Freedom of Opinion in Democratic America

Freedom of Opinion in Democratic America

Thomas Allen

    More than one hundred and fifty years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America. In America, the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion: within these barriers, an author may write what he pleases; but woe to him if he goes beyond them.” The United States have become much more democratic since he wrote these words, and the liberty of opinion has shrunk even more.

    In this land of freedom where a variety of diverse opinions are published, intolerance of dissent grows. A person who proclaims that one race, especially the white race, is innately more intelligent than another, especially the black race, he will meet an impregnable barrier of intolerance and ostracism — and if he is in the public eye, he will lose his job. (Jimmy the Greek lost his job when he made the unforgivable mistake of arguing racial inequality when he proclaimed that blacks were superior to whites as athletes.) Likewise, one needs only to aver the virtue of apartheid or advocate denying the right to vote to women or blacks to discover the intolerance of the American mind. To denounce Martin Luther King is an unforgivable sin. Other examples are questioning the commitment of the United States to Israel (fortunately, this is becoming less unforgivable), not maintaining one’s yard to the standards desired by one’s neighbors (hence, this is a principal reason for zoning), and advocating the abolition of the public school system (the public school system is essential to democracy for it indoctrinates the right way of thinking, i.e., thinking the thoughts and doing the acts of the mediocre majority, and to become a docile subject of the majority). To condemn homosexualism is now becoming unacceptable, for homosexuals are becoming part of the majority coalition. If a person’s opinion differs significantly from that of the majority, he expresses it with peril.

    In a democracy, there is one subject that can never be discussed openly and honestly. That subject is democracy itself. Criticizing democracy cannot be tolerated. It is forever forbidden.

    An honest writer in the United States suffers a fate similar to that of an honest writer in the Soviet Union. He is not banished to Siberia or a mental institute — at least not yet — as is his Soviet counterpart. His books and articles are not published by any publisher of note. He does not acquire tenure at any eminent university. He is snubbed by his colleagues. All of this is done while the hypocrites who ostracize him are preaching the glory and virtue of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of expression, and the free circulation of ideas.

    If a person is politically inclined, he ought never to express his opinion when it differs from the majority. To freely express opinions contrary to those held by the rulers, that is the majority, will end his political career. (For this reason, in the South, candidates prior to 1960 who advocated integration seldom won, and candidates after 1970 who advocated segregation seldom won. Also this explains why nearly all presidents of the United States since the Jacksonian revolution have been mediocre at best.) It denies him his chance to be a celebrity and many other forms of compensation. He faces scorn, ridicule, and ostracism.

    As the United States become more democratic, the expression of opinions that deviate significantly from the majority’s opinion becomes more hazardous. Expressing dissenting opinions becomes more difficult. Freedom of opinion eventually dies. Freethinkers become strangers in their own land and among their own people.

Copyright © 1988 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on politics.

United States Department of Agriculture

United States Department of Agriculture

Thomas Allen

    The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) was founded in 1862, shortly after the War for Southern Independence began. Its purpose during the War was to make the North agriculturally independent of the South. Its purpose following the War, which continues to be its purpose today, was to destroy Southern agriculture and the agrarian way of life and to remake the South and Southerners into the image of Yankeedom.

    When the War broke out, cotton, sugar, and molasses stopped flowing northward. Congress reacted by creating the USDA to develop substitutes for these Southern staples. The objective of the USDA was to make the North independent of Southern agriculture. Thus began the USDA's telling farmers what to plant.

    To obtain the biologists, chemists, and other technical personnel that the new department would need, Congress began to subsidize colleges. Thus, began federal control of education.

    With the end of the War came Reconstruction. The USDA was a principal weapon used to finish destroying the South. Its objective was to ensure that the South would never rise again. So far it has been successful in achieving this objective.

    Congress saw cotton as the symbol for all that Congress despised: States’ rights, limited government, and free trade. The North had won the war. The North had fought for a strong central government with ultraconstitutional powers and managed trade for the benefit of the politically powerful. During and after the War, the North transferred the powers, rights, and duties of the State governments to the federal government. Industries were now protected from foreign competition.

    The Southern States were reorganized to make them fit into the new world order. The USDA was used to diminish the importance of cotton in the South and to force farmers to diversify or abandon the growing of cotton altogether. The USDA would transform the Southern mind.

    One step in this war was to confiscate (a euphemism for steal) the cotton plantations and divide them into small farms. Another was to force the redistribution of crops geographically — especially cotton. (Today farmers in the South are taxed to subsidize irrigation water for farmers in California, Arizona, and other semiarid regions to grow crops, such as cotton, that can be grown economically in the South without the subsidy. Southerners are forced to subsidize their competitors.) Furthermore, Southerners were to be forced to grow crops other than cotton. Non-Southerners, either Northerners or European immigrants, were to raise cotton grown in the South.

    The USDA was to reconstruct Southern farmers by reforming the Southern mind. This reformation required farmers to abandon cotton and plant other crops. In the name of relieving the destitute conditions in the South following the War, the United States government forced Southern farmers to grow new crops in the place of cotton. (In the Northern mind cotton excited Southerners to racism and rebellion and caused slavery and secession; therefore, Southerners could not be trusted to grow cotton.)

    Congress encouraged Northerners to migrate to the South. These Northerners would grow the cotton. Moreover, the presence of these “enlightened” Northerners with their “progressive” ideals would reform these Southern “racists” and defuse their rebellious nature.

    To provide farms for these Yankee migrants, hundreds of thousands of acres of farms were stolen. The large plantations, along with many yeoman farms, were ceased and sold under the guise of paying off tax liens. They were sold mostly to Northerners. In 1860 301,940 farms were in the South Atlantic States and 370,373 farms in the South Central States. By 1900 the number of farms in the South Atlantic States had grown to 962,295 while in the South Central States, the number had grown to 1,658,166. Over this 40-year period, the average size of farms decreased by more than a third in the South Atlantic States and over half in the South Central States.

    Another weapon used to destroy the South was foreign immigrants. The United States government relaxed its immigration policy and promoted emigration from Europe. (For worshipers of a powerful central government, massive foreign immigration also had the benefit of shifting more political power from State governments to the United States government. The immigrants came from countries that had strong central governments. Thus, they were accustomed to a strong central government. Furthermore, they would be inclined to owe their allegiance to the United States instead of to a State because they would perceive themselves as citizens of the United States instead of a State.)

    Another part of the United States government’s plan to destroy the South was to force Southerners to migrate to the North. If Southerners dwelt in the midst of “progressive” ideals of Yankeedom, their small bigoted, prejudiced minds would become educated and enlightened. They would learn to think the right thoughts. With the loss or destruction of their farms and livelihood, many Southerners had little choice but to move to the North.

    Perhaps the most powerful weapon used to finish destroying the South was public education. After the War, the United States government coerced the Southern States to adopt new constitutions with provisions for tax-supported “free” schools. These schools, like schools today, were in effect under the control of the federal government. These schools were to use “progressive” textbooks to mold Southerners into the image of Yankeedom and prepare them for the new world order. The source of these textbooks was the USDA. The present and practical were to be emphasized, and the past and philosophy were to be avoided. Public education would enlighten backward racist Southerners to become like progressive Northerners. To this day public schools are being used to destroy the remnants of the South. (This weapon has been so successful it has made itself sacrosanct. It has made itself the state church. To seek the abolition of public education is blasphemy.)

    All the weapons used by the United States government to finish destroying the South after the War are still being used to complete the destruction of the South. The USDA has destroyed the family farm and the agrarian life of the South. The United States government allows virtually unrestricted immigration of foreigners into the South — especially the immigration of people from cultures most alien to the South. The United States government has manipulated the economy to force Northerners and Northern manufacturers to move south. Then it manipulated these manufacturers to move to foreign countries once the South became dependent on them. The United States will continue the war against the South until the last remnant of the South is destroyed. The only hope for the South is in a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States.

Copyright © 1995 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on the South.