Monday, March 28, 2011

Secret Societies and Conspiracies in the Founding of America

Secret Societies and Conspiracies in the Founding of America
Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: Footnotes in original are omitted.]

Secret societies and conspiracies were highly involved in the founding of American. Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry were heavily involved. Two of the most important conspiracies were the Arnold conspiracy and Randolph conspiracy.

Rosicrucians
In 1693, a movement began in Europe to establish a colony of European Rosicrucian leaders. The objective of these colonists was to establish Rosicrucianism, arts, and trade in the New World. They sought to bring about a New World Order outlined by Sir Francis Bacon in The New Atlantis. This book reveals Bacon’s ideal commonwealth in the political world that the Illuminists have sought through the ages. It describes a utopian society across the ocean from Europe; this society was built upon the principles of Atlantis. This utopia was a world without national boundaries and without racial distinction under a world government.[1]

Under the leadership of Grand Master Johannes Kelpius, a German Pietist theologian, the colonists landed in 1694 in Philadelphia. The colonists brought with them books on alchemy, astrology, and magic; the Cabala; and the writings of the German mystic Jakob Boehme. By 1801 the Rosicrucian Order had become inactive or moved completely underground in America.[2]

Arrival of Freemasonry
After Rosicrucianism, Freemasonry was perhaps the next non-Indian secret society brought to the British colonies. It arrived in 1730 when Daniel Coxe was appointed Provincial Grand Master of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.[3] In 1733, Henry Price became Provincial Grand Master of New England; he is considered the father of regular Freemasonry in the United States. Benjamin Franklin, who was a Rosicrucian,[4] became provincial Grand Master of Pennsylvania in 1734.[5]

The red Freemasonry of France was introduced in 1761 into the Colonies. Behind red Freemasonry were Frederick the Great, Philip Egalite, Swiss bankers, and British intelligence. The Grand Consistory of Sublime Princes of the Royal Secrets of Paris, which Frederick the Great controlled, sent Stephen Morin, a Jew, to establish the Rite of Perfection, i.e., the Scottish Rite. Philip Egalite, Duke of Clermont and later Duke of Orleans, signed his papers. Louis, Count of Clermont, granted Morin the authority to establish Scottish Rite Freemasonry.[6] His deputy inspector was Henry Francken. Francken appointed Moses M. Hayes, a Jew, of Boston as inspector general of North American Freemasonry. Hayes introduced the Scottish Rite in 1780 into the United States at the New Port Lodge.[7] Hayes also appointed Isaac da Costa, a Jew, as deputy inspector general of South Carolina, Solomon Bush as deputy inspector for Pennsylvania, and B.M. Spitser as deputy inspector for Georgia.[8] In 1801, the first Supreme Council of Scottish Rite Freemasonry was established in Charleston, South Carolina.[9]

Before the appearance of the Sottish Rite, Franklin had been the primary organizer of Freemasonry in the Colonies. The lodges that he organized were connected with the Grand Lodge of London.

American Revolution
Freemasonry was at the center of the American Revolution. At the forefront was the St. Andrew Lodge, which was a Grand Lodge of the Scottish Rite. Joseph Warren, a close friend of Franklin, headed this Lodge. Paul Revere was also a leader of this Lodge. This Lodge was probably behind the Boston Tea Party.[10]

In 1778, the Americans re-occupied Philadelphia after the British evacuation. To celebrate this great occasion, General George Washington, dressed in full Masonic attire, solemnly led 300 Freemasons through Philadelphia to Christ Church. Here a Masonic divine service was held.

Besides Washington and Franklin, many other American revolutionists were Freemasons. They included the following generals: Nathaniel Greene, Henry Knox, Henry Lee (Light-Horse Harry), Richard Montgomery, Israel Putnam, Rufus Putnam, Baron von Steuben, and John Sullivan. (Of Washington’s generals, 33 were Freemasons.) Ethan Allen, leader of the Green Mountain Boys of Vermont, and John Paul Jones were also Freemasons. Alexander Hamilton, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Marshall were Freemasons.[11] John Hancock and eight other Freemasons singed the Declaration of Independence.[12] (Manley Hall, a Masonic writer, asserts that all but one signer were Freemasons.) Fifty of the 59 members of the Constitutional Convention were Freemasons.[13] Of the 39 signers of the Constitution, at lest 13 were master Freemasons.[14] The Continental Army had approximately 14,000 officers of whom 2018 were Freemasons.[15]

Freemasons in England championed the colonists in their struggled for independence. They included William Pitt, Edmund Burke, and the Duke of Manchester (Grand Master of English Freemasonry).

During the American Revolution, Masonic agents freely moved between British controlled areas and American controlled areas.

Freemasons in France were also instrumental in providing the American revolutionists the aid that they needed to secede from England successfully. Through Freemasonry, Franklin made his contacts with the appropriate officials in the French government and outside the government. The most ardent support for the American Revolution came from the French nobles who were Freemasons. (Franklin berated the French nobility and campaigned against it in spite of its zealous support of Freemasonry and the American Revolution.)

The Arnold Conspiracy
William Petty, Earl of Shelburne, head of British intelligence, managed to place his agents in many critical positions among the American revolutionists. Benedict Arnold, a Freemason, is perhaps the best known of these agents.[16]

The Mallet-Prevost family put in place Lord Shelburne’s spy and espionage network. This family was the leader of Swiss espionage. One of the family leaders, General Augustine Prevost became Grand Stewart of the Lodge of Perfection. (This lodge had been established in Albany, New York in 1768.) He was also Prince of Royal Secrets and commander of the British southern forces during the American Revolution. His second in command was James Mark Prevost, his brother. Arnold was one of his agents.[17]

Margaret “Peggy” Shippen Arnold, wife of Benedict Arnold and stepsister of Aaron Burr, was a conduit for communications between Mark Prevost and Benedict Arnold. Mark Prevost often communicated with Peggy Arnold through his wife, Theodosia, who later married Aaron Burr. Through this channel, the arrangement to surrender West Point to the English was initiated. For aiding the English in its failed attempt to capture West Point, Arnold was charged with treason.[18] After conspiring to surrender West Point, Arnold was given his promised command in the British army and fought against the Americans in the South.

The Randolph Conspiracy
In 1774, Edmund Randolph at age 21 joined the Ancient Order of York Masons. After becoming a Freemason, his career began its climb upwards. He soon became an aide de camp to General George Washington. In 1785, he became Deputy Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Virginia. The next year he was named Grand Master. At the time of his election to Grand Master, Randolph was Attorney General of Virginia. (Since then Freemasons have controlled the legal system of Virginia.)[19]

The Grand Lodge of Virginia was established in 1768 at Williamsburg, which was then the capital of Virginia. John Blair, who was then acting governor of Virginia and later a Virginian delegate to the Constitutional Convention, was its first Grand Master.[20]

Peyton Randolph, Edmund Randolph’s uncle and adoptive father, became the first President of the First Continental Congress. Peyton Randolph was also Grand Master of the Masonic Order.

President Washington appointed Edmund Randolph the first Attorney General of the United States and then the second Secretary of State after Jefferson resigned.

In 1787, Congress called a convention to amend the Articles of Confederation. (This convention became known as the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787.) At this time, Randolph was Governor of Virginia. He persuaded the Virginia delegation to support scraping the Articles of Confederation and write a new constitution that would incorporate the states into a federation. (“Thus it was the Grand Master of Virginia, Edmund Randolph, in league with Aaron Burr and British intelligence, who foisted on the nation the concept of a federal government which could rule over and above the sovereignties of the states.”[21]) Randolph was also a delegate to the convention.

Result of American Revolution
In spite of the Illuminists involvement in the American Revolution and the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1789, the essence of English freedoms and institutions survived. What saved the new United States from Illuminism and from becoming its communistic, democratic egalitarian new Atlantis, the New World Order, ruled by Illuminists, was that 65 to 99 percent of the Aryan population was Christian. Now the Illuminists began the work of destroying them.

Most of the leaders of the American Revolution who were Freemasons believed that they were fighting to free the American colonies from the tyrannical British rule. They were ignorant of the ultimate objective of the Revolution, which was to establish an illuministic New World Order. The Illuminists who controlled Freemasonry had deceived them, as they deceive most Freemasons today. They had deceived them into believing that Freemasonry was the savior of Christianity and the bearer of liberty and happiness. Only the highest degree Illuminists knew the real objective—the establishment of Lucifer’s New World Order.

Fortunately for Americans, the ideals of the Reformation and the English Revolution guided the American Revolution much more than the ideals of the Renaissance and the French Revolution. In spite many leaders of the American Revolution being Illuminists, Christianity had a much greater influence over the American Revolution than did Illuminism. (Revolutions based primarily on Illuminism, such as the French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution lead to despair and anarchy, which is followed by dictatorship. Revolutions based primarily on Christianity, such as the English Revolution and the American Revolution, lead to hope and freedom.)

Endnotes
1. Dennis L. Cuddy, Now Is the Dawning of the New Age New World Order (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Hearthstone Publishing, 2000), p. 15. H. Spencer Lewis, Rosicrucian Questions and Answers with Complete History of the Rosicrucian Order (Second Edition. San Jose, California: Rosicrucian Press, 1932), pp. 135-136, 138. William T. Still, New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies (Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1990), pp. 46ff.

2. Cuddy, Now Is the Dawning, p. 15. Lewis, pp. 135-136, 138.

3. Bernard Fay, Revolution and Freemasonry 1680-1800 (Boston, Massachusetts: Little, Brown, and Company, 1935), pp. 230-231. Clarence Kelly, Conspiracy Against God and Man: A Study of the Beginnings and Early History of the Great Conspiracy (Belmont, Massachusetts: Western Islands, 1974), p. 55. J. S. M. Ward, Freemasonry and the Ancient Gods (London, England: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co. Ltd., 1921), pp. 230-231.

4. Lewis, p. 137.

5. Kelly, p. 55.

6. The Cause of World Unrest (New York, New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1920), pp. 48-49. Lady Queenborough (Edith Starr Miller), Occult Theocracy (Two Volumes. Hawthorne, California: The Christian Book Club of America, 1933), pp. 189, 336. Nesta H. Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements (Palmdale, California: Omni Publication, 1924), p. 149.

7. Kelly, pp. 55-56. Eustace Mullins, The Curse of Canaan: A Demonology of History (Staunton, Virginia: Revelation Book, 1987), p. 132. Queenborough, p. 190.

8. Cause of World Unrest, p. 49. Kelly, pp. 55-56. Queenborough, p. 190. Webster, p. 149.

9. Gary H. Kah, En Route to Global Occupation (Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1992), p. 110.

10. Fay, pp. 239-240. Still, p. 61.

11. Fay, p. 250. Kelly, p. 55. Jim Marrs, Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids (New York, New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2000), pp. 231-232.

12. Cuddy, Now Is the Dawning, p. 23.

13. Still, p. 61.

14. Cuddy, Now Is the Dawning, p. 23.

15. Marrs, p. 232.

16. Mullin, pp. 132-133.

17. Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America From Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman (New York, New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1984), p. 148. Mullin, p. 133.

18. Chaitkin, pp. 15-18.

19. Mullin, pp. 181-182.

20. Mullin, p. 181.

21. Mullins, p. 183.

[Editor’s note: List of references in original are omitted.]

Copyright © 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on history. 

Friday, March 18, 2011

Gold-Exchange Standard

Gold-Exchange Standard
Thomas Allen

[Editor’s notes: Footnotes in the original are omitted.]

When forced to be on a gold standard, governments promote the gold exchange standard— especially if it is the government whose currency is to be the world’s reserve currency. The gold exchange standard is a pseudo gold standard that gives the illusion and prestige of being on the gold standard without the discipline of the gold standard. Governments like the gold exchange standard because it allows them to manipulate their currency domestically. It allows the reserve currency country to export its inflation.

Greaves gives the following description of the gold exchange standard:
(1) The domestic monetary unit is legally defined as the equivalent of a certain fixed weight of gold, called the parity rate; (2) Only money-substitutes are held by individuals and used in domestic business transactions, i.e., there are no domestic gold coins; (3) The national monetary authority maintains the value of all money-substitutes at the legally set parity rate by redeeming in gold such money-substitutes as a holder desires to use abroad at the legal parity rate or at rates between the gold export and import points . . . of such parity; (4) The national monetary authority, as the only official domestic holder of gold and foreign exchange, exchanges all imports of gold and foreign exchange into domestic legal tender money substitutes at the legal parity rate or at rates between the gold export and import points of such rates.
The gold exchange standard makes it possible for the national monetary authority to keep a part of its reserves not in gold but in foreign bank balances which are redeemable in gold.[1]
After World War I, the term came “to mean a monetary system for which reserves are held in foreign currencies convertible into gold, as well as in gold itself.”[2]

Bradford describes the gold exchange standard as follows:
Under a full gold exchange standard, the moneys of the country are not redeemed in gold coin or bullion, but in drafts payable in gold in some foreign gold standard country. As a result, although gold can be exchanged for the money of the country at a fixed price, it is impossible to turn the money into gold on the spot except by the payment of a premium equal to the cost of shipping gold from the foreign gold standard country to the country on the gold exchange standard.
The price of gold in a gold exchange standard country may vary, therefore, by an amount equal to the cost of importing the gold. Nevertheless, these limits are rigidly fixed and relatively narrow, so that it is really the value of a given weight of gold which fixes the value of the moneys of the country.[3]
Governments created the gold-exchange standard. It is a politically created system and not a product of the markets. It allows governments and their central banks to manipulate international gold flows for political reasons. The government holds the reserves of its foreign claims in gold. Most of the world’s gold ends in the vaults of a few central banks. Gold is subordinated to governmental policies and goals. Because of domestic inflation, against which it offers little resistance, the gold-exchange standard becomes unstable and dysfunctional. Although it offers little resistance to the inflation that a government can generate, it offers enough to cause governments to abandon it within a decade or two.

Under the gold exchange standard, the domestic economy operates on a fiat paper monetary system. Domestically, paper money is not redeemable in gold coin or bullion.

The only way that paper money can be converted into gold is for a foreign government, its central bank, or another approved institution to demand that the country whose currency it holds redeem it in gold. Then the government redeeming the currency has to pay the cost of shipping the gold.

Under the gold exchange standard as operated in the twentieth century, the currency of one country is declared to be the reserve currency. (During the 1920s, the reserve currency was the British pound. Between 1944 and 1971, the U.S. dollar was the reserve currency.) The reserved currency country defined its monetary unit to equal a certain weight of gold. Other countries defined their monetary unit to equal so many units of the reserve currency. In reality the gold exchange standard of the 1920s was a British pound standard. The one after World War II was really the U.S. dollar standard.

Before World War I, a few countries that were not on the gold-coin standard had adopted some form of the gold exchange standard. Among them were Austria-Hungary, Russia, Japan, Argentina, and India. They did not want to adopt a gold-coin standard. Yet they wanted the stability in foreign trade and exchange that the gold-coin standard provided. They sought this stability in the gold exchange standard.

After World War I other European countries adopted a gold exchange standard. Many countries, such as Germany, Italy, and Russia, had depleted their gold stock. They did not want to or could not acquire enough gold to maintain a gold stock sufficient to redeem their domestic currencies. An advantage identified by Robertson is that the reserve currency “can easily and speedily be released for investment in more lucrative securities, and again built again out of the proceeds of the sale of such securities, in accordance with the changing needs of the situation; whereas the trundling of gold to and from market is a relatively cumbrous and expensive proceeding.”[4] Thus, the gold-exchange standard can be a convenient and profitable system for the government involved. It can be so convenient and profitable for governments that even countries with adequate gold stocks, such as France, turned to it.

During World War I, Great Britain had suspended the gold standard. Like the other warring countries, it paid for the war with inflation. After the war, it wanted to regain the monetary prestige that it had before the war. To do this, it believed that it had to return to the gold standard at its prewar rate, about $4.86 per ounce of gold. However, because of its wartime inflation, it could not without a significant devaluation of its currency. It did not want to devalue the pound. To avoid devaluation, Great Britain persuaded the other European countries to adopt the gold exchange standard. This was accomplished at the Genoa Conference of 1922.

In 1925, Great Britain initiated the system outlined at the Genoa Conference. During the following three years, most important countries join the gold exchange system. The notable exception was the United States. However, the Federal Reserve did conspire with the Bank of England to ensure the system would operate without formal devaluation of the pound. To prevent devaluation of the pound, the Federal Reserve had to inflate, i.e., devalue the dollar.

Rothbard described the adopted standard as follows:
Instead of each nation issuing currency directly redeemable in gold, it was to keep its reserves in the form of sterling balances in London, which in turn would undertake to redeem sterling in gold. In that way, other countries would pyramid their currencies on top of pounds, and pounds themselves were being inflated throughout the 1920s. Britain could then print pounds without worrying about the accumulated sterling balances being redeemed in gold.[5]
Great Britain could export its inflation almost without penalty. The inflation could continue as long as no country demand redemption or until the economies became so distorted that they broke down. The system finally collapsed in 1931 into the Great Depression. (The inflation caused under the gold exchange standard lead to the Great Depression.)

The gold exchanged standard adopted after World War I was a partial gold exchange standard. Countries maintained part of their reserves in gold and part in foreign currencies. “In such instances, if gold was wanted for use in the arts it could be obtained at a fixed price for that purpose. On the other hand, if the gold was needed for export, the central bank had the option of redeeming its notes in a draft payable in gold in a foreign center.”[6] Thus, in theory at least, “the value of the gold in the money unit fixed the value of the other moneys as closely as in a gold coin or gold bullion standard country.”

In 1944 under the lead of the United States, the leading countries of the world again adopted a gold exchange standard. This system became known as the Bretton Woods international monetary system. Under this system, foreign countries fixed (pegged) their currencies in the U.S. dollar. They maintained this fixed rate of exchange by buying and selling dollars in foreign-exchange markets. The U.S. dollar was fixed (pegged) in gold at $35 per ounce of gold. “Only the United States undertook to buy and sell gold at a fixed rate of exchange in transactions with foreign monetary authorities.”[7] Devaluation was only allowed when a country had inflated at a rate so much greater than the United States that it had depleted its dollar reserves.

The Bretton Wood system collapsed because during the 1950s and especially the 1960s the United States were inflating faster than most other countries. As a result, these countries accumulated excessive quantities of dollars. When they had accumulated too many dollars, they began to demand gold for dollars. Collapse of the system came in 1971 when the United States refused to redeem in gold the dollars for which foreign countries demanded redemption. This action ended the Bretton Wood gold exchange system. (Before 1960, the U.S. monetary gold stock exceeded the liabilities of the U.S. government. By 1971, its monetary stock was less than one-sixth of its liquid liabilities.[8]) With the collapse of the gold exchange system, the world entered the realm of pure fiat money with floating exchange rates determined by supply and demand on foreign-exchange markets.

Under the gold exchange standard as it operated in the 1920s and under Bretton Wood, countries were not on a gold standard. They were on the British pound standard in the 1920s and the U.S. dollar standard under Bretton Wood. Their reserves were mostly British pounds and U.S. dollars, and not gold.

Furthermore, the gold exchange standard allows double counting of gold. Each ounce of gold backing the reserve currency is counted as backing the reserve currency. It is also counted as backing the currencies of foreign countries whose currencies the reserve currency backs.

Because countries fixed their currencies to the reserve currency, the gold exchange standard tied the together all their currencies. This fixed exchanged caused the prices and incomes of the difference countries to be interconnected.

Countries on the gold exchange standard do not adjust their currencies to the market valuation of gold. They adjust their currency to the reserve currency, which is based on gold. Thus, one purported advantage is that during financial crisis, these countries do not have to import gold. The crisis is resolved with the domestic currency, which has no direct dependency on gold. (If the country had been operating of the gold-coin standard, the crisis probably would not have occurred.)

Under the gold exchange standard, governments control the international movements of monetary gold. This control allows governmental leaders to conspire to coordinate their domestic inflation of paper money. They do this because only governments or their central banks can redeem the reserve currency in gold. The reserve currency country can inflate with little danger of losing gold because their currency expansion increases the reserves of other countries. This increase allows the other countries to inflate. Only when the reserve currency country begins inflating at a rate much greater than other countries does it begin to loss gold, which eventually leads to the collapse of the system.

The gold exchange standard encourages the reserve currency country to pay for its welfare-warfare state through inflation instead of taxation. Under the gold exchange standard, the reserve currency country exports much of the excess currency to buy foreign goods. Foreign governments need to obtain the reserve currency to pay for their imports. To prevent the system from collapsing, they must accumulate the excess reserve currency. Thus, domestic prices in the reserve currency country, such as the Untied States between 1944 and 1971, do not rise as high as they otherwise would.

The gold exchange standard encourages devaluation of currencies because it makes devaluation easy. A country has no gold coins to call in, i.e., to steal from the people, or outlaws as money as Roosevelt did in 1933. Gold coins do not circulate in most countries on the gold exchange standard. Thus, it allows the devaluating country to cheat its international creditors by reducing the gold that it was obliged to pay.

Individual holders of the reserve currency cannot redeem their paper money. They may be allowed to own gold and gold coins, but neither the banks nor the government will redeem either the reserve currency or its own currency in gold on demand. Only foreign governments and their central banks or other governmentally approved agencies can exchange the reserve currency for gold and then only for large bars, 400 ounces or more. This restriction on redemption takes the control the money supply from the people and gives it to those who really control the government.

A major problem with the gold exchange standard is that it gives the government the power to manipulate its currency. Of coarse, this is a major reason that governments prefer the gold exchange standard to the gold-coin standard, which greatly restricts government’s ability to manipulate the country’s money. Governments have used the gold exchange standard to carry out their inflationary monetary policies.

The gold exchanged standard relies on a country’s monetary gold being concentrated in a single institution. A central bank places the country’s gold under its control and usually in its possession. (During the gold exchange standard under Bretton Wood, the U.S. government possessed the country’s monetary gold.) Thus, central banking is a prerequisite to the gold exchange standard.

The gold exchange standard bridges the gap between the gold-coin standard of the nineteenth century and the pure fiat monetary standard of today. Under the gold-coin standard, the exchange rate of foreign currencies is fixed in the weight of gold in the coin. Under the gold exchange standard, countries fix their exchange rate in the reserve country’s currency, which in turn is fixed in gold. This system allowed a great deal of inflation until countries start redeeming the reserve currency for gold.

ENDNOTES
1. Percy L. Greaves, Jr., Mises Made Easier: A Glossary for Ludwig von Mises’ Human Action (Dobbs Ferry, New York: Free Market Books, 1974), p. 53.

2. Ibid., p. 54.

3. Frederick A. Bradford, Money and Banking (New York, New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1938), pp. 25-26.

4. D.H. Robertson, Money (Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 64.

5. Murray N. Rothbard, The Mystery of Banking (Second ed. Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2008), p. 244.

6. Bradford, p. 26.

7. Lawrence H. White, Competition and Currency: Essays on Free Banking and Money (New York, New York: New York University Press, 1989), p. 144.

8. Ibid., p. 145.

[Editor’s note: List of references in original is omitted.]

Copyright © 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on money.

Sunday, March 6, 2011

Diversity

Diversity
Thomas Allen

People typically view diversity in two diametric ways. One group considers diversity highly desirable. The other considers it highly undesirable. Both groups can be divided into integrationists and segregationists.

As we will see, segregation preserves diversity. Integration destroys diversity.

Let’s look at the pro-diversity integrationists first. They claim that strength is achieved through diversity. Therefore, various diverse races and ethnic groups (nationalities[1]) need to be integrated. Are these people ignorant or hypocrites, or do they knowingly promote covert genocide?

Whenever diverse groups integrate, they amalgamate. They lose their distinctiveness and become indistinguishable from one another. Integration is systematic destruction of the races and ethnic groups involved. The systematic destruction of a race or nationality is genocide. How it is done is immaterial.

The following example illustrates the destructiveness of integration. Take three jars of water. Put a red dye in one and a yellow dye in another. Integrate (mix) the jar of colorless water with the jar of red water. Uniformity is the consequence of this integration. Pale red water results. Now integrate the yellow water with the pale red water. Again uniformity results. The water is now a pale orange.

Integration has destroyed diversity. Before integration, we had three distinct jars of water: colorless, red, and yellow. After integration, we have one color of water: pale orange. Thus, integration destroys diversity.

If diversity is worth preserving, integration has to be avoided.

Those who know that integration destroys diversity and still insists on integration really hate diversity. Or they hate one or more of the groups being integrated so much that they are willing to destroy other groups to destroy the hated group. These people are promoters of genocide, but who want to conceal their genocide.

Segregationists who despise diversity usually object to their self-destruction. Being unwilling to destroy themselves to destroy diverse groups, they must abandon covert genocide of integration and adopt some form of overt genocide. Otherwise, they must separate the diverse groups, which maintains diversity.

People who dislike the hyphenated American, e.g., Afro-American and Chinese-American, must either adopt some form of genocide or segregation of or separation from the hyphenated Americans. Most seem to have adopted covert genocide through integration. Few openly promote segregation or geographical separation.

Let’s return to our example. We have three diverse jars of water: colorless, red, and yellow. As long as we keep them separate, we maintain their diversity. They remain colorless, red, and yellow. Once we integrate them, they amalgamate and lose their diversity.

Thus, segregation and separation preserve diversity. If the objective is to save diversity and to preserve our strength through diversity, then segregation is the route to choose. If the objective is to destroy diversity, integration is the choice.

Actions that lead to the destruction of diversity must be avoided if diversity is highly desirable. Diversity should be preserved if strength is achieved through diversity. Conditions must be created to prevent various races and ethnic groups (nationalities) from destroying themselves. Only under conditions where their amalgamation is prevented can diversity be preserved.

Segregation and geographical separation preserve diversity. When diverse groups separate, they can preserve and grow their uniqueness.

One can have diversity. One can have integration. However, one can never have both. People need to decide which is more important: diversity or integration. If they choose diversity, then they must choose segregation and preferably physical separation. (Physical separation is superior to segregation at maintaining diversity.)

Endnote
1. Nationality refers to a people of a common race with a common origin, traditions, culture, and language who are capable of forming or actually have formed a nation-state. When people of one nationality live in a country of another nationality, they are commonly called an ethnic group. For example, Cherokees and Japanese-Americans are ethnic groups in the United States.

Copyright © 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on social issues.