, which opposes their position, or they claim that it refers to tribes or culture. If the latter are correct, then it shows that God is even a greater segregationist and separationist than people who claim that this verse merely refers to racial separation. Moreover, tribes are either monoracial or hybrids; the latter is questionable as the members of a tribe are descendants of a common ancestor. In any event, a tribe is not multiracial.)
    God is the author of the greatest segregation and separation in recorded history. According to Genesis 11:1-9, God caused the people of Babel to segregate and then separate themselves.
    Another example of God being a segregation and a separationist is His ordering Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt — thus, separating the Israelites from the Egyptians. Then He ordered the Israelites not to integrate with the inhabitants of the Promised Land, but to segregate and separate from them when they failed to genocide them.
    “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” refutes several arguments based on Scripture that integrationists and miscegenationists use to support their position. Below are three Biblical stories that support God’s abhorrence and condemnation of miscegenation and interracial mating.
    One story illustrating God’s condemnation of miscegenation is the Noahic Flood. The sin of miscegenation, interracial marriage, is the primary reason that God sent the Flood. He sent it to destroy the people committing this sin and their hybrid offspring and the people who condoned such marriages.
    How do we know that this was the specific sin that brought the Flood? This is the only sin specifically described in Chapter 6 of Genesis. It describes the sons of God cohabitating with the daughters of man. Literally, the daughters of man were the daughters of Adam, i.e., they were Adamites or Aryans (see “What Race Was Adam”). Highly debated is who were the sons of God. Most likely, the sons of God were people of other races; they were non-Aryan humans. (A discussion of the sons of God is given in People of the Flood by Thomas Allen [2008] and why they were non-Aryan humans.)
    Next is the story of Dinah. Chapter 34 of Genesis tells the story of Simeon and Levi, two of Jacob’s sons, slaying a city of Hivites over the issue of interracial marriage. The prince of the Hivites wanted to marry their sister, Dinah. So, the Hivites of this city offered to intermarry with the Hebrews. Before they could intermarry, Simeon and Levi told the Hivites that they needed to convert to the Hebrew religion. The Hivites converted and were circumcised. Thus, the two people would not be unequally yoked religiously. Now both of them were of the same religion, the Hebrew religion. However, they differ racially. The Hebrews were Aryans; the Hivites were Aryan-Melanochroi hybrid (or possibly Melanochroi). Simeon and Levi slew the Hivites not because of religious differences, for they were of the same religion. They slew them because of racial differences. Slaying the Hivites prevented miscegenation and racial amalgamation.
    Lastly is the story of Ezra’s return to Jerusalem. Chapters 9 and 10 of Ezra are among the clearest condemnation of miscegenation if one refrains reading into these chapters what is not there. After Ezra had arrived in Jerusalem, he learned that the Israelites were guilty of a great abomination. They had not segregated themselves. Instead, they had integrated with the inhabitants of that area (who at this time were mostly Melanochroi and Melanochroi-Aryan hybrids) and had intermarried with them. The religious leaders were among the worst offenders (Ezra 9:1-2). This news devastated Ezra, and he cried unto God his shame (Ezra 9:3-15). He identified miscegenation as rebellion against God’s law (Ezra 9:14) and as a sin (Ezra 9:15, 10:2, 10). Ezra’s solution was for the men of Israel to separate themselves from their alien wives and to send them and the children born from these immoral mixed marriages away (Ezra 10:3-5, 11-19). Ezra read the law to the people of Israel (Nehemiah 8:1-8). The Israelites responded by segregating themselves from the rest of the people in the land and vowing not to intermarry with them (Nehemiah 10:28-31).
    Careful, or even cursory, reading of these chapters clearly reveals that the divide was not made on religious grounds. The separation was not believers from unbelievers. No exception was made for believing wives or their children. Whether they were believers or unbelievers, all wives were divorced and sent away. Furthermore, no Israelite was sent away because he was an unbeliever. Many of them appeared to have been unbelievers because they were blatantly violating God’s law against miscegenation. Whether they were believers or unbelievers, all Israelite men remained. The issue was clearly race, not religion.
    Likewise, the New Testament also condemns miscegenation. In 1 Corinthians 6:18, Paul urges people to flee from interracial sex, for it destroys the body — hence, the race — and is, therefore, a sin. He warns against this sin in 1 Corinthians 10:1-11, especially verse eight. The writer of Hebrews warns against miscegenation in Hebrews 12:12-17; the fornicating profanity of Esau was miscegenation (he married a Hittite, a Melanochroi-Aryan hybrid). Warnings are given in 2 Peter 2:9-16 and Jude. The church in Pergamum is condemned for holding “the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel” (Revolution 2:12-14). Miscegenation was the doctrine of Balaam.
    Deuteronomy 23:2 (“No half-bred [mongrel] may be admitted to the assembly of the Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh” – NJB.) summaries God’s attitude toward miscegenation and interracial mating. (For a discussion on Deuteronomy 23:2, see “Commentary on Deuteronomy 23:2.") To prevent interracial breeding, God ordained racial segregation and separation.
    (For additional discussions on Scriptural evidence against miscegenation and integration, see False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of the Races and Interracial Marriages by Thomas Allen [2001]. Passages that condemn miscegenation and interracial mating include Genesis 6:1-7, Genesis 24:1-4, Genesis 26:34-35, Genesis 28:1-2, 6-7, Genesis chap. 34, Exodus 11:7, Exodus 33:16, Exodus 34:10-16, Leviticus 19:19, Leviticus 20:26, Leviticus 21:14, Numbers chap. 23, 24, and 25, Deuteronomy 7:1-4, Deuteronomy 23:2, Joshua 23:12-13, Judges 3:5-8, 1 King 8:53, 1 King 11:1-8, 1 King 16: 30, 31, 1 King 21:25, Ezra chap. 9 and 10, Nehemiah 8:1-18, 9:1-3, Nehemiah 10:28-31, Nehemiah 13:1-3, 23-31, Psalm 106:28-35, Isaiah 2:1-9 (esp. v. 6), Jeremiah 2:19-25, 29, Ezekiel 16:15-39, Ezekiel 44:6-23, Hosea 5:3-7, Hosea 6:7-10, Hosea 10:1-10, 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 6:18, 1 Corinthians 10:1-11 (esp. v. 8), Hebrews 12:12-17, Hebrews 13:4, 2 Peter 2:9-16, Jude 3-11, Revelations 2:12-14, Revelations 2:18-23, Revelations 5:9, 7:9, 11:9, 13:7, 14:6, 17:15, 21:24, 22:2.)
    As shown above, God abhors and condemns miscegenation, interracial marriages and, by inference, interracial mating. To prevent the sin of miscegenation, he ordained racial segregation and racial separation.

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Monday, March 26, 2018

Mencken on the Popular Will

Mencken on the Popular Will
Thomas Allen

    In 1926, H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) wrote Notes on Democracy in which he expressed his views on democracy and related issues. He was a journalist, satirist, and critic and a libertarian and one of the leaders of the Old Right. In his book, he describes the popular will, pages 85-97. Below is an overview of his discussion of the popular will; my comments are in brackets.
    No distinction can be made between representative democracy and pure democracy in practice with the “constant conflicts between what is assumed to be the popular will and the self-interest of small but articulate and efficient groups, and that theoretical variety which would liberate and energize the popular will completely. The latter must remain purely theoretical for all time.” Moreover, an energized and liberated popular will is unlikely to change the “main outlines of the democratic process.”
    “What is genuinely important is not that the will of mankind in the mass should be formulated and made effective at all times and in every case, but simply that means should be provided for ascertaining and executing it in capital cases — that there shall be no immovable impediment to its execution when, by some prodigy of nature, it takes a coherent and apposite form. If, over and beyond that, a sufficient sense of its immanent and imminent potency remains to make politicians walk a bit warily, if the threat always hangs in the air that under x circumstances and on y day it may be heard from suddenly and devastatingly, then democracy is actually in being.” Mencken believes this is the case in the United States and Northwest Europe.
    Mencken notes that the people and the Pope checked the monarch’s power. If he oppressed his people too much, they could rise against him. Although a king, he was still “biologically only a man, with but one gullet to slit; and if the people were feeble or too craven to be dangerous, then there was always His Holiness of Rome to fear or other agents of the King of Kings; and if these ghostly mentors, too, were silent, then he had to reckon with his ministers, his courtiers, his soldiers, his doctors, and his women.” Thus, the power of the most despotic autocrat is limited. [Stalin probably died at the hands of his doctors while he was planning another purge. Hitler’s generals almost assassinated him.] Mencken remarks that the “Merovingian kings were certainly absolute, if absolutism has ever existed outside the dreams of historians; nevertheless, . . . their sovereignty was gradually undermined by the mayors of the palace, and finally taken from them altogether.” Likewise, the emperor of Japan “succumbed to the shoguns, who succumbed in their turn to a combination of territorial nobles and city capitalists.”
    Mencken comments “that the common people, under such a democracy as that which now prevails in the United States, are more completely sovereign in fact as well as in law, than any of these ancient despots. They may be seduced and enchained by a great variety of prehensile soothsayers, just as Henry VIII was seduced and enchained by his wives, but, like Henry again, they are quite free to throw off their chains whenever they please, and to chop off the heads of their seducers.” They can throw off their chains merely by “intimidating Congress, which never fails to leap when their growl is palpably in earnest. And if Congress stood out against them, they could do it anyhow, under protection of the jury system. The executioners, once acquitted, could not be molested more, save by illegal processes.” [Nearly all the common people underestimate the power that they have as a juror. A juror is accountable to no one — not the judge, the Supreme Court of the State or the United States, and certainly not the governor or president. If a juror finds that a law is repugnant or that it is being used unlawfully, he merely finds the accused not guilty — and if he has the courage, no power on earth can legally or lawfully force him to change his mind.]
    Next, Mencken comments on a paradox of democracy. Democrats often argue that democracy is incomplete if certain classes of people are not allowed to vote. Mencken remarks, “To argue thus is to argue against democracy itself, for if the majority has not the right to decide what qualifications shall be necessary to participate in its sovereignty, then it has no sovereignty at all.” Usually, the disfranchised class “is not actively eager, as a whole, for the ballot, and that its lack of interest in the matter is at least presumptive evidence of its general political incompetence.” Democracy came into existence by being “forced upon its beneficiaries by a small group of visionaries, all of them standing outside the class benefited.”
    As an example, Mencken uses giving women the vote. “The great masses of women in all countries were indifferent to the boon, and there was a considerable body that was cynically hostile. Perhaps a majority of the more ardent suffragists belonged biologically to neither sex.” He continues, “Giving women the ballot . . . has brought in none of the great reforms promised by the suffragists. It has substituted adultery for drunkenness as the principal divertissement at political conventions, but it has accomplished little else.” Moreover, “[t]he majority of women, when they vote at all, seem to vote unwillingly and without clear purpose; they are, perhaps, relatively too intelligent to have any faith in purely political remedies for the sorrows of the world. The minorities that show partisan keenness are chiefly made up of fat women with inattentive husbands; they are victimized easily by the male politicians, especially those who dress well, and are thus swallowed up by the great parties and lose all separate effectiveness. . . . The extension of the franchise has not changed the general nature of the political clown-show in the slightest. Campaigns are still made upon the same old issues, and offices go to the same old mountebanks, with a few Jezebels added to the corps to give it refinement.” [Little has changed since Mencken wrote this. What change that has occurred has been mostly for the worse. Often fear and security sells slightly better to women than to men, but probably not enough to make any real difference.]
    Mencken adds, “There is little reason for believing that the extension of the franchise to the classes that still remain in the dark would make government more delicately responsive to the general will. Such classes, as a matter of fact, are now so few and so small in numbers in all of the Western nations that they may be very conveniently disregarded.”
    Next, Mencken discusses the Black voter. Blacks who are actually disfranchised “may remove their disability by the simple device of moving away, as, in fact, hundreds of thousands have done. Their disfranchisement is thus not intrinsic and complete, but merely a function of their residence.” [For most Blacks that meant moving North since most Blacks lived in the South. However, the Yankee did not want them to move North; they wanted them to stay in their place.] Moreover, “the theory of the fundamental law is that the coloured folk may and do vote. This theory they could convert into a fact at any time by determined mass action.” [This was done in the 1960s through the fronts of the Communist party as part of the Second Reconstruction, when the United States again reminded the Southern States that they were merely conquered provinces of the United States.] If Blacks were not willing to fight for the vote, they did not deserve it. Not fighting for the vote, “convicts them of unfitness for citizenship in a democratic state, for the loftiest of all the rights of the citizen, by the democratic dogma, is that of the franchise, and whoever is not willing to fight for it, even at the cost of his last drop of gore, is surely not likely to exercise it with a proper sense of consecration after getting it.”
    No one argues that democracy in the United States is destroyed when millions of White citizens who are eligible to vote fail to do so. “The difference between these negligent whites and the disfranchised Negroes is only superficial.” For example, he writes, “In New York City thousands of freeborn Caucasians surrender it in order to avoid jury duty; in the South thousands of Negroes surrender it in order to avoid having their homes burned and their heads broken. The two motives are fundamentally identical; in each case the potential voter values his peace and security more than he values the boon for which the Fathers bled. He certainly has a right to choose.” [If one wants to avoid jury duty, he can accomplish that without giving up his vote. He merely lets the judge or prosecutor know that he believes in jury nullification. That belief will get him removed from the jury pool. However, this tactic may not work for civil suits as the violation of a law is usually not involved.]

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Sunday, March 18, 2018

Poor on Jevons

Poor on Jevons
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 contends 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.
    William Stanley Jevons (1835-1882) was a British economist and mathematician. He developed the theory of marginal utility, i.e., utility determines value. Among his works are The Theory of Political Economy (1871), Money and the Mechanism of Exchange (1875), which Poor uses for much of his critique, and Principles of Economics (1905). We will look at his discussion on Jevons. My comments are in brackets. Referenced page numbers enclosed in parentheses are to Poor’s book.
    Jevons states that countries use gold and silver coins because they greatly facilitate trade. In time, people discover that token base-metal coins and paper money of nominal value pass as signs of the ownership of gold and silver coins. Over time, people become so accustomed to paper currency that it ceases to represent gold and silver coins and becomes money in its own right. Thus, paper currency can continue to circulate even after the metal that it represents is removed. [This phenomenon is witnessed today throughout the world as paper currency ceased representing gold and silver in the years following World War I.] Jevons points to Scotland and Norway as examples where paper currency circulated and gold coin did not. Paper promising to pay in gold was preferred to gold coin (pp. 384-385).
    Jevons does acknowledge that unlike gold coins, paper currency “will not circulate beyond the boundaries of the district or country where it is legally current and habitually employed” (p. 386). [This is not exactly true in today’s world where every country has paper fiat money. Paper money, such as the U.S. dollar, that is considered relatively strong, i.e., loses purchasing power more slowly compared with a local currency, will circulate in a country with a weak currency, i.e., loses purchasing power more quickly.]
    Jevons notes that under the gold standard when paper money of one country is exchanged in another country for that country’s money, this paper money becomes an obligation of the issuing country that has to be paid in gold (p. 384).  When a country’s paper money is inconvertible domestically, it must still be redeemed in gold to foreigners to maintain the value of the paper money. If it is not, the county will have too much money in circulation, and its paper money will depreciate against gold (p. 386). [This is the quantity theory of money at work.]
    Poor responds that “all convertible currencies . . . are regularly retired within periods of, say ninety days from their issue” (p. 386). [This is the real bills doctrine at work.] He continues, “It does happen that large amounts of paper money get into circulation, having no more value than worthless bits of leather or paper; but they get into circulation for the reason that it is always believed that a metallic basis of value underlies them. If they have no such basis, those who take them are deceived” (p. 386). [This true only with the silver or gold standard, which existed at the time Jevons and Poor wrote. It is not true today as none of today’s paper money has an underlying gold or silver basis of value. However, arguably, people are still being deceived as the value of today’s money depends almost entirely on confidence, which is highly fickle.]
    To Jevons’ example of the notes of Scottish banks, Poor replies “that they rested on a basis of metals, or upon that which would produce metals” (p. 368).
    Poor also condemns Jevons assumption “that worthless bits of paper — the basis of metal being wholly removed — circulated by the same law as that which controls the circulation of coin, or that which was convertible on demand into coin” (pp. 386-387) and “has exactly the same capacity for driving out standard money that light or depreciated coins possess” (p. 387). Poor asserts, “Convertible paper money exerts no such tendency; on the contrary, its tendency is to bring metallic money into the country to form the basis of its issue. The two are equal in value, and move harmoniously side by side” (p. 387).
    As for debased coins, they drive “out standard coin, only for the reason that it has the same competency in the payment of debts; and, of two equally competent instruments, the less costly will be preferred” (p. 387). When a debased coin is demonetized, it passes at its real value and not its denominational value. That is, it passes based on the weight of gold or silver that it contains and not by the value stamped on the coin.
    Jevons writes, “The State may either take the issue of representative money into its own hands, as it takes the coining of money; or it may allow private individuals, or semi-public companies and corporations, to undertake the work under more or less strict legislative control” (p. 387). Poor asks, “What would the money of a State represent? A beggared treasury and a parcel of ignorant and listless officials. No State money issued as currency ever represented any thing else” (pp. 387-388). [Like most of the founding fathers, Poor was not fond of governmentally issued paper money. He wrote Resumption and the Silver Question condemning the U.S. notes. However, he erred in his prediction about the U.S. note. If gold only backed half the U.S. notes in circulation, he thought that the value of a $10 U.S. note would only be worth $5 in gold. He was proved wrong as U.S. notes exchanged at par when they became convertible in gold, although gold backed only about one-third of the U.S. notes.]
    Jevons writes:
Assuming an inconvertible paper currency to be issued, and to be entirely in the hands of government, many of the evils of such a system might be avoided, if the issue were limited or reduced the moment that the price of gold in paper rose above par. As long as the notes, and the gold coin which they pretend to represent, circulate on a footing of equality, they are as good as if convertible (p. 388).
    Poor concedes that this is true. Then he asks what happens if the holder of a gold coin refuses to exchange it for an equal amount of inconvertible paper money (p. 388). [When the U.S. government issued U.S. notes, an inconvertible legal-tender paper currency, gold coins were allowed to circulate alongside U.S. notes. U.S. notes quickly fell in value relative to gold and did not exchange at par with gold coin until they became convertible in gold on demand.]
    Jevons believed that inconvertible paper money can maintain its full value if its quantity is carefully limited (p. 389). Poor doubts that any inconvertible paper money can retain its full value for long.
    Jevons considered the issue of notes more analogous to the government “function of coinage than to the ordinary commercial operating of drawing bills” (p. 390). Thus, the government or “its agents acting under the strictest legislative control” (pp. 390-391) should be the sole issuers of paper money. [Poor does not mention Jevons position on checkable deposits. Now most economists consider checkable deposits to be functionally equivalent to bank notes, which Jevons believes should be either a government monopoly or a governmentally granted monopolistic privilege of the central bank. As checkable deposits are equivalent to bank notes, then under Jevons’ scheme, the government should hold all checking accounts or its strictly controlled agent should. {For more on Jevons’ view of checkable deposit, see below.}]
    In summary, Jevons is a proponent of the quantity theory of money. The quantity of money determines its purchasing power. Even inconvertible paper money can maintain par with gold if its quantity is properly controlled. Moreover, he advocates the government monopolizing the issue of paper money.
    [In Money and the Mechanism of Exchange, Jevons has a chapter titled “The Quantity of Money Needed by a Nation.” He concludes “that the only method of regulating the amount of the currency is to leave it at perfect freedom to regulate itself.”[1] Such a conclusion fits well with the gold standard accompanied by the real bills doctrine where no bank has a monopoly on issuing notes and bank notes are not legal tender and are converted to gold coin on demand. However, it seems to conflict with Jevons’ advocacy of monopolizing the issue of notes and of the government strictly controlling the quantity of notes issued. He remarks that the quantity of money, gold coins and paper notes representing gold coins, cannot and should not be regulated, but it should be allowed to fluctuate to meet the changes of commerce. However, the government should strictly regulate the quantity of paper notes. Under his strict regulation, paper notes are fully backed by gold with no restriction placed on the quantity of gold exchanged for paper notes.
    Jevons either disregards or rejects the regulation of bank notes pursuant to the real bills doctrine as Poor advocates. Under the real bills doctrine, bank notes are not fully backed by gold. However, they are fully backed by gold or bills of exchange, commercial money, which mature in gold coin in the near future. The real bills doctrine automatically expands and contracts the quantity of money to match the needs of commerce.
    Unlike the real bills doctrine where real bills of exchange function as money in discharging debt, Jevons’ system seems to prohibit such use of bills of exchange. However, he acknowledges that bills of exchange do serve as money to a limited degree. His system limits the quantity of money to the quantity of gold available for use as money. It only offers the market the choice of using gold coin or paper notes representing gold coin for exchanges. Under the real bills doctrine, the quantity of paper notes is limited more by commercial activity than by the quantity of gold. Gold serves as the regulator of the quantity of notes issued.
    Jevons views checks as a credit clearing system that balances debts against each other, such that money is never touched. Apparently, unlike most economists today and many then, he does not consider checks to be functionally the same as paper notes. Nevertheless, they are. Both are credit money representing gold coin. Both can discharge debt, but neither can extinguish debt. Furthermore, both are orders to transfer gold from one person to another. The major difference between the two is that a note may pass through many hands before it is returned for redemption or cancellation of debt while a check usually passes through one or two hands before it is returned for redemption or cancellation of debt.
    Under Jevons’ system, the total quantity of money cannot expand or contract rapidly enough to accommodate commerce satisfactorily. If enough monetary gold is available to serve the needs of commerce under his system during periods of high demand for money, then gold is diverted from financing capital to serving as circulating media and too much money, i.e., monetary gold, exists for periods of low demand for money. Thus, the result is a rise in price during times of high demand for money and a fall in prices during the times of low demand for money. However, this situation does not exist under the real bills doctrine. Under the real bills doctrine, the money supply can expand rapidly to match rising demands for money. Moreover, it can contract rapidly when the demand for money slackens. Thus, the quantity of money increases and decreases quickly and automatically to satisfy the needs of commerce. The real bills doctrine, which Poor promotes, is superior to the system promoted by Jevons.]

Endnote
1. W. Stanley Jevons, Money and the Mechanism of Exchange (New York, New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1896), p. 340.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on Money.

Saturday, March 10, 2018

People of Africa

People of Africa
Thomas Allen

    Many people mistakenly believe that all Africans are Negroes except the late arriving Aryans of southern Africa. A result of this misconception has resulted in the claim that Negroes created the ancient civilization of Egypt. The people who created the ancient Egyptian civilization were the Mizraim, an Aryan nation, who arrived in Egypt around 3200 B.C.
    Five of the six races, species, of humans inhabit Africa. They are the Khoisan (Homo khoisanii), Negro (Homo niger), Melanochroi (Homo brunus), Aryan (Homo albus), and Turanian (Homo luridus). The Khoisans are the original inhabitants of Africa; they originated in Africa probably around 75,000 years ago. Next came the Negroes, who appear in Africa between 55,000 and 40,000 years ago. Following them were the Melanochroi, who arrived around 35,000 years ago. Next came the Aryans, who probably began arriving around 7500 B.C. with more substantial numbers arriving shortly after 1500 B.C. These later Aryans are the ancestor of most Aryans of North Africa. Finally came the Turanians, who landed in Madagascar starting in the first century A.D. with substantial settlements by 1100 A.D. Most Madagascan Turanians are from these settlers.
    The following map, which is based on Carleton Coon’s map,[1] shows the approximate areas inhabited by Khoisans, Negroes, Melanochroi, Aryans, and Turanians around 1500 A.D. During the last 500 years, the major changes that have occurred has been the area inhabited by the Khoisans has greatly contracted as Negroes encroached from the north and Aryans from the south. Also, large numbers of Melanochroi from British India were imported into the British colonies of East and South Africa. Along with a significant number of these later Aryans, a significant number of these Melanochroi still inhabit South Africa.


    The Negro is the primary human species inhabiting Africa. The racial types of Negroes found in Africa are Sudanese (True Negroes, Nigritians), Palaenegroes (Forest Negroes), Pygmies (Negrillos, Twides), Nilotes (Nilotic Negroes), Nilo-Hamites (Negro-Hamites), Bantus (Kaffirs), and Negro Malagasy.
    Sudanese are found predominately along the Guinea coast of West Africa from Senegal to Cameroons. They are a principal type in the countries along the Guinea coast from Gambia to Cameroons, and in southern Mali and Burkina Faso (Upper Volta). Included among the Sudanese are the Ashanti, Felup, Hausa, Ibo, Krus, Mandingo (Malinke, Bambara, Dyula, Kassonke, Soninke, (Jallonke), Mossi, Sara, Serer, Songhai, Toucouleur (Tacuror), and Wolof.
    Palaenegroes live in the interior forests of west and central Africa. Included among the Palaenegroes are the Balunda and Batoka.
    Pygmies are found predominately in the equatorial forests of Africa. They live in Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Zaire, Rwanda, Burundi, and Zambia, but are only a minor part of the populations of these countries. Included among the Pygmies are the Bambutis, Batwa, and Babinga.
    Bantus are found predominately in central and southern Africa. They are a principal type in Zaire, Zambia, Angola, Tanzania, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, South Africa, and other countries of southern Africa. They are also found in Uganda, Kenya, Cameroon, and Gabon. Included among the Bantus are the Eastern Bantu (Buganda, Bunyoro, Chaga, Karagwe, Kikuju, Luyia, and Rwanda Rundi), the Western Bantu (Bassa, Bemba, Duala, Fang [Pangwe], Kuba, Luba, Lunda, Mbala, Soko, Songo-Meno, Teke, and Tetela), and the Southern Bantu (Herero, Ndebele [Tebele], Shona, Shoto, Tsonga, Tswana, and Zulu).
    Nilotes are found predominately in the upper Nile valley and adjacent lands from Khartoum to Lake Kioga and the northeast shores of Lake Victoria. They are a principal type in eastern Sudan and much of Uganda. Included among the Nilotes are the Abaka, Abukaya, Anuak, Beir, Belanda, Dinka, Jaluo, Kamasia (El Tuken), Latuka, Lendu, Luba, Madi, Mittu, Moru, Nuer, Shilluk, and Wira.
    Nilo-Hamites are found predominately in east and east central Africa. They are a principal part of the population of Kenya, Uganda, and northen Tanzania. Included among the Nilo-Hamites are the Lotuko, Lumbwa, Kipsigis, Masai, Nandi, Suk, Teso, Toposa, and Turkana.
    Negro Malagasy are found predominately in Madagascar and account for a majority of the island’s population. They include the Antankarana, Antandroy, Bara, Betsileo, Betsimisaraka, Sihanaka, and Mahafaly).
    Tables 1 and 2 describe six racial types of Negroes: Sudanese, Negro Malagasy, Bantu,Nilote, Nilo-Hamite, and Palaenegro. Excluded is a description of the pygmy[2].

    


    Next to the Negro in importance is the Melanochroi.  Three racial types of Melanochroi are found in Africa; they are the Saharan-Hamites (Moors, Saharan-Berbers), Eastern-Hamites (Ethiopians), and Egyptians.
    The Saharan-Hamites are predominately found in and around the Sahara Desert. They are a principal type in central and southern Morocco, central and southern Algeria, Mauritania, northern Mali, Niger, northern Chad, and southern and central Libya. Included among the Saharan-Hamites are the Bale, Fulas, Mangbattus of Chad, Niam-Niam (Zandeh) of Chad, Shluh of Morocco, Tibbus (Tedas) in the Fezzan, Tibesti, and Tuaregs of the Sahara.
    Eastern-Hamites are predominantly found in the countries between Egypt and Kenya and east of the Nile River. They are a principal type in eastern Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Somalia. Included among the Eastern-Hamites are the Agau, Amhara, Barabra (Nubians), Bejas, Beni-Amer, Berberine, Bilins, Bisharin, Bogos, Danakil (Afar), Ethiopians, Falasha (black Jews), Gallas, Hadendoas, Kafacitos, Saho, Sidamo, Somali, and Wata.
    Egyptians are found predominately in Egypt where they are a principal type. They include the Fellahins.
    Table 3 describes three racial types of Melanochroi found in Africa. They are the Saharan-Hamite, Eastern-Hamite, and Egyptian.


    In the Maghreb is the Aryan racial type Southern Mediterranean. Southern Mediterraneans are predominately found in Morocco and Algeria from the southern slopes of the Atlas Mountains northward to the Mediterranean. They include the Berbers of Tunisia and Cyrenaica, sedentary tribes of Jebel Nefuse of Libya, the Kabyle, Mzab, and Shawia of Algeria, and the Riffian of Morocco. Except for recent arrivals in South Africa, they are the only type of Aryan  commonly found in Africa. Recent arrivals from to South Africa are primarily from the Netherlands and Great Britain.
    In Madagascar is the Turanian racial type Malayan Malagasy. Malayan Malagasy are found mainly in Madagascar on the central Imerina Plateau. They make up less than a third of the island's population.
    The Khoisan is the least populous human species inhabiting Africa. They include the San (Bushmen), Khoi (Hottentots), Sandawe, and Hatsa (Kindiga). The Sans and Khoi are found primarily in Namibia,  Botswana, and southern Angola. The Sandawe and Hatsa live in Tanzania. Khoisans are also found in South Africa in the form of the hybrid coloureds. Except for the coloureds of South Africa, Khoisans are a minor to insignificant part of the populations in the countries where they are found.
    Table 4 describes the Southern Mediterranean, Malagasy, and Khoisan.

References
Allen, Thomas Coley. Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 1999.

Comas, Juan. Manual of Physical Anthropology. English edition. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1960.

Coon, Carleton S. and Edward E. Hunt, Jr. The Living Races of Man. New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965.

Coon, Carleton S., Stanley M. Garn, and Joseph B. Birdsell. Races . . . A Study of the Problems of Race Formation in Man. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1950.

Deniker, J. The Races of Man: An Outline of Anthropology and Ethnography. London, England: Walter Scott, Limited, 1900.

Haddon, A. C. The Races of Man and Their Distribution. New York, New York: The Macmillian Company, 1925.

Keane, A. H. Ethnology. Cambridge, England: The University Press, 1896.

Kroeber, A. L. Anthropology Today: An Encyclopedic Inventory. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1953.

Peschel, Oscar. The Races of Man, and Their Geographical Distribution. New York, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1885.

Seligman, C.G. Races of Africa. 3rd edition. London, England: Oxford University Press, 1957.

Taylor, Griffith. Environment, Race, and Migration. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1937.

Endnotes
1.  Carleton S. Coon and Edward E. Hunt, Jr., The Living Races of Man (New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965), p. 26.

2.  A description of the Pygmy is found in Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Allen, pp. 101-103.

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on anthropology.

Saturday, March 3, 2018

Some Thoughts on Gun Control

Some Thoughts on Gun Control
Thomas Allen

    The following appeared as a letter-to-the-editor:
    A friend of mine told me that when he was in school, the boys carried their rifles and shotguns to school so that they could hunt after school. Also, he said that a girl in his class brought her pistol to school for him to repair and gave it to him in the classroom. Several days later, he returned it to her in the classroom. There were no shootings in the school. Thus, the problem is not guns; it is people.
    Could prescribed psychiatric drugs be behind most of these mass shootings? Nearly all, if not all, the mass shooters were or had recently been taking these drugs. These drugs are known to cause violent behavior. However, since big pharma controls the old media (look at how the old media pimps vaccines), the old media ignores the drug issue. Besides, drugs do not fix the antigun agenda of the old media.
    Because of previous gun control laws, most schools are now gun-free zones. Gun controllers promised that no one would carry a gun into a gun-free zone. However, gun-free zones are safe places for killers to hunt because no one can shoot back.
    Many antigun progressives believe that President Trump is Hitler incarnated. Still, they want him to disarm them. Disarmed Jews did not fare well under Hitler. Why do disarmed progressives believe that they will do any better under Trump? If every Jew were heavily armed, Hitler would not and could not have sent them to concentration camps. To protect themselves from Trump, progressives should be demanding that gun laws be relaxed so that they can more easily arm themselves to defend themselves from Trump.
    There was a time when mass shootings were unheard of. What has changed between then and now? We need to find out and eliminate the change. The difference is not the availability of guns. Guns were much easier to obtain then than they are now.

✽✽✽✽✽✽✽

    The following is a summary of “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?” (Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 30, No. 2, pages 649-694) by Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser. They show that the antigun, gun-controller dogma of “fewer guns, fewer homicides, suicides, and violent crimes” is false — a propaganda lie. Fewer guns are associated with more homicides and violent crimes.
    According to Kates and Mauser, the murder rate in the 1960s and 1970s of the gunless Soviet Union equal or exceeded that of the gun-ridden United States. While the murder rate in the United States declined, the murder rate in the Soviet Union rose. By 1998-2004, the murder rate in Russia was nearly four times higher than it was in the United States. Furthermore, the suicide rate in Russia was about four times higher than in the United States.
    In Europe, countries with relatively high gun ownership have relatively low murder rates. Generally, where guns are more concentrated, violent crime rates are lower.
    Studies done by the U.S. National Academy of Science and the U.S. Center for Disease Control show that gun control laws did not reduce violent crimes, suicides, or gun accidents. If anything, the strict gun control laws may have contributed to the rising crime rate.
    Before gun control laws were enacted in Great Britain, little violent crime occurred there. Now with extremely strict gun control laws, violent crime have grown. Even violence using firearms has increased. Although handguns are banned, criminals have no problem in obtaining them and are more willing to use them. With handguns and many types of long guns banned, violent crime in England and Wales is the highest in Europe and even exceeds that of the United States.
    Since 1990, in the United States, as gun ownership has risen, violent crimes have declined. In Great Britain, gun ownership declined drastically and violent crimes soared. Thus, overall, more guns equal less crime. (Other contributors to the decline in the United States are the large number of Black babies aborted, more executions, and a drastically growing prison population.)
    Criminologist Hans Toch, who once favored the prohibition of handguns, but later recanted, notes that “it is hard to explain that where firearms are most dense, violent crime rates are lowest and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest” (p. 675).
    As for demographics, Kates and Mauser write:
Contrary to what should be the case if more guns equal more death, there are no “consistent indications of a link between gun ownership and criminal or violent behavior by owners;” in fact, gun ownership is “higher among whites than among blacks, higher among middle-aged people than among young people, higher among married than among unmarried people, higher among richer people than poor” — all “patterns that are the reverse of the way in which criminal behavior is distributed” (p. 676).
    Historically, in England, as firearms became more efficient and more widely owned, the murder rate seemed to have fallen sharply until gun control laws began restricting ownership. Then gun violence began to rise.
    In colonial America, nearly every household was required to own guns. During this time, murders were few. The homicide rate only began to rise when the universal ownership of guns disappeared. In the decades following the War for Southern Independence, guns glutted the market, and homicides fell sharply.
    Areas in the United States, Canada, England, and Switzerland where gun ownership is the highest have the lowest rate of violence. Thus, fewer guns in private hands equal more violent crime and more violent deaths.

✽✽✽✽✽✽✽

    The following are some random thoughts, in no particular order, about gun controllers and anti gunners.
    – Alcohol is responsible for more deaths than guns, even among school children. If saving lives is the real objective, then outlawing alcohol will save more lives — assuming that prohibition works this time.
    – One should beware of the mental health issue in the gun control debate. President Obama wanted to declare all veterans de facto mentally ill and by that deny them of their inalienable, God-given right to own the means of defending themselves. Nevertheless, he did succeed in declaring everyone on social security mentally ill if he had someone else manage his money and, therefore, ineligible to own a gun. Fortunately, for liberty, President Trump revoked this order. For this action, liberals, progressives, and other gun controllers and anti gunners accused him of allowing all mentally ill people to own guns.
    – One should always remember cui bono. Who ultimately benefits from a disarmed America? The beneficiaries are the statists: The Puritans who want to micromanage everyone’s life. The losers are those who love and cherish liberty.
    – Chicago proves the idiocy of gun-free zones. In Chicago, only people with the political influence can legally possess a firearm. Yet, Chicago has the highest murder rate in the country.
    – If eighteen-year-olds are old enough to vote for their enslavement and to go to war and kill people, they are old enough to buy and own handguns, rifles, and  other firearms, including real assault weapons.
    – Gun control is nothing more than people control, which is why liberals and progressives adore it. Liberals and progressives are Puritans who have an uncontrollable, nay, a necessity, to micromanage the lives of others. Naturally, they believe that such control is for the benefit of the enslaved victim.
    – Why do celebrities who preach disarming the American people surround themselves with armed bodyguards? Obviously, they are hypocrites who know that firearms save lives. When in the hands of civilians, firearms save more lives by orders of magnitude than they take.
    – Gun control is really people control. Inanimate objects that cannot move unless someone moves them cannot be controlled. However, people can be controlled and denied their God-given inalienable right of possessing the means of defending themselves.
    – Before people start their irrational ranting to ban assault rifles, which are extremely difficult to acquire legally, they should know what an assault rifle is. The Free Dictionary by Farles defines “assault rifle” as “a rifle that has a detachable magazine and is capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, designed for individual use in combat” (emphasis added).
    – Why do the old matrix media only present one side of the gun debate — the antigun side? If they do have anyone to speak for the other side, the speaker is usually a stereotypical, inarticulate red neck who speaks like he has marbles in his mouth with tobacco juice dripping down his chin and who has difficulty in speaking in sentences of more than three words. Moreover, why do the old matrix media hate liberty, including freedom of the press, so much that they lead the charge to destroy the only liberty that can guarantee freedom of the press and all other freedoms?
    – If people really want to reduce death by firearms in the broadest sense, they would disarm governments. Since 1900 governmentally owned or controlled firearms have killed around a half billion people — probably more. Stalin and Mao Zedong account for about a fourth of this number by themselves.
    – When a policeman shoots someone, the policeman is blamed — not the gun. However, when someone else shoots several people, the gun is blamed — not the shooter. Why the difference? Should not the blame be placed on the shooter in both incidents?
    – Why do liberals and progressives want to give young, strong males a decisive advantage over women, old men, children, and the handicap? Outlawing firearms, or even restricting their availability, gives the criminal a great advantage.
    – Liberals and progressives claim that they are for the little man. Yet, they do the bidding of billionaires like Soros and Bloomberg by pushing their disarmament agenda. Why do these billionaires want to disarm the American people? Is it because armed Americans thwart the agenda of these billionaires to establish a one world government that they plan to control and use to transfer ever more wealth and power to themselves?
    – These few notables have favored gun control and a disarmed citizenry: King George III, V.I. Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Gorbachev, and Castro. They are the philosophical brethren of the anti gunners and other who clamor for gun control. They all agree with the criminal who said, “Any gun in the hands of citizens is a menace as far as I am concerned.” All of them agree with this criminal because they themselves are criminals in their heart. They want to steal, and the gun owner and the presence of guns hinder their theft. Otherwise, they are dupes, stooges, ignoramuses, useful idiots, lackeys, and the likes.
    – According to Jesus, peace and safety exists in a household of a fully armed man (Luke 11:21-22). Jesus also notes that the first thing an enemy seeks to do is to disarm the household. Furthermore, Jesus commanded his followers to arm themselves with military weapons (Luke 22:36).
    – Whenever the communists take over a country, the first order of business is to disarm the people so that they cannot resist the tyranny, theft, and slaughter that follow.
    – Anti gunners imply that guns kill people and, therefore, people do not kill people. Thus, they imply that if people did not have guns, they would not kill others or themselves. The first murder recorded in the Bible was done without a gun. Moreover, of all the killings recorded in the Bible, a firearm was used in none of them. Until a few hundred years ago, no one ever used a gun to kill another. Therefore, people kill people.
    – Progressivism is a mental disorder and, therefore, progressives should be denied the ownership and use of firearms. Progressivism is merely a political version of Puritanism. Progressives have an uncontrollable desire to force other people under the penalty of death to live the way that progressives want them to live.
    – More guns are in the United States than are cars, yet cars kill more people than guns. Moreover, drivers are required to have a license, and cars are required to be registered.
    – If the objective is to save lives, then beaches, pools, streams, lakes, and bathtubs should be outlawed. Outside war zones, more people die of drowning than of gunshots. Moreover, if it will save one life, vaccines should be outlawed,using the gun controllers reasoning.
    – Gun controllers should disown and condemn the Clintons. Even with the elimination of Bill’s killing of thousands in Serbia and Hillary’s killings of thousands in Lybia and the Middle East, the number of people whom they have murdered may well exceed several dozen.
    – Why do not the anti gunners disarm themselves and then post a sign in their yards that their home is not defended by firearms?
    – Those who advocate banning guns need to reflect on how well prohibition worked and how well the war on drugs has worked. The prohibition of guns will fare no better.
    – Nearly all murders have a history of violent crime. Why do liberals and progressives believe that these people will obey gun laws when they are already disobeying laws against violent crimes?
    – If no one less than 21 is allowed to own or use a firearm, then on one less than 21 should be allowed in the armed forces. Moreover, no one less than 21 should be allowed to drive because one hundred times more teenagers die of automobiles than of gun. Further, no child should be allowed in a motor vehicle of any kind — if it will save one life. Such are the logic and reasoning of progressives, anti gunners, and gun controllers.
    – Nothing exceeds a firearm as an equalizer.
    – A government that cannot trust a heavily armed citizenry is a government that cannot be trusted.

Copyright © 2018 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social articles.