COVID-19 Vaccine: Its Effectiveness and Safety

COVID-19 Vaccine: 

Its Effectiveness and Safety

Thomas Allen

For 20 years, big pharma has been trying to develop a vaccine for coronavirus. For 20 years, it has failed. Now, we are asked to believe that big pharma has accomplished in less than a year what it failed to achieve in the previous 20 years. (A major reason for previous failures is that the vaccine fell to pass the animal trials. Trump’s Operation Warp Speed eliminated animal testing.)

How Protective Is the Vaccine

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. – Mark Twain

The presstitute media continually report that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is 90 percent effective. They mislead with their statistics. Thus, they lie with a deceptive truth.

Most people interpret the 90-percent effectiveness to mean that if they are vaccinated, they have only a 10 percent chance of contracting COVID-19. Or, they interpret it to mean that of every 100 people vaccinated, only 10 may become infected; the other 90 percent are immune and, therefore, need not fear catching COVID-19. They are wrong.

In the Pfizer trial, about 0.43 percent of the control, or placebo, group tested positive at the end of the trial while 0.04 percent in the vaccinated group tested positive. This translates into 90.7-percent-vaccine effectiveness [100–(1–(0.04 ÷0.43))]. However, the absolute risk reduction for an individual is only 0.39 percent [0.43–0.04]. That is, the vaccinated person has a 0.39-percent advantage over an unvaccinated person in not contracting COVID-19. Thus, 256 [1÷0.0039] people have to be vaccinated for one person to benefit from the vaccine. Of the remaining 255 vaccinated people, none receive any benefit. However, they risk the adverse effects of the vaccination, which can be severe. Of the trial participants, 10 to 15 percent suffered significant side effects. Moreover, the long-term effects of the COVID-19 vaccines are unknown. Even if one interprets Pfizer’s data to mean that an unvaccinated person has ten times greater chance of contracting COVID-19, it still means that an unvaccinated person has less than a 0.5-percent chance of contracting COVID-19. Why would one assume risking the side effects described below when only 0.43 percent of the unvaccinated population, based on trial studies, becomes infected? Thus, more than 99 percent of the population will receive no benefit from the COVID-19 vaccines.

New Technology and Side Effects

Pfizer’s and most of the other COVID-19 vaccines are using a technology that has never before been used in a vaccine in the United States: mRNA technology. And, only a few months of safety testing have been done with this technology. Instead of using the coronavirus in the vaccine, these COVID-19 vaccines instruct the body to make the COVID-19 spike protein. Consequently, the COVID-19 vaccines manipulate a person’s biological makeup, i.e., it changes the vaccinated person’s cell structure. Moreover, the RNA technology used in the COVID-19 vaccines is known to have caused autoimmune reactions; that is, it causes the body to attack itself.

Among the other side effects is the sterilization of women. Also, people with a compromised immune system are at great risk of dying from the vaccine. Narcolepsy (sudden and uncontrollable attacks of deep sleep), Bell’s palsy (facial nerve paralysis), Guillain-Barre syndrome (an autoimmune disorder that is an inflammatory neuropathy affecting the peripheral nervous system), shingles, and hepatitis are other potential side effects. RNA technology can activate dormant viruses. Moreover, people with a history of allergic reactions should avoid vaccination. (People with a history of allergic reactions were excluded from the study trials — thus, making the vaccines look safer.)

Another side effect is that people who have been vaccinated are testing positive for HIV. (Some researchers have identified COVID-19 as a synthetic virus, and at least one study states that it is made by combining coronavirus with HIV. On the other hand, the standard scientific methodology for identifying a new virus has never been done for COVID-19.)

Control and Track

The ruling elite, the globalists, have been developing mechanisms to use the COVID-19 plandemic and the COVID-19 vaccines as an excuse to control and track people. One consideration is a global passport that shows, among other things, a person’s vaccination status. People would need such a passport to travel. It may also be required for employment and for entering stores, restaurants, sports and entertainment events, etc. Moreover, this passport may be required forever — even long after the pandemic is a forgotten memory. (The ultimate goal of the globalists, the ruling elite, is to turn the world into a society like communist China.)

The current plan calls for giving people who have been vaccinated a vaccination card that shows proof of receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. How long will it be before these cards morph into the equivalent of a global passport? Moreover, people who receive a COVID-19 vaccination will be entered into the States’ immunization registries and reported to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention — so much for medical confidentiality.

View of Louis Farrakhan

In “The Covid-19 Vaccine and the U.S. policy of depopulation,” Ava Muhammad, Student National Spokesperson of the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, argues that the COVID-19 vaccine is being used to genocide Blacks. [Any White progressive, liberal, or wokesperson who disagrees with Farrakhan on this or any other issue is a racist and White supremacist.]

This article associates White’s pushing the COVID-19 vaccines with the pale horse of Revelation, i.e., death. For the government to force Blacks to take the COVID-19 vaccines would be a declaration of war.

When COVID-19 vaccines are ready, governmental officials and the presstitute media will vigorously fill people with the fear of COVID-19. [To terrorize people into being vaccinated, every news broadcast stresses the ever-increasing number of COVID-19 cases and the number of hospitalizations. Also, accompanying these reports is a segment on the availability and distribution of the vaccines and their safety and effectiveness.]

Views that disagree with the establishment’s story of COVID-19 and its vaccines are suppressed and censored. The objective is to keep people fearful and ignorant.

Farrakhan believes that the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines are weapons that Whites are using to genocide nonwhites. [If Farrakhan’s bigotry did not blind him, he would realize that the vaccines are as much a threat to Whites as they are to Blacks and the other races. Moreover, the only race facing genocide is the White or Aryan race.]

The article states that big pharma is the largest lobbyist in Washington and owns both parties. [He is correct about big pharma owing both parties. However, the industrial-military-security lobby is probably larger.] People injured by a vaccine cannot sue the vaccine manufacturer. Moreover, people injured from a COVID-19 cannot receive any compensation from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. This prohibition went into effect a month before the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 pandemic. [This action looks conspiratorial. Nevertheless, some compensation may be available from the Countermeasure Injury Compensation Program {CICP}. However, the CICP limits the maximum payment that a person injured by a COVID-19 vaccine to $250,000. Most likely, the injured person will receive less, much less, than this amount. However, no payment is made until the injured person has exhausted his private insurance. Also, the CICP only pays the difference between what the insurance covers and the CICP’s cap. Furthermore, the Department of Health and Human Services {DHHS} administers the CICP, and it is also sponsoring the COVID-19 vaccination program. Consequently, the DHHS has a conflict of interest that makes the CICP much less likely to find fault with the vaccines. Moreover, the victim has only one year to file a claim. Rarely, does DHHS pay a claim for a vaccine injury — less than 1 percent of those injured receive any compensation. In any event, why should taxpayers be coerced into paying for damages caused by vaccines? Should not vaccine manufacturers be liable for injuries caused by their products?]

[Hopefully, Farrakhan’s hostility toward COVID-19 will prove fruitful. His opposition has caused most governmental officials to cease pushing making vaccination mandatory — although forcing children to be vaccinated to attend a school or to keep child protection agencies from taking unvaccinated children from their families and forcibly vaccinating them remains to be resolved. As for businesses requiring the COVID-19 vaccination to work, buy, or travel, maybe Farrakhan can send thousands of members of Black Lives Matter to protest these businesses to halt their evil ways. They will certainly respond more quickly and more positively to Black protesters than to White protesters. Thus, the fate and temporal salvation of the country and even mankind may depend on Farrakhan and other people like him.]

Conclusion

Dr. Robert Koops writes, “Vaccines are not cures. Vaccines are not preventatives. Vaccines do not seek out and destroy.” (Koops has worked in the pharmaceutical industry in development, quality control, and biopharmaceuticals and vaccines.) The purpose of vaccines is to cause the body’s immune system to produce antibodies to a particular virus. Thus, in theory, if the body is later exposed to this virus, its immune system will recognize it and respond more quickly and efficiently than normal. Like traditional vaccines, the COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent the body from becoming infected; they attack the viruses in the infected body using a different technology as described above.

Governmental officials and the presstitutes are notorious liars. So, why should anyone believe anything that they say until independent sources collaborate their assertions? So far, the independent sources are saying no COVID-19 pandemic exists and, therefore, no vaccines are needed. Furthermore, independent sources are saying that the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines are highly questionable.

Jon Rappoport writes, “What rational person would line up to take this shot?” Perhaps, that is why the first to receive the shots are those who do not have the right to refuse. Farrakhan needs to organize massive protests against vaccinating prisoners to prevent the genocide of Black prisoners.

To end on a positive note, if you are among the 90 percent who has had one of the common cold coronaviruses in recent years, you are probably protected from COVID-19. Many of these cases being reported as COVID-19 may be no more than cases of the common cold.

References

Koops, Roger W. “A Primer for the Media on Viruses, Vaccines, and Covid-19.” – September 25, 2020. https://www.aier.org/article/a-primer-for-the-media-on-viruses-vaccines-and-covid-19/. Accessed September 25, 2020.

Mercola, Dr. Joseph. “COVID-19 Vaccination May Be Difficult to Avoid.” December 14, 2020. https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/12/14/covid-19-vaccine-cicp.aspx. Accessed December 14, 2020.

Mercola, Dr. Joseph. “Emergency COVID-19 Vaccines May Cause Massive Side Effects.” December 08, 2020. https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/12/08/coronavirus-vaccine-side-effects.aspx. December 8, 2020.

Mercola, Dr. Joseph. “New Report Claims to Shed Light on SARS-CoV-2 Origin.” September 28, 2020. https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/09/27/chinese-whistleblower-coronavirus.aspx. December 8, 2020.

Muhammad, Ava. “The Covid-19 Vaccine and the U.S. policy of depopulation.” December 8, 2020. https://new.finalcall.com/2020/12/08/the-covid-19-vaccine-and-the-u-s-policy-of-depopulation/. Accessed December 14, 2020.

Neill, Steven. “COVID-19 Vaccination Record Cards Will Be Issued.” December 10, 2020. https://thenewamerican.com/covid-19-vaccination-record-cards-will-be-issued/, Accessed December 15, 2020.

Neill, Steven. “Medical Freedom Activists Plan International COVID-19 Vaccine Protests.” November 29, 2020. https://thenewamerican.com/medical-freedom-activists-plan-international-covid-19-vaccine-protests/. Accessed December 15, 2020.

Neill, Steven. “U.K. Health Officials Warn of Allergy Risks From Pfizer COVID–19 Vaccine.” December 10, 2020. https://thenewamerican.com/u-k-health-officials-warn-of-allergy-risks-from-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine/. Accessed December 15, 2020.

Rappoport, Jon. “Shocking report on COVID vaccine adverse effects: the roll-out continues anyway.” December 14, 2020. https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/12/14/shocking-report-on-covid-vaccine-adverse-effects-the-roll-out-continues-anyway/. December 14, 2020.

Roberts, Paul Craig. “They Are Using Fear to Create Acceptance of Vaccination. Why?” https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/12/13/they-are-using-fear-to-create-acceptance-of-vaccination-why/. December 13, 2020. Accessed December 14. 2020.

Sardi, Bill. “99% Of U.S. Population Would Not Benefit From Mass Vaccination With Pfizer’s RNA Covid-19 Vaccine.” December 11, 2020. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/12/bill-sardi/99-of-u-s-population-would-not-benefit-from-mass-vaccination-with-pfizers-rna-covid-19-vaccine/. Accessed December 11, 2020.

Sardi, Bill. “The Science Of Lockdown, Masks & Vaccines Crumbles.” September 16, 2020. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/09/bill-sardi/the-science-of-lockdown-masks-vaccines-crumbles/. Accessed September 16, 2020.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Cusson’s Description of the Yankee

 

Cusson’s Description of the Yankee

Thomas Allen

The following description of the Yankee is from United States “History” as the Yankee Makes and Takes It (1900, third edition) by John Cussons, pages 52–54:

Self-styled as the apostle of liberty, he has ever claimed for himself the liberty of persecuting all who presumed to differ from him. Self-appointed as the champion of unity and harmony, he has carried discord into every land that his foot has smitten. Exalting himself as the defender of freedom of thought, his favorite practice has been to muzzle the press and to adjourn legislatures with the sword. Vaunting himself as the only true disciple of the living God, he has done more to bring sacred things into disrepute than has been accomplished by all the apostates of all the ages, from Judas Iscariot to Robert G. Ingersoll. Born in revolt against law and order — breeding schism in the Church and faction in the State — seceding from every organization to which he had pledged fidelity — nullifying all law, human and divine, which lacked the seal of his approval — evermore setting up what he calls his conscience against the most august of constituted authorities and the most sacred of covenanted obligations, he yet has the impregnable conceit to pose himself in the world’s eye as the only surviving specimen of political or moral worth.

What others say about the Yankee

A meddling Yankee troubles himself about every body’s matters except his own and repents of everybody’s sins except his own. – General D.H. Hill

A kind of eternal Ostrogoth, a Viking in a peacoat, the Yankee is a scourge upon the planet, a pox surely sent us for atonement for our sins. – Jason Morgan

American history is the history of the South trying to teach the Yankee to behave like a gentleman. – Jason Morgan

A Yankee is a creature without a civilization. – Jason Morgan

There is at work in this land a Yankee spirit and an American spirit.  – James Henley Thornwell, 1859 

One Confederate wag observed that the war happened because Southerners were a contented people and Yankees were not. – Clyde Wilson

[Yankees] are pretty much like Southerners — except with worse manners, of course, and terrible accents. – Margaret Mitchell

A Yankee is a particular breed of person who believes that everyone should live as he does, and if not, he will force you to bend to his will. – Dr. Brion McClanahan

Yankees. God love ‘em. It seems they just can’t help themselves. They have been coming down here to the South for 146 years now telling us Southerners how we should think and act. They just can’t rest until they get everybody to be just like them. So much for diversity being our strength. – Dr. Neill H. Payne

. . . what the Yankee achieved . . . were the shoddy aristocracy of the North and ragged children of the South. – Kenneth Stampp, a Northern historian

A meddling Yankee is God’s worst creation, he cannot run his own affairs correctly, but is constantly interfering in the affairs of others, and he is always ready to repent of everyone’s sins, but his own. – North Carolina newspaper, 1854

The pilgrim fathers of Massachusetts delighted in two things: first, in the freedom from persecution for themselves; and, secondly, in the sweet privilege and power to persecute others. – Albert T. Bledsoe

Do you notice that the above description of the Yankee fits perfectly liberal Democrats and members of Antifa?

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

COVID-19 Vaccine

COVID-19 Vaccine

Thomas Allen

Politicians, governmental health officials, the presstitute media, and others are pushing the COVID-19 vaccine and are encouraging people to take the COVID-19 vaccine when it is available. However, at least two important questions need to be answered. Will the vaccines really be safe or just claimed to be safe? (Of course, the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] will do the bidding of its masters and rule that the vaccines are safe.) Other than being a large moneymaker for big pharma, is a vaccine even necessary?

Many people who are pushing vaccination for COVID-19 have a financial interest in the vaccines. Even their presstitute propaganda media have a financial interest because much of their pay comes from big pharma. 

The pharmaceutical companies that are manufacturing and selling the COVID-19 vaccines have no real interest in producing safe and effective vaccines. They are exempted from any liability, so if the vaccines kill or maim millions of people, big pharma suffers no financial penalties. Moreover, since many people will be required to be vaccinated to work, travel, or go to school, big pharma has a guaranteed market regardless of safety or effectiveness. Also, if the vaccines prove deadly and ineffective, the presstitute media will shill for their masters, big pharma and the political establishment, and conceal any dangers or lack of effectiveness of the vaccines.

(The polio vaccine is an example of the media and political establishment protecting big pharma from the consequences of a deadly vaccine. The polio vaccine contained a cancer virus. A few people tried to expose this fact. However, the presstitute media and political establishment ostracized, made persona non grata, and otherwise destroyed the exposers. Instead of removing a deadly vaccine, the government acted to protect big pharma and its profits. Thus, the polio vaccine proves that power, propaganda, and profits are more important than safety. Some contributed the explosion in cancer during the 1970s and beyond to the polio vaccine.)

Most of the COVID-19 vaccines incorporate a never-before-tried new vaccine technology. Only short-term safety has been evaluated. Long-term safety will not be known until years later. In other applications of this technology, human health effects have been highly deleterious. Some of these adverse health effects did not appear until years later. 

        Furthermore, the vaccines are not designed to protect the vaccinated person from becoming infected with COVID-19. They are designed to lessen the symptoms of COVID-19 after a person becomes infected.

        Also, the vaccines have been solely or almost solely tested on young, healthy people. Little or no testing has been done on the sickly or aged. Testing on them comes when the vaccines are given to them after the FDA approves the vaccines.

Moreover, the immune stimulant, squalene, being used in the COVID-19 vaccines has been linked to Gulf War Syndrome. Naturally, the government and the presstitute media will deny any connection between the immune stimulant and any later health effects just as they have denied any connection between the immune stimulant and Gulf War Syndrome. (Also, manufacturing squalene may be endangering certain species of sharks since shark liver is the best source of squalene.)

The FDA cannot be trusted to protect the public from dangerous vaccines. Big pharma owns the FDA. Besides, the FDA is a political machine and, therefore, is highly susceptible to political pressure. If the president and Congress want a vaccine, the FDA will approve a vaccine — especially since big pharma wants to sell COVID-19 vaccines. Vaccines are risk-free rewards for big pharma because the taxpayers assume all the risk.

Politicians, high-ranking bureaucrats, officers and directors of pharmaceutical companies, presstitutes, and their families should be the first to be vaccinated (and no saline-solution-shot substitutions). If they believe what they promote, they should gladly be first in line for an untried vaccine. After all, since the government guarantees that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe, they should have nothing to fear.

If a person wants complete immunity from COVID-19 with no adverse side effects, all he needs to do is to join Antifa or Black Lives Matter (BLM). Then, he will have complete immunity from COVID-19 with the benefit of immunity from most laws. “Our” governors and mayors have told us so with their actions and occasionally with their words. Unlike what they have done with churches, schools, and businesses, no governor or mayor has restricted the size of Antifa or BLM crowds. Moreover, they have not imposed the requirements for social distancing or wearing a face-covering although most do cover their faces to conceal their identity. While taking a vaccination is risky, being a member of Antifa or BLM is safe and rewarding.

The number of cases of COVID-19 can be reduced significantly with a simple change in the testing procedures. If testers followed Dr. Fauci’s recommendations instead of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recommendations, fewer infections would be measured. The CDC’s recommendations magnify the sample so much that all sorts of irrelevant fragments that have nothing to do with COVID-19 are detected, and, thus, the person tested is identified as having COVID-19. Moreover, as Elon Musk has shown, the test is highly unreliable. He took four tests in one day. Two tests were positive, and two were negative. Even papaya has been tested positive for COVID-19. Also, the New York Times has reported that 90 percent of the people tested as having COVID-19 do not have the disease.

Furthermore, the number of COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths can be significantly reduced with one simple action: Stop paying hospitals bonuses for COVID-19 cases and deaths. Whenever a hospital reports a COVID-19 patient or death, the federal government pays it a bonus. This bonus encourages hospitals to report as many COVID-19 patients and deaths as they can — thus, they greatly inflate COVID-19 cases and deaths. On the other hand, if the federal government ceased paying hospitals bonuses for COVID-19 cases and deaths and started paying bonuses for ingrown toenail cases and deaths, COVID-19 cases and deaths would plummet, and ingrown toenail cases and deaths would soar. The federal government gets what it pays for. It wants COVID-19 cases and deaths, so it pays bonuses for them.

In obedience to their masters in government and big pharma, the presstitute media have terrorized by extravagantly overstating cases of hospitalizations and deaths from COVID-19. Terror is being used to stampede fearful people into taking a COVID-19 vaccination. Many presstitutes and political and business leaders are discussing forcing everyone to be vaccinated for COVID-19. The only winners are the politicians and health department bureaucrats, who get to wield more power, and big pharma, which makes a large profit with zero risks (the taxpayers assume the risk). The losers are the people — especially the vaccinated, who receive what are essentially experimental vaccines.

Deaths by COVID-19 have been greatly exaggerated. According to the CDC, the total number of deaths in 2020 is about the same as in 2019. Even the number of deaths of older people after the invasion of COVID-19 is about the same as it was before COVID-19. Offsetting the thousands of COVID-19 deaths is a reduction in other causes of death. The reduction in other causes of death approximates the deaths by COVID-19. (In an article, “A closer look at US deaths due to COVID-19” in “The John Hopkins News-Letter,” Genevier Briand uses CDC data to show that COVID-19 deaths are offset by a decrease in other causes of death such that there is little or no net gain in deaths after COVID-19 as compared with deaths before COVID-19. John Hopkins has since censored and removed this article.) The CDC seems to agree with her conclusion. According to the CDC, COVID-19 has caused only about 16,000 deaths. Other diseases and accidents account for the remaining deaths attributed to COVID-19.

As shown above, the COVID-19 “pandemic” (plandemic) is a scam to enrich big pharma. More important, from their perspective, the pandemic has fed the uncontrollable insatiable lust for power that consumes politicians and governmental health bureaucrats as they usurp ever more unchecked power. Unfortunately, it has terrorized most people into enslaving themselves to these politicians and bureaucrats. Moreover, these terrorized people will gladly line up to be injected with a poison that they believe will save them from a virus that they believe is more deadly than the Ebola virus.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Allen.

More political articles.

Old Right

Old Right

Thomas Allen

The following is Paul Gottfried’s, editor in chief of Chronicles Magazine, “Hall of Fame” of the Old Right:
– Albert J. Nock (1870–1945, author, editor, educational theorist, Georgist, and social critic),
– Frank Meyer (1909–1972, philosopher, political activist, and fusionist),
– Robert L. Dabney (1820–1898, Christian theologian, Southern Presbyterian pastor, Confederate States Army chaplain, architect, and chief of staff and biographer of Stonewall Jackson),
– James Burnham (1905–1987, philosopher, political theorist, and editor, began as a Trotskyite Marxist and later became a public intellectual of the American conservative movement)
– Eugene D. Genovese (1930–2012, historian of the American South and American slavery, abandoned the left and Marxism and embraced traditionalist conservatism),
– Willmoore Kendall (1909–1967, American conservative writer and a professor of political philosophy),
– Robert A. Nisbet (1913–1996, sociologist, and professor),
– H.L. Mencken (1880–1956 journalist, essayist, satirist, cultural critic, and scholar of American English),
– Russell A. Kirk (1918–1994, political theorist, moralist, historian, social critic, and literary critic),
– Samuel T. Francis (1947–2005, paleoconservative, writer and syndicated columnist),
– Melvin E. Bradford (1934–1993, conservative political commentator and professor of literature), and
– Murray Rothbard (1926–1995) economist of the Austrian School, historian, and political theorist).

To this list I would add:
– Donald G. Davidson (1893–1968, poet, essayist, social and literary critic, author, professor of English, a founding member of the Fugitives and the Southern Agrarians),
– Richard Weaver (1910–1963, American scholar, professor of English, intellectual historian, political philosopher),
– John T. Flynn (1882–1964, journalist),
– Garet Garrett (1878–1954, journalist, author),
– Harry Elmer Barnes (1889–1968, historian, professor),
– Howard H. Buffett (1903–1964, businessman, investor, and politician),
– Felix M. Morley (1894–1982, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, college administrator),
– Charles A. Lindbergh (1859–1924, U.S. Congressman),
– Frank Chodorov (1887–1966, writer), and
 – Justin Raimondo (1951–2019, journalist, author, writer)

Others included among the Old Right are:
– Robert Taft (1889 –1953, politician, lawyer),
– Frank C. Hanighen (1899–1964, journalist),
– Robert E. Wood (1879–1969, American military officer and business executive),
– V. Orval Watts  (1898–1993, professor, author, lecturer),
– Charles C. Tansill (1890–1964, professor, historian, author),
– George C. Roche III (1935–2006, 11th president of Hillsdale College),
– Thomas Fleming (1927–2017, historian, novelist),
– Robert R. McCormick (1880–1955, lawyer, U.S. Army officer in World War I, owner and publisher of the Chicago Tribune newspaper), and
– Josiah Bailey (1873 – 1946, politician, lawyer, editor, coauthor of the Conservative Manifest).
To this list, many more can be added.

Identifying characteristics of the Old Right were opposition to the fascistic state that Franklin Roosevelt established in the United States and opposition to an interventionist foreign policy. Although members of the Old Right varied in their economic views and about how much power a government should exercise, especially the federal government, most of the Old Right believed in limited government and free-market economics. Generally, they opposed the government granting favors and preferences. For most, the government was negative; its job was to prevent trespass against other people’s property, life, and liberty. Most opposed the government acting positively, which makes it become the state; consequently, they opposed the welfare state, including corporate welfare, and all forms of socialism. Most favored States’ rights; that is, political power was best retained at the local level. All opposed concentrating political power in the central government. They opposed the US government meddling in the affairs of other countries; thus, they opposed the war state that the United States became under Franklin Roosevelt and have remained until this day. They opposed building an American Empire. Most were cultural conservatives and traditionalists. The Old Right was of the Jeffersonian-Calhounian wing of American politics as opposed to the Hamiltonian-Lincolnian wing. (Today, with rare exceptions, all Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, progressives, libertarians, and everyone from the far Left to the far Right are of the Hamiltonian-Lincolnian wing or suffer from a dissociative identity disorder. Almost no one remains in the Jeffersonian-Calhounian wing. Except for those who suffer from a dissociative disorder, which seems to be the majority, most people today are statists and centralists; only a few are libertists and decentralists.)

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen

More political articles.

Reducing the Cost of Public Schools

 Reducing the Cost of Public Schools

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: Presented below is a letter-to-the-editor that appeared in a local newspaper.]

Mr. Cunard wonders about the new Republican county commissioner adequately funding education.

The Republican commissioners can adequately fund education by following the Democratic leadership in Raleigh — and save money. With his actions and words, Governor Cooper has told us that in-class teaching and learning are unnecessary; students can learn just as well at home.

Consequently, the Republican commissioners need only appropriate funds necessary for in-home learning. They will save a great deal of money by not funding busing since buses are no longer needed to take students to and from school buildings. Also, they can close most of the school buildings. Only a few buildings are needed for teachers who prefer not to give their lessons from their homes. Closing school buildings reduces maintenance costs. Moreover, administration costs are significantly reduced since fewer administrators and their staff will be needed.

The excess buildings, the commissioners can sell and use the money to upgrade the internet service in areas with poor internet service. 

Following Governor Cooper’s lead, the Republican commissioners should have no problem adequately funding education. They can even reduce the school budget and still adequately fund education.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

States’ Right and Society

States’ Right and Society

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are States’ right and society. In this article, “state” is used in two different senses. In the first two sections on States’ rights, “state” refers to a territory and its body politic. In the section on society, “state” refers to an abstract, suprapersonal entity that is above all and is in all and exercises the supreme power.

States’ Rights
States’ rights mean that each State retains all political sovereignty individually and independently of all other States. Consequently, under the United States Constitution, each State retains for itself all political powers except the few powers delegated to their agent, the general government (also called the federal government and the US government) by the Constitution and the powers that they denied themselves by the Constitution. Moreover, the Constitution is merely a compact or treaty among equal sovereigns.

In Lane County vs. Oregon, the US Supreme Court declared in 1868:

The people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence. The States disunited might continue to exist. Without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.

Unfortunately, Lincoln and his war and the resulting fourteenth amendment destroyed the original constitution and subverted States into mere administrative provinces.

The Tenth Amendment
The tenth amendment is the States’ rights amendment. It affirms that each State and the people thereof have all sovereign powers not explicitly and particularly delegated to the US government by the Constitution or that it does not specifically deny the States. It reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

In “Conservatism and the South,” The Lasting South (1957, page 200), James Kilpatrick explains the tenth amendment as follows:

This amendment consists of a single sentence, only twenty-eight words long; it is in no way obscure. The powers (not rights, as in the Ninth Amendment, but powers) not delegated to the United States (the verb is delegated, not "surrendered," or "granted," or "vested in," but merely delegated) by the Constitution (not by inference, or by any notions of inherent powers, but by the Constitution alone), nor prohibited by it to the States (prohibited by the Constitution, that is, by its specific limitations, and not by mandate of any court or Congress or executive, but only by the Constitution itself), are reserved to the States respectively (not to the States jointly, but to the States individually and respectively), or to the people (because there may be some powers the people will not wish to entrust even to their States).

Chodorov on States’ Rights
In One Is Crowd: Reflections of an Individualist (New York: The Devin-Adair Company,  1952, page 158), Frank Chodorov gives a good description of States’ rights. About States’ rights he writes:

[States' rights] proceed from a philosophical axiom, that the individual is the only reality. He alone exists. Without him there cannot be a society, and without society there is no need of government. Society, in fact, is nothing but a convenient abstraction, a word describing an agglomeration of individuals cooperating for their mutual advantage. The character of society is but a composite of the characters of its components; it has no other. In short, society is nothing of itself.

A “society” is a convenient abstraction that describes “an aggregate of individual cooperating for their mutual advantage” (p. 158).

Society
In Rise and Fall of Society (New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1959, page 29), Frank Chodorov gives this definition of society: “Society is a collective concept and nothing else; it is a convenience for designating a number of people. . . . Society is different from these other collective nouns [family, crowd, gang, etc.] in that it conveys the idea of a purpose or point of contact in which each individual, while retaining his identity and pursuing his private concerns, has an interest. . . . Society . . .  embraces a host of people following all sorts of vocations and avocations, pursuing a variety of goals, each in his own way, and yet held together by a purpose which is in each of them.”

Thus, individuals come together to form a society to advance their mutual interest and to further their purposes and aspirations. To protect the lives, property, and liberties of the people forming a society, the people instituted a government. Unfortunately, governments degenerate into states, which proceeds to deprive the people of their property and liberty and at times their lives. (See “The Difference Between Government and State” by Thomas Allen.)

In other words, a state cannot exist without a government. A government cannot exist without a society, and a society cannot exist without individuals. None of these abstractions — society, government, and state — have a life independent of the individuals comprising them. None are greater than the sum of its parts. They are merely metaphysical persons with no life of their own. They are not suprapersonal.

God created man, and man established societies, governments, and states. None of these institutions can exist independently of man — just as man cannot exist independently of God. Philosophers, political scientists, economists, and others who treat society, government, and state as entities that are independent of or superior to the individuals comprising them deceive themselves. Moreover, they err when they give society, government, and state characteristics of an individual. Giving them such attributes led to the horrors of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Mao’s China.

In closing, an additional explanation of state and society is needed. The concept of the relationship between society and state has changed over time. In times past, the state was an entity that was completely outside society and existed independent of it. People had to reckon with this entity called a state and either feared it or admired it. They saw the state as advancing their agenda or taking their property and liberty. However, they never thought of the state as an integral part of society: It was apart from and above society.

Now, people conceive the State and society such that they are indistinguishable, either conceptually or institutionally. That is, the state is society and the social order has become an appendage of the state. Thus, society, i.e., the people, is dependent on the state as represented by the government for its health, education, communications, transportation, charity, and just about everything else. The people look to the state, the government, to solve their problems; consequently, the people are no longer self-reliant and have enslaved themselves to those who control the state. As a result, the state has become the society. Additionally, since people look to the state to save and deliver them instead of God and themselves, they have made an idol out of the state — therefore, they are idolaters.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Lincoln on the Negro Race

Lincoln on the Negro Race

Thomas Allen

Below are some quotations where Abraham Lincoln expressed his opinion of the Negro, Black, race. If the reader is a worshiper of Father Abraham, the Great Emancipator, he may not want to go any further because his sensibility may be offended.
In the fourth debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln said:

Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from me an answer to the question whether I am in favor of negro citizenship. So far as I know, the Judge never asked me the question before. He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship.

From the same speech, Lincoln said:

While I was at the hotel to-day an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,  — That I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Also, in this debate, Lincoln said, “I give him (Douglas) the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.”
As can be seen from the above, Lincoln opposed giving the Negro citizenship and the right to vote and hold public office. Moreover, he objected to making the Negro the White man’s equal and opposed interracial marriages.
In the fifth debate with Douglas at Galesburg, Illinois, on October 7, 1858, Lincoln said:

I have all the while maintained, that in so far as it should be insisted that there was an equality between the White and black races that should produce a perfect social and political equality, it is an impossibility.

Further in the same speech reiterating his position on Negro equality that he had made in the fourth debate, Lincoln said, “In which extract I expressly declared that my own feelings would not admit a social and political equality between the white and black races.”
Later in the same speech, Lincoln declared:

Now gentlemen, I don’t want to read at any great length, but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery or the black race, and this is the whole of it; and anything that argues me into his (Douglas’s) idea of perfect social and political equality with the negroes is but a specious and fantastical arrangement of words by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse.

Further on in the same speech, Lincoln said:

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which. in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together on the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I as well as Judge Douglas am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.

Later in the same speech, Lincoln remarks:

We have due regard to the actual presence of it (slavery) amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and all the constitutional obligations thrown about it.

During the fifth debate, Lincoln states again his belief in the inequality of the races. Blacks are inferior to Whites.
In the seventh and last debate with Douglas at Alton, Illinois, on October 15, 1858, Lincoln said:

I never have complained especially of the Dred Scott decision because it held that the negro could not be a citizen, and the Judge (Douglas) is always wrong when he says I ever did so complain of it. I have the speech here, and I will thank him or any of his friends to show where I said that a negro should be a citizen, and complained especially of the Dred Scott decision because it declared he could not be one. I have done no such thing, and Judge Douglas’ persistently insisting that I have done so, has strongly impressed me with the belief of a pre-determination on his part to misrepresent me. He could not get his foundation for insisting that I was in favor of this negro equality anywhere else as well as he could by assuming that untrue proposition.

In the same speech, Lincoln said. “I wish every slave in the United States was in the country of his ancestors.”
Later in the same speech, Lincoln stated:

What I insist upon is, that the new Territories shall be kept free from it (slavery) while in the Territorial condition. Judge Douglas assumes that we have no interest in them — that we have no right whatever to interfere. I think we have some interest. I think as white men we have. Do we not wish for an outlet for our surplus population, if I may so express myself?

Further, in that debate, Lincoln commented:

Now irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home — may find some spot where they can better their condition — where they can settle upon new soil and better their condition in life. I am in favor of this not merely, (I must say it here as I have elsewhere,) for our own people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over in which Hans and Baptiste and Patrick, and all other men from all the world, may find new homes and better their condition in life.

In the same debate, Lincoln said:

So, too, when he [Douglass] assumes that I am in favor of introducing a perfect social and political equality between the white and black races. These are false issues, upon which Judge Douglas has tried to force the controversy. There is no foundation in truth for the charge that I maintain either of these propositions.

As this debate shows, Lincoln agreed with the Dred Scott decision that Negroes were not citizens. He restated his opposition to Negro equality with Whites. Moreover, he expressed his desire to repatriate Blacks back to Africa. Also, he wanted to keep Blacks out of the territories and make the territories homelands for Whites only.
In a private letter written October 18, 1858, Lincoln writes:

But it does not follow that social and political equality between whites and blacks, must be incorporated, because slavery must not. The declaration (of Independence) does not so require.

      Thus, Lincoln states that freeing the slaves did not mean or require that Blacks be made equal to Whites. The equality phrase in the Declaration of Independence did not require such equality.
In a speech at Carlinville, Illinois on August 31, 1858, the newspaper reported Lincoln as saying:

He (Lincoln) said the question is often asked, why this fuss about niggers? . . . Sustain these men and negro equality will be abundant, as every white laborer will have occasion to regret when he is elbowed from his plow or his anvil by slave niggers.

Not only did Lincoln use the forbidden “N” word, he also expressed his opposition to making the Negro the White man’s equal.
In a private letter written January 29, 1859, Lincoln commented on a speech of one of his supporters who objected to the Oregon constitution because it excluded free Negroes: “His objection to the Oregon Constitution because it excludes free negroes, is the only thing I wish he had omitted.” Thus, Lincoln favored Oregon’s exclusion of free Negroes.
In a speech at Dayton, Ohio, on September 17, 1859 Lincoln said, as reported in the newspaper:

The free white men had a right to claim that the new territories into which they and their children might go to seek a livelihood should be preserved free and clear from the incumbrance of slavery, and that no laboring white man should be placed in a position where, by the introduction of slavery into the territories, he would be compelled to toil by the side of a slave. . . .
If there was a necessary conflict between the white man and the negro, I should be for the white man as much as Judge Douglas. . . .
That you made it a Free State, not with the embarrassment upon you of already having among you many slaves, which if they had been here, and you had sought to make a Free State, you would not know what to do with. If they had been among you, embarrassing difficulties, most probably, would have induced you to tolerate a slave constitution instead of a free one, as indeed these very difficulties have constrained every people on this continent who have adopted slavery. . . .
The people of these United States are the rightful masters of both congresses and courts not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert that constitution. . . .

In this speech, Lincoln declares that the territories belong to Whites free from slavery, which meant free from Blacks. Moreover, slavery may be the best means of control Blacks in a White society.

In a speech at Leavenworth, Kansas, December 3, 1859, Lincoln declares:

You would not know what to do with the slaves after you have made them free. You would not wish to keep them as underlings; nor yet to elevate them to social and political equality. You could not send them away. The slave States would not let you send them there and the free States would not let you send them there.

In this speech, Lincoln comments on the problem of freeing the slaves. No one really wanted the freed Negroes. The jest of his comments were that to oppose slavery did not mean that one was a negrophile and wanted make him the White man’s equal.
In a speech at the Cooper Institute, New York City, on February 27, 1860, Lincoln quoted:

In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, “It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and in their place be, pari passu, filled up by free white Laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up."

In a speech at Hartford, Connecticut on March 5, 1860, Lincoln said:

As the learned Judge of a certain Court is said to have decided – “When a ship is wrecked at sea, and two men seize upon one plank which is capable of sustaining but one of them, either of them can rightfully push the other off."

Thus, Whites could morally deport Blacks so that the White race would survive.
In a speech at New Haven, Connecticut on March 6, 1860, Lincoln remarked:

We think that respect for ourselves, a regard for future generations and for the God that made us, require that we put down this wrong where our votes will properly reach it. We think that species of labor an injury to free white men.

Black labor injures White labor.
In a letter to the Secretary of the Navy, Gideon Welles, on March 16, 1861, Lincoln explained that he had discharged a servant because of a race: “The difference of color between him [a Negro] and the other servants is the cause of our separation.”
In an official letter to the Secretary of the Interior, Caleb Smith, on October 23, 1861, Lincoln wrote:

It is therefore referred to you with authority to act, and you are hereby authorized to carry the contract into effect, should the result of your examination be satisfactory and establish that it will prove of sufficient value to the government. The War, Navy, Post Office and Interior Departments may all derive benefits from this proposed contract. The latter under the law of 3d March 1819 requires heavy appropriations for the transport and support of captured Africans. It is possible that a modification of that law may make it a measure of great economy to direct there negroes to some of the unoccupied lands of Central America, and the present contract, may if well considered and arranged, be the introduction to this, and an equally desirable measure to secure the removal of negroes from this country. I therefore recommend that all these points be considered and that the contract be so drawn as to secure such advantages as may in your judgement seem desirable for the United States to hold.

Thus, Lincoln as President of the United States expressed his desire to deport Blacks and directed members of his cabinet to pursue that goal.
In a speech in Springfield, Illinois June 26, 1857, Lincoln said, “I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation.” Continuing in the same speech, he said:

Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization; and no political party, as such, is now doing anything directly for colonization. Party operations at present only favor or retard colonization incidentally. The enterprise is a difficult one; but “When there is a will there is a way;” and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from two elements of moral sense and self interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.

Again, Lincoln express his desire to deport the Blacks. Not only is such deportation necessary to protect White labor, it is also necessary to prevent amalgamation of the races.
In a speech at Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854 Lincoln remarked, “In the course of his reply, Senator Douglas remarked, in substance, that he had always considered this government was made for white people and not for negroes. Why, in point of fact, I think so too.” Thus, the US Constitution and the government that it established was for Whites and not for Blacks.
In a speech at Chicago, Illinois July 10, 1858, Lincoln said:

I protest, now and forever, against that counterfeit logic which presumes that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave, I do necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I need not have her for either, But as God made us separate, we can leave one another alone and do one another much good thereby. There are white men enough to marry all the white women, and enough black men to marry all the black women and in God's name let them be so married.

God made the races separate; therefore, they should leave each other alone and not intermarry.
In a speech at Springfield, Illinois, on July 17, 1858, Lincoln remarked, “What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races.”
In his Annual Message to Congress on December 3, 1861,  President Lincoln said:

To carry out the plan of colonization may involve the acquiring of territory, and also the appropriation of money beyond that to be expended in the territorial acquisition. Having practiced the acquisition of territory for nearly sixty years, the question of constitutional power to do so is no longer an open one with us. The power was questioned at first by Mr. Jefferson, who, however, in the purchase of Louisiana, yielded his scruples on the plea of great expediency. If it be said that the only legitimate object of acquiring territory is to furnish homes for white men, this measure effects that object; for the emigration of colored men leaves additional room for white men remaining or coming here. . . .
On this whole proposition — including the appropriation of money with the acquisition of territory, does not expediency amount to absolute necessity — that, without which the government itself cannot be perpetuated?

In his Annual Message to Congress, Lincoln promoted his plan to deport Blacks and asked for appropriations to carry out the plan. Also, he expected the vacancies left by the deported Negroes would be filled by European, White, immigrants. Moreover, deportation of the Negro was necessary for the government to perpetuate itself.
In his Annual Message to Congress on December 1, 1862, President Lincoln said:

With deportation, even to a limited extent, enhanced wages to white labor is mathematically certain. Labor is like any other commodity in the market — increase the demand for it, and you increase the price of it. Reduce the supply of black labor, by colonizing the black laborer out of the country, and, by precisely so much, you increase the demand for, and wages of, white labor.

Lincoln promotes the deportation of Blacks as a means to raise the wages of White workers.
As the words of Lincoln show, not only did he not believe in racial equality, he did not believe that the Negro should be a citizen. Moreover, he strongly opposed miscegenation and wanted to deport all the Blacks. If Lincoln’s policies on racial issues had been carried out and maintained, the country would have no racial problems today: Monoracial countries have no racial problems. Lincoln was a terrible president, but he had more wisdom about race relations than most people today have and far more than any of his admirers today have.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issue articles.

Review of “‘Systemic Racism’ Theory is the New Political Tribalism”

Review of “‘Systemic Racism’ Theory is the New Political Tribalism”

Thomas Allen

The following is a review of “‘Systemic Racism’ Theory is the New Political Tribalism” (July 21, 2020) by Richard M. Ebeling of the American Institute for Economic Research. He is a Jew, a libertarian, a Dixiephobe, and a racial nihilist who adheres to the new morality. Like nearly all libertarians and most Yankees, he is a proponent of the atomistic autonomous individual devoid of any relationship with race, ethnicity (nation), or country. They are deplorable collectives.  In his article, he condemns systemic racism, which is used to cover all the world’s evil in a collective matter. Although he would staunchly deny it, Ebeling is a racist on multiple accounts (see “Are You a Racist?”).

Ebeling discusses what he considers progress out of American racist past. When the veneer is removed, what is considered progress is the replacement of White supremacy with Black supremacy. Progress is Whites hating their race or at least disliking it enough to consider it not worthy of preservation.

Next, Ebeling discusses how attitudes have changed for the better. For him, the growing acceptance of interracial marriages is a great leap forward. Why he hates the American Negro so much that he condones breeding him out of existence, he does not explain.

Perhaps, his ignorance or self-denial is so great that he does not recognize this genocide. However, Maurice Lindsay, a Negro and a student of religion and Black history and development does realize this genocide. He knows that interracial marriages will genocide the American Negro. Moreover, he is convinced that miscegenation is a plot by Whites like Ebeling to rid the country and then the world of Blacks. Thus, this Black man has a much greater understanding of the consequences of miscegenation than does Ebeling and, therefore, shows more intelligence than Ebeling. While Whites like Ebeling condemn White supremacy and the notion that Blacks are naturally inferior to Whites, they support the notion, most likely subconsciously, that Blacks need a strong infusion of White genes to raise them. By his approval of miscegenation and the growing number of mongrels, Ebeling reveals his hatred of the races and, by that, his hatred of humanity.

Like most libertarians, Ebeling believes that the government is the root of all evil. He blames the government for most racial differences in performance and outcome. That is, governmental policies are the cause of Blacks lagging behind Whites by most economic and social measures. He is convinced that such differences are definitely not genetic.

Governmental policies and even corporate policies discriminate against Whites, especially White males, by hiring and promoting less qualified Blacks over more qualified Whites. Many universities have procedures in place to admit less qualified Blacks over more qualified Whites. Whatever is holding Blacks back, it is not governmental policies because they are skewed heavily in favor of Blacks and against Whites.

Ebeling blames minimum wage laws as the primary cause of unemployment of young Blacks. Minimum wage laws are a significant contribution to Black unemployment. Attitude, character, temperament, and intelligence, which genetics highly influences, are other important contributors that he does not discuss — probably because he believes that genetics have little or no influence on these attributes. (Initially, the primary purpose of minimum wage laws was to price Blacks out of the Northern labor markets and keep them in their place, i.e., to keep them in the South.)

According to Ebeling, the difference between the unemployment rate of young Blacks and young Whites results from public schools. Public schools often pass Blacks to the next grade when they lack the skills to enter the next grade. (For fear of being accused of being a “racist” and, thus, losing their jobs, teachers have a strong incentive to pass unqualified Blacks to the next grade.) Thus, they graduate without the skills to qualify for starting employment. (However, quotas and affirmative action are designed to overcome this problem by requiring hiring less qualified Blacks over more qualified Whites. Ebeling fails to discuss quotas and affirmative action, which are highly invasive actions of the government.) Whatever the cause of the lower education of Blacks is, Ebeling seems convinced that it has nothing to do with Blacks having a lower IQ on average than Whites. He blames the difference on what is being taught and how it is being taught — although Whites are taught the same material in the same way.

Two laws that Ebeling ignores are the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. He should have focused his arguments against these two laws, the court rulings that have interpreted and misinterpreted them, the governmental agencies that enforced them, and the unethical Supreme Court ruling in the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, which was based on sociology instead of the Constitution and law. They are the cause of the problems about which he complains. Perhaps, he overlooks them because these two civil rights acts ended White supremacy, privilege, and power, with which he agrees. However, they replaced White supremacy, privilege, and power with Black supremacy, privilege, and power, with which he disagrees.

(Under Jim Crow, the segregationist had to accept equality before the law as the operative de jure principle. Under civil rights, Whites, especially White males, can be legally discriminated against with no recourse to the courts. In the civil rights era, Black privilege, i.e., Blacks have privileges denied to Whites, has replaced the concept of “all citizens are equal before the law.”)

Next, Ebeling blames the social environment in which many Blacks are reared as the cause of Blacks lagging economically. Many Blacks fail to emphasize education and making sacrifices in the present for benefits in the future. Again, he does not identify genetics as a possible cause of such an environment. (Since race precedes environment, race makes the environment.)

Ebeling writes that he was taught that the world did not owe him a living and that he needed to be a responsible individual. (He fails to mention the welfare state that has taught a disproportional number of Black women that they can make a good living merely by producing children — which is a highly rational act. Most people prefer being paid not to work to being paid about the same or less to work. [This is more proof of Black supremacy and privilege: Blacks, who are net tax recipients, have enslaved Whites, who are net taxpayers, to support them.])

Ebeling believes that education, planning for the future, and self-control are universal truths that apply to all human beings regardless of race. (Proponents of systemic racism would argue that these truths are the White man’s truths since a White man, Ebeling, declared them truths, and, therefore, they do not apply to Blacks.) He is correct in that people who follow these truths do better than people who do not.

Finally, he gets to the discussion of “systemic racism.” He defined systemic racism: “It is the claim that it does not matter what individual human beings think, believe, or try to do; they are all perpetrators or victims of racial injustices and oppressions due to the nature of the socio-economic and political system in which they live. In other words, white racism is embedded into society, and the implication is that it has always been so and will remain so unless and until the very structural design of the social order is radically transformed.”

Thus, the system is rotten, and most people do not realize that they are part of the system and are using it to benefit at the expense of others. (This is true although today it is opposite to what the proponents of systemic racism claim to be true. The proponents claim that the system benefits Whites at the expense of Blacks. On the contrary, Blacks benefit at the expense of Whites through affirmative action, quotas, preferments, and a host of other policies and by receiving more money from the government than they pay in taxes.)

According to the proponents of systemic racism, the differences in incomes between Whites and Blacks result from systemic racism. Moreover, the difference in the quality of schools results from systemic racism. (School integration and forced busing were designed to eliminate this difference. Thus, the difference results from the quality of the student, genetics, and not from the quality of the schools.) Systemic racism also causes differential treatment within the legal system. (Such as a Black criminal is less likely to be arrested for the same crime than is a White criminal and is more likely to be found not guilty by a jury even when obviously guilty than is a White criminal. However, proponents of systemic racism do not have these Black privileges in mind.)

Likewise, systemic racism is the cause of poorer quality food offered in local stores in Black neighborhoods. (If the food quality does differ could the cause be that the shopkeeper wants to risk losing less property when Blacks go on one of their periodic rampages of rioting, looting, and burning?)

Ebeling asks why the “poor, white trash” are not also victims of the system since they are often treated as badly, if not worse, than Blacks claim to be treated. After all, poor, white trash are in the lower income brackets, live in poor neighborhoods, and are ostracized from the better social networks. (The answer is obvious to a proponent of systemic racism: Poor, white trash are White.)

Proponents of systemic racism believe that success depends solely on being White. (Perhaps, their notion, at least in part, explains the rise in interracial marriages. Blacks believe that their children will advance socially and economically with an infusion of White genes. Albusphobic Whites who are also Negrophobes are willing to whiten the Negro race. Is not such sacrificial attitude evidence of racism?)

Ebeling adheres to the proposition of the “melting pot” philosophy, the amalgamation of all into one. He uses the classic example of European immigrants from various European countries. After a generation or two, the descendants of these European immigrants had mostly merged into American (White) society and culture.

Although these various ethnicities may have fought each other in Europe, they ceased doing so when they came to America. Why? Could it be that their similarities outweighed their differences? They were Whites coming to a White country where Negroes and Indians were like outcasts and only participated peripherally. Like White Americans, these White Europeans had the same basic religion (Christianity) and culture (Western Civilization). In this respect, they differed significantly from Blacks and Indians, both of whom were of a different race, a primitive culture, and a pagan-type religion.

Ebeling credits this merger on the lack of a legal foundation for group privileges and a lack of social prejudice. Moreover, the philosophy of individualism, personal freedom, and economic liberty was promoted. These are important reasons. However, he ignores racial, cultural, and religious similarities, which allowed the conditions that he cites to thrive.

Ebeling argues that slavery and Jim Crow needed the government to survive. He fails to note that the Jim Crow laws in the South were modeled after the Black labor codes in the North. As Booker T. Washington remarked, much of the segregation in the South, especially in the workplace, resulted from Northern workers who had migrated to the South. Moreover, even as the Northern Black codes faded away, Northerners still discriminated against Blacks as much as, and in some instances more than, Southerners until the government intervened to end such discrimination.

Ebeling condemns proponents of systemic racism for insisting that people have to think about themselves as part of a collective ethnic or racial group. In his arguments against them, he promotes amalgamating all ethnic and racial collectives of humanity — or at the other extreme, everyone becomes an atomistic, autonomous, isolated, independent individual.

Next, Ebeling compares systemic racism with Nazism. Both insist on identifying people by race. One’s race fixes one’s position and status in society. Then, he proceeds to condemn the eugenists, who claim that a person is his genes. Thus, he asserts that genetics are irrelevant. (Ignoring genetics is one of the main reasons that we have the racial problems that we have today.)

Further, he condemns the eugenists for promoting increasing the population of higher quality people and discouraging the growth of lower quality people. (Ebeling should be rejoicing. Dysgenics has supplanted eugenics. Now, lower quality people are encouraged to reproduce while the reproduction of higher quality people is discouraged.)

According to Ebeling, the new eugenists claim that people cannot help being racists. It is part of their social DNA. Only by bringing down the system can White racism end. (Presumably, this includes genociding Whites.) No common humanity or shared humanness exists — so claim the new eugenists. In contrast to the new eugenists, who believe that races think differently, Ebeling asserts that all races think the same way. (If Blacks think the same way as Whites do, then sub-Sahara Africa should have been at about the same level as Europe in culture, science, technology, etc. in the sixteenth century when Europeans began exploring sub-Sahara Africa. Likewise, the sixteenth-century American Indians should have been at about the same levels as the Europeans.)

Rightfully, Ebeling condemns people (Whites) who “verbally [and some physically]  grovel and beg forgiveness for the presumption, the hubris, the insensitivity, to think that they could ever know and feel what a black person has or ever can feel.” However, he condemns them for the wrong reason. He condemns them for declaring that “we live in racially different universes, with no common humanity, understanding, empathy or sympathy.” They deserve to be condemned for cowardice and for trying to placate people, both White and Black, who will never be satisfied. Even the complete extermination of Whites will not satisfy them. (With the extermination of the White race, Blacks will soon perish. They will no longer have a race to which to feel superior. More importantly, they will no longer have a race to plunder. Further, they will lose their protection from the Asian and Latin American Turanians.)

Correctly, Ebeling remarks that White guilt has lead to Whites giving their “privilege” to the other races by allowing the government to take wealth from Whites, who do not deserve it and should not have it, and give it to the other races. Thus, “social justice” depends on which race controls the government. (Currently, Blacks control the government although most of the figureheads are Whites.)

Ebeling concludes that if the ideology and policies of systemic racism, identity politics, and cancel culture prevails, America dies. Unfortunately, he believes that the United States are a propositional country and not a genetic country as the Constitution declares it to be. Its proposition is dedicated to the destruction of races and ethnicities and the replacement of them with the atomistic, autonomous individual, who will be a nondescript narcissist motley mongrel man.

Ebeling favors discrimination based on merit instead of race, ethnicity, or any other criteria. Yet, discrimination is discrimination. For the person discriminated against, the reason is of little importance. He still fails to get what he seeks. Since Ebeling rejects genetics, he must believe that sufficient education and training can overcome the discrimination of merit. Thus, anyone can become a multimillionaire athlete or a world-renowned musician with the proper training or a physician or engineer with the proper education. Therefore, everyone can become whatever he wants to be with the proper training and education. Failure to receive such education and training must result from racial discrimination — as the proponents of systematic racism would argue. Like Ebeling, they reject the notion that genetics has any connection with intelligence, talents, or abilities. Nevertheless, unlike Ebeling, they know that any system that relies solely or mostly on merit will leave most Blacks behind. Eventually, the differences between Blacks and Whites will be as great as it was during the Jim Crow era. Economically, Blacks will fare no better than they did under Jim Crow unless they genocide themselves with a large infusion of White and East Asian genes. To prevent the genocide of Blacks and to keep them from lagging economically, the proponents of systemic racism use the government to give Blacks special privileges and to suppress Whites. Apparently, Ebeling fails to recognize this because he refuses to recognize the importance of genetics.

The major flaw in Ebeling’s analysis of systemic racism is that he ignores the importance of genetics. To the extent that he touches on genetics, he condemns the notion that genetics determines or influences anything beyond some physical features that none can deny.

Libertarians like Ebeling are like good Marxists and communists. They believe that the environment makes the person; genetics are irrelevant. A person is born as a blank slate upon which someone writes the person’s personality, temperament, character, abilities, talents, and intelligence.

Because of racial nihilists like Ebeling, albusphobes will achieve their goal: the extermination of the White race. Then, systemic racism will be no more.

Appendix: A Libertarian Quandary 
When hiring and promoting, most corporations place more emphasis on race and sex than on merit and ability. Thus, many White males are often past over for a less qualified Black or woman. This action must confound libertarians since they believe that profit is the primary driving force of a company. How can the profit motive explain replacing a superior workforce with an inferior one? Such action results in less profit or even a loss. Such action also proves that if systemic racism exists, it is Black racism and not White racism. Libertarians cannot blame the government for causing these companies to behave this way because these companies control the government.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Meaning of “We the People”

Meaning of “We the People”

Thomas Allen

[Note: This article is a more in-depth discussion of “We the People” in the preamble of the US Constitution as presented in “Some Thoughts Related to the US Constitution” by Thomas Allen.]

The preamble of the US Constitution begins with “We the People of the United States.” In The War Between the States or Was Secession a Constitutional Right Previous to the War of 1861-65? (1915), Albert Bledsoe explains the meaning of this phrase (pages 51ff).

According to Abraham Lincoln, Justice Joseph Story, and Daniel Webster and through them most Northerners, this phrase means that “‘the whole people of the United States in the aggregate’” (p. 51) ratified the Constitution. According to John Taylor of Caroline, Judge Abel Upshur, and John Calhoun and through them most Southerners, this phrase means that the people of each State through a representative convention in their State ratified the Constitution. Thus, each State acting as an independent sovereign ratified the Constitution.

The Southern explanation is correct. Supporting the Southern explanation is the historical record. During the drafting of the Constitution, the preamble listed each State by name. Throughout the debate, the list of States remained in the draft preamble.

After the Constitution had been drafted, it was submitted to the committee on style. This committee substituted “We the People of the United States” for the list of the States. It made the change because no one knew how many States would ratify the Constitution.

Since the Convention approved the draft Constitution as revised by the committee on style without debate, no one conceived this revision replaced the sovereign States with one consolidated sovereign federal government.

Bledsoe remarks, “The Constitution neither declares that it was established by the people of the United States in the aggregate, nor by the people of the United States in the segregate” (p. 54). However, the history of its ratification shows that the people of each State, acting independently of the other States, ratified the Constitution. No State was bound to the Constitution without its own individual consent and ratification.

Early in the Convention, Gouverneur Morris, a proponent of a strong national government, proposed that the Constitution be ratified by the people of the United States in the aggregate as one nation. His proposal would “have made it a government emanating from the people of America in one General Convention assembled, and not from the States” (p. 55). Not only was his proposal rejected, but it did not even find a second. Consequently, the Convention rejected what became the Northern explanation of the Constitution and accepted what became the Southern explanation.

As a member of the committee on style, Morris replaced the list of States in the preamble with “We the People of the United States.” Did he trick all the members of the Convention into adopting his plan to replace thirteen bodies politic with one body politic? Later, he confused that as a member of the committee on style, he made changes in the Constitution to advance his agenda. However, he never confessed to replacing the list of States with “We the People of the United States” to advance his agenda of creating one sovereign body politic. Thus, he did not understand his own words as Story and Webster would later interpret them. With his change in wording, Morris did not intend to change the Constitution from a compact among States to one established by the people of America in the aggregate. About the Constitution, Morris said, “The Constitution was a compact, not between individuals, but between political societies, the people, not of America, but of the United States, each enjoying sovereign power and of course equal rights” (p. 57). Accordingly, Morris’ explanation of the Constitution supports the Southern explanation and not the Northern explanation.

More proof that the Southern explanation of the Constitution is correct and the Northern explanation is wrong is the method of ratification. “[T]he authors of the Constitution designed it to be ratified, as in fact[,] it was, by ‘the people of the United States,’ not as individuals, but as ‘political societies, each enjoying sovereign power, and of course equal rights.’ Or, in other words, without seeing that ‘the Constitution was a compact,’ not between individuals, ‘but between political societies,’ between sovereign States” (p. 57).

With the philosophy of “might makes right,” Lincoln and the Radical Republicans subverted the Constitution and changed it from a compact of sovereign States to a highly elastic constitution of the American people in the aggregate.  In other words, it became a constitution for an empire. They did this mostly through the unlawful and illegally ratified fourteenth amendment (subordinated the States and even the Constitution to the federal government by overriding the ninth and tenth amendments and Section 4 of Article 4 [v.i.]), and the sixteenth amendment (income taxes) and seventeenth amendment (direct election of senators). The Radical Republicans pushed through the fourteenth amendment, and their descendants, the Progressives, pushed through the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments. Consequently, today, the Northern explanation of “We the People of the United States” prevails, and the Southern explanation is lost in the memory hole of history. Thus, liberty dies.

Also, another important change resulting from the destruction of the original Constitution has been changing it from the Constitution for the United States as stated in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States as it is commonly called today. The phrase “Constitution for the United States” supports the Southern explanation of the Constitution while the phrase “Constitution of the United States” supports the Northern explanation.

Another important change has been referring to the United States in the singular (the United States is) instead of referring to them in the plural (the United States are). Before the Lincoln administration and the Radical Republicans, the United States were referred to in the plural as they are in Section 3 of Article III of the Constitution. Using the plural means that the United States are a union of several sovereign bodies politic. With the singular, the meaning is one consolidated body politic.

Moreover, when Lincoln and the Radical Republicans destroyed the sovereignty of the States, they subverted Section 4, Article IV of the Constitution. This Section reads, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” That is, the federal government is supposed to guarantee each State its sovereignty by guaranteeing each of them a republic form of government. Instead, the government that Lincoln and the Radical Republicans controlled destroyed the sovereignty of the States. (A sovereign body politic is necessary for a republican form of government.)

Worst of all, Lincoln, the Republicans, and the Progressives changed the Constitution from limiting the power of the federal government to limiting the powers of the States. Now, the federal government has unlimited powers while the States have only the powers that the federal government allows them. Originally, the States had unlimited powers, except those they denied themselves in Article 1, Section 10, while the federal government had only those powers that the Constitution expressly granted.

Lincoln's War changed the Constitution. States were sovereign before Lincoln’s War to destroy the Constitution. After Lincoln’s War, the federal government usurped the sovereignty of the States — especially with the fourteenth, sixteenth, and seventh amendments. Before Lincoln’s war, the United States were a union of sovereign States, and the Constitution was a compact between those States. After Lincoln’s War, the United States became a nation, and the Constitution became an agreement of the people as a whole. The skeleton of the original Constitution remained the same, but Lincoln and the Radical Republicans and later the Progressives change the muscle and skin by usurping the sovereignty of the States. They change the political structure of the country from one where all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government or denied the States belonged to the States to one were all power belongs to the federal government and the States have only those powers that the federal government allows them.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.