John Birch Society and Segregation

John Birch Society and Segregation

Thomas Allen

In the April 23, 2020, online New American, Alex Newman writes an article, “NeverTrumper Lies About Birch Society & Schlafly in ‘Daily Beast.’” In this article, he refutes what Ronald Radosh wrote about Phyllis Schlafly in “Phyllis Schlafly, ‘Mrs. America,’ Was a Secret Member of the John Birch Society,” the Daily Beast,  April 20, 2020.  Newman writes that Radosh is “a former Communist Party USA operative turned NeverTrump neoconservative Buckleyite.”

The discussion that follows is about what Newman writes about the John Birch Society (JBS) and its founder Robert Welch and their support of integration instead of what he writes about Schlafly. Most of what Newman writes in his article focuses on the JBS and Welch’s opposition to racial segregation and support of racial integration.

On racial issues, Welch and the JBS were at the forefront of political correctness. While attacking communism and communists, they supported the communist organized and led desegregation-integration movement.

Newman ardently objects to Radosh’s characterization of the JBS as a “far-right group infamous for its support of segregation.” On the contrary, the JBS was and still is dedicated to integration and, apparently, everything that has grown out of integration, such as, Black privileges and the movement to genocide the White race — although, most likely, Newman would argue otherwise.

Noting that the JBS has never supported segregation, Newman lists several notable Black activists who were members of the JBS: George Schuyler, Manning Johnson, and Julia Brown. Continuing, he adds that members of the JBS “helped lead the fight against racism, racial collectivism, government-enforced segregation, discrimination, and so on.” Except for racial collectivism, progressives, liberals, and communists also fought against these things.

Although it may have opposed governmental-enforced integration, the JBS has never been as vigorous in opposing government-enforced integration as it was in opposing government-enforced segregation. Moreover, it seems to have accepted segregation by custom (the Northern approach) while opposing government-enforced segregation (the Southern approach). Thus, the JBS is a right-wing Puritan Yankee organization out to reconstruct Southerners into its own image. (Most Southerners never wanted to force segregation in the North. However, most Northerners wanted to force integration in the South, but not in the North.)

Although Welch was a Southerner, he was a scalawag par excellence. Obviously, he believed that the Radical Republicans failed to remake the Southerner into the image of the Puritan Yankee.  Consequently, he sought to finish their work. While he failed to replace segregation with integration, the communists succeeded.

Newman remarks that National Review and its founder, William Buckley,  supported segregation into the 1960s. He condemns Buckley for claiming that Whites were more advance than Blacks and that Southerners should suppress voting by Blacks to preserve civilization. Apparently, Newman believes that the civilization of post-civil-rights America, with its increased sexual promiscuity, divorces, acceptance of homosexual marriages, abortions, crimes by Blacks, lost liberties, socialism, police state, drug abuse, power of the Establishment, etc., is superior the civilization to pre-civil-rights America.

Even as late as the mid-1960s, Buckley was fighting a rearguard action to save the White race and Western Civilization, while the JBS and Welch were rejoicing covertly their demise —at least that has been the result of their war against racial separation. (The communists knew this destructive result of integration, which is why they fought for it.) Later, Buckley repented his evil ways and adopted the politically correct racial view that Whites, especially Southerners, are the vilest creatures in the Universe — Welch would have been proud of him.

Next, Newman writes that Welch wrote an article, “A Letter to the South,” in which he argues against segregation in the South. In that article, Welch argues “that segregation was on its way out, that this demise was a good thing, and that the communist exploitation of the “civil rights” cause had set back this progress by a generation.” Welch was wrong. Within a decade after this article, the communist lead civil rights movement had won; integration had replaced segregation in the South. Only mop-up operations against the few remaining renegades and expansion into the North remained. Because of this victory for which Welch longed, the White race is on its way to extinction —and the American Black may not be far behind.

Although Welch condemned communist racial agitators for stirring up racial hatred and for impeding integration, they did achieve victory quickly and completely. For this victory, Welch should have been glad. Was Welch’s hostility toward the communists coming from his lust for glory, i.e., he wanted the credit for ending segregation in the South? Does this explain the hostility of the JBS toward communists?

On racial issues, Welch was an extremely progressive and indefatigable promoter of racial equality, which is among the most detrimental hoaxes that the Establishment, the ruling elite, has ever advanced. (For the unbiased, science has proven that the races are not equal. They differ in physical abilities, intelligence, temperament and many other aspects. As history has shown, races differ in their abilities to develop civilizations, technologies, and many other things.)

Being racial egalitarians, Welch and his fellow Birchers are a step away from being full-fledged socialist and communists. They believe that the several races of men are identical in attributes. Except for a few external physical features, which no one but a liar can deny, the races are identical and, therefore, equal. (Nevertheless, the races of man differ in blood and bone, which are not readily visible.) If the attributes of the races are identical and equal, then the attributes of each individual comprising the races must be identical and equal. From this egalitarian notion, socialists, especially communists, derive the logical conclusion that each individual should, therefore, be equal in wealth. However, Birchers have not come to this logical conclusion of racial equality. Consequently, they are not as logical in their reasoning as are socialists and communists. Is because the egalitarianism of the communists is more consistent and logical than that of the Birchers a reason that Birchers despise communism?

In the 1950s, most Southerners, both liberals and conservatives, and many Northerners opposed race-mixing. Only communists and their kindred and Birchers favored race-mixing, which leads to miscegenation, which is genocide — the destruction of the races. Thus, integration is genocide.

Apparently, Welsh and the Birchers who followed him in advocating integration did not care about the Black man. If they did, they would not have pushed policies that would eventually lead to his death.

Welch “openly promoted and supported an end to segregation” because ending segregation would result in “exposing evildoers and reduce government.” One must wonder what drugs Welch was taking to believe this nonsense. The death of segregation birthed an explosion in the size of the government. (More government is needed to enforce integration than segregation because integration is unnatural.)  Moreover, what vile evildoer has been exposed and, if exposed, has suffered any penalty?

Much of the hostility of the JBS and Welch toward communists and communism seems to come from the civil rights movement. While the JBS failed to replace segregation with integration, the communists succeeded. Does much of the JBS hatred of communists come from the communists succeeding where the JBS failed?

Welch is not the only leader of the JBS to support genocide via race-mixing. JBS President Emeritus John McManus also promotes genocide via race-mixing. (Also, see “A Letter: Miscegenation” by Thomas Allen.) Unlike most Blacks and other nonwhites, Welch and his fellow Birchers are racial nihilists who follow the new morality.

NOTE:
According to Eustace Mullins (Murder by Injection: The Story of the Medical Conspiracy Against America, 1988, page 200), the Rockefellers sponsored the JBS. Nelson Rockefeller bought the Welch Candy Company from Robert Welch, a 32nd degree Freemason, for a handsome price. For the principal officers of the JBS, Welch chose from his acquaintances at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). (Years later, the JBS would attack the CFR as a more dangerous group than the Communist party. Because of the support that the CFR gave the Soviet Union through its control of the US government, multinational corporations, and international financiers, the Soviet Union lived decades longer than it would have lasted without such aid.) As Buckley, who was a CIA operative (and a member of the CFR and Skull and Bones), and his National Review were established to control conservatives and the Right, so Welch and the JBS seemed to have been established for the same purpose. When the JBS credibility began to fade, Buckley gave the JBS free publicity by attacking it in his magazine.

According to Mark Hines (“A Good Reason to Leave the John Birch Society: Masonic Roots of Mormonism,” The Federal Observer, Vol. 06, No. 343, Dec. 10, 2006, http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=8610, accessed Dec. 10, 2006), the JBS “is a front organization set up to attract and control unsuspecting Patriots that wish to band together to make a difference in our Country.” He criticizes the JBS for collecting a great deal of money and expending much time and energy without ever accomplishing anything. Hines discovered that Mormons controlled the JBS. The Mormons had a different, even the opposite, agenda than the common members. Mormons pushed the Freemasonry agenda of globalism, which the common Bircher vehemently opposed.

In Kangaroo Court Versus the John Birch Society (“The Belmont Brotherhood,” http://watch.pair.com/belmont. May 5, 2006.), A.J. MacDonald discusses some founders and council members of the JBS and their connection with the Establishment, Insiders, Ruling Elite, Globalists, or whatever one wants to call them. Moreover, Welch’s view of Christianity is similar to that of an ultra-liberal “Christian” — far more humanistic, communistic, Masonic, and Illuministic than Christian. (Perhaps, this explains why Welch promoted policies that would lead to the genocide of the races that God created.) About Welch, Nicholas J. Bove, Jr. writes, “Welch has provided the most valuable service of all time to the Conspiracy. He founded an organization to neutralize millions of Americans from discovering what the true power behind the Illuminati really was.” (“The Belmont Brotherhood,” op. cit.)

According to Dr. Henry Makow, before founding the JBS, Welch had been a member of the Communist (Trotskyite) front League of Industrial Democracy ("The Zionist Billionaires Who Control Politics," Feb. 23, 2011, http://www.henrymakow.com/koch.html, accessed Feb. 24, 2011).

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Balaam and the Doctrine of Balaam

Balaam and the Doctrine of Balaam

Thomas Allen

Balaam (d.c. 1459–1452 B.C.), son of Beor, lived in Pethor. He was an enchanter, a soothsayer, whom the Spirit of Yahweh touched. Chapters 22 through 24 of Numbers presents the story of Balaam.

The Story
Balak, King of Moab, summoned Balaam, who had come under the power of Yahweh, to come and curse the Israelites with his demonic magical powers. Balak promised to reward Balaam, if he cursed the Israelites. The Israelites had just defeated the Amorites, and Balak feared them.

Initially, Balaam told Balak that Yahweh had forbidden him to comply with Balak’s request. Again, Balak implored Balaam to come and curse the Israelites. This time God allowed him to go, but he had to deliver only the message that God gave him. Balaam went. However, instead of cursing the Israelites as Balak wanted, Balaam blessed them — foreshadowing their strength, the beauty and fruitfulness of their land, and their victories. Three times Balak sought Balaam’s curse; three times Balaam blessed the Israelites. Further, he foretold that Moab, Edom, Amalak, and Kail would become part of the Israelite empire. Later the Israelites slew Balaam in a battle with the Midianites (Numbers 31:8).

Needless to say, the blessings did not please Balak. He became angry with Balaam, ordered him to leave, and gave him no payment.

Later, Balaam went to the Midianites and delivered them a plan to defeat the Israelites with the fornication of miscegenation. Midianite women, who were Melanochroi or possibly Melanochroi-Aryan hybrids, seduced the Aryan Israelite men and corrupted them. (Corruption through miscegenation and interracial mating became known as the “Doctrine of Balaam.”) As a result of the sin of interracial mating, which led to idolatry, God delivered a heavy judgment on the Israelites.

Besides the “Doctrine of Balaam,” Balaam is also known for the “Way of Balaam” and the “Error of Balaam. “Balaam is a type of mercenary prophet, ambitious to exploit his gift financially” (Unger, p. 133) — hence, the Way of Balaam in 2 Peter 2:15. Also, Balaam blunders “in reasoning that God of necessity must curse the nation Israel because of its sins” (Unger, p. 133) — hence, the Error of Balaam in Jude 11. Fausset identifies the Error of Balaam as running greedily for a reward. Kennedy argues that the Way of Balaam and the Error of Balaam are synonymous with the Doctrine of Balaam, i.e., teaching fornication via interracial mating.

Apparent Contradiction

Numbers Chapter 22 – 20 And God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men are come to call thee, rise up, go with them; but only the word which I speak unto thee, that shalt thou do. 21 And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab. 22 And God’s anger was kindled because he went; and the angel of Jehovah placed himself in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him.

In verse 20, God tells Balaam to go with the men. In verse 22, God is angry with Balaam for going with the men as God had told him to do. Why?

Fausset opines that Balaam did not wait for the men to come and call. He writes “Certainly ‘God’s anger was kindled because he went’; for his going was in spite of the former plain prohibition; and the second voice was a permission giving him up in judicial anger to his own perversity (comp. 1 Kings xxii. 15), a permission too resting on the condition, which B[alaam] did not wait for, ‘if the men come to call thee’” (Fausset, p. 71, col. 3).

Clarke agrees with Fausset. In his eagerness, Balaam went to meet the messengers of Balak instead of waiting for them to come to him as God had directed. Because Balaam went without the messengers calling him, God became angry with him.

Smick opines that God became angry with Balaam because of his motive. Balaam went to receive the reward that Balak had promised instead of going to declare Yahweh’s message.

Longacre and Wade claim that the apparent contradiction occurs because verses 20 and 22 come from different sources. Verses 20 and 21 are from the Northern Israel narrative (E), which refers to the Deity as Elohim (God). Verse 22 comes from the Judahite narrative (J), which refers to the Deity as Yahweh (Jehovah or Lord in most English translations).

The Doctrine of Balaam

Revelation 2:14: But I have a few things against thee [the church of Pergamum], because thou hast there some that hold the teaching [doctrine] of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block [sin] before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication.

Fornication is any type of illicit sexual act. It means more than extra-marital sex. It means any proscribed sexual act, which includes interracial sex and mating. For example, homosexual acts are illicit sex and, therefore, fornication. Homosexual acts do not cease to be fornication if they take place within a marriage. Likewise, with interracial sexual acts, they do not cease to be fornication if they take place inside a marriage. Just as the Scriptures do not recognize same-sex marriages, they do not recognize interracial marriages. The fornication that Balaam taught was interracial sexual acts and miscegenation.

Additionally, the Doctrine of Balaam teaches the brotherhood of man and that only one race exists: the human race. Consequently, it promotes integration and interracial mating.

The open borders policy of the United States and nearly all other (formerly) predominantly White countries with their unlimited, unrestricted third world immigration greatly facilitates the Doctrine of Balaam. Most likely, that is why the Luciferian leaders of the West promote open borders. They seek to genocide the race created in God’s image: the Adamite, the Aryan, the White race. With nonwhites flooding these countries, can miscegenation be far behind? Interracial rape is now common in Western Europe. It has been common in the United States for decades.

The Doctrine of Balaam has become the controlling doctrine of the (former) White world. So far, for the most part, the other races have not fallen victims to the Doctrine of Balaam. Most African countries, especially those controlled by Negroes, seek to drive Aryans and even Melanochroi from their midst. The Turanian countries of Asia severely restrict immigration. Thus, the Doctrine of Balaam is primarily a White man’s disease and sin.

Interracial mating leads to hybridization. Total hybridization extinguishes the races that God created. God hates hybrid humans so much that He forbids a mixed bred person (mongrel, “bastard” in the King James) from entering His assembly (congregation) — Deuteronomy 23:2 (“No half-bred [mongrel] may be admitted to the assembly of the Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh” – NJB.) According to Ezra, if people are in an interracial relationship, they must separate, and if married, divorce. (The only act for which Jesus approves of divorce is fornication [Matthew 19:9]).

Any clergyman who does not teach about the sin advocated by the Doctrine of Baal, interracial mating and marriages, is failing his flock — especially in this age of forced integration and the flooding of the (formerly) White world with nonwhites. Any clergyman who accedes to the Doctrine of Baal or worse teaches it, is a disciple of the Devil. He deliberately leads his flock astray.

References
Allen, Thomas Coley. False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of the Races and Interracial Marriages. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 2001.

Clarke, W.K. Lowther, editor. Concise Bible Commentary. New York, New York: MacMillan Publishing, 1953.

Davis, John D. The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible. Revised and rewritten by Henry Snyder Gehman. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminster Press, 1944.

De Witt, Adam. “Be Ye Not Unequally Yoked Together Through Deceptive Love.”

Douglas, J.D., editor. The Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Jacobus, Melancthon W., Edward E. Nourse, and Andrew C. Zenos, editors. A New Standard Dictionary. New York, New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1926.

Kennedy, Arnold. “Balaam’s Doctrine –What Is It?”

Longacre, Lidsay B. “Number.” The Abingdon Bible Commentary. Editors Frederick C. Eiselen and Downey. New York, New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1929.

Peloubet, F.N. Treasury of Biblical Information. 1913.

Smick Elmer, “Numbers.” The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Editors Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1962.

Tenney, Merrill C., editor. The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1967.

Unger, Merrill F., Unger’s Bible Dictionary. 3rd ed. (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1960).

Wade, G.W. “Numbers” A Commentary on the Bible. Editor Arthur S. Peake. New York, New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, n.d.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

A Letter: South Africa

A Letter: South Africa

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1986 responding to an article by Ms. Frances Kendall in Reason magazine.]

    The solution to South Africa's problem offered by Frances Kendall is interesting. If implemented, I would be surprised that her solution would work without some significant changes. Based on the information in her article, her solution contains several major flaws.
    First, she recommends drawing cantonal boundaries without regard to tribal or racial boundaries. Thus, she proposes to commit the same error that has been committed in the rest of Africa. The colonial powers drew political boundaries with little regard to tribal or ethnic boundaries. When they withdrew, the colonial boundaries remained. The result of this disregard for tribal and ethnic boundaries has led to oppression and bloodshed all over Africa. This has happened in spite of the constitutions that most of these countries have which guarantee all sorts of rights for the people. There is no reason to believe that South Africa would be any different. Besides, most Swiss cantons are racially, ethnically, and culturally homogeneous. The German-Swiss and French-Swiss have much more in common than do the Zulu and Xhosa, who are traditional enemies. They certainly have much more in common than these two tribes have with the Afrikaner.
    Another flaw is the erroneous belief that a bill of rights is compatible with democracy. A bill of rights is as antidemocratic as a true monarchy. In a democracy the majority rules. The will of the majority must prevail if democracy is to live. The purpose of a bill of rights is to limit the political power of the rulers, which in a democracy is the majority. But if the power of the majority is limited, i.e., the majority cannot change the bill of rights at its whim, then some sort of minority rule exists. Where a minority rules, a democracy cannot exist.
    Another flaw is the absurd idea that the antidiscrimination provisions of the constitution would be used only against the central and cantonal governments, but not against private companies, associations, and individuals. One needs only to look at the Second Reconstruction of the South in the United States to see how ridiculous this concept is. During the Second Reconstruction of the South, antidiscrimination laws have been aimed as much at, or perhaps even more so, the private sector as they have been aimed at the State and local governments. There is no reason to believe that the Black rulers of South Africa would allow Whites even in a totally White canton to refuse to sell, rent, or provide services to a Black who enters or tries to enter that canton.
    She also proposes to allow communists and other terrorists to participate in formulating a new government for South Africa. Unless she desires despotic socialism, which she seems to abhor, allowing communists to participate is highly questionable. Although there may be one, I know of no instance in the third world where communists have been allowed to participate in formulating a government without the communists or at least despotic socialists eventually ruling.
    In her article, she offers no method to keep the central government from becoming more powerful by usurping the rights and powers of the cantonal governments and the people as the central government has done in the United States and, to a lesser degree perhaps, in Switzerland. Most likely, the usurpation would occur more quickly and more completely in South Africa for at least two reasons. First, there is no tradition of independent cantonal government. Second, her solution seems to require the central government to antedate or be created simultaneously with the cantonal governments; thus, the cantonal governments will appear to be creations of the central government.
    The only difference between her solution and the predictions of the prophets of doom is the method by which the Afrikaner will perish and the amount of time involved. If war comes as the prophets of doom predict, the Afrikaner may perish. But he will die like a man fighting for his race, culture, and homeland. (Oh, if only the rest of the West had this courage!) If her solution is implemented, the Afrikaner will surely perish. But he will die like a wimp as he is bred out of existence. (To die like wimps seems to be the insatiable desire of the West, not only for the Afrikaner, but for all that is European in race and culture.)
    There is, I believe, a better solution to the South Africa problem than the cantonal solution offered by Kendall, and that is, what I would term, the States’ rights’ solution, which, unlike her cantonal solution, requires true decentralization and dispersal of political power.
    First, the boundaries of the cantons should be drawn along tribal, ethnic, racial, cultural lines. This would ensure that the inhabitants of a given canton would have a common language, tradition, culture, heritage, etc. It would greatly reduce internal conflict within a canton.
    Next, instead of adopting a democratic form of government for the central and cantonal governments where rule is by the will of the majority, a republican form of government where rule is by law and where each important political faction and segment of society can be guaranteed some degree of representation should be adopted. The principle of “one man, one vote” should be abandoned. Representation should be proportioned primarily on the basis of the tax base and not on the basis of population. Voting should be weighted in accordance with the amount of taxes paid. The more taxes a person pays, the more votes he should have. This is the market concept of the more wealth a person has, the more “votes” he has in the market, applied to the political process.
    Perhaps the reason that Switzerland is among the freest of countries is that it was one of the last (maybe the last) in the non-Islamic world to grant suffrage to women. In the United States, the rapid acceleration in the growth of government and the decline of liberty began within a decade after women gained the “right” to vote. With few, if any, exceptions, as the franchise has expanded, the government has grown and liberty has declined. With political equality, democracy, has come economic equality, socialism. If liberty is one of Kendall’s objectives, democracy is not the panacea that she believes it to be. As John Randolph of Roanoke proclaimed “I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality.” In other words, one can have liberty; one can have equality; one can have neither; but one can never have both.
    Perhaps the most important principle that needs adopting is Calhoun’s doctrine of concurrent majority. Under this principle, each canton would have the right and power to veto acts of the central government, as far as that canton is concerned, that are, in the opinion of the canton, unconstitutional or unduly infringe upon the rights of the canton and its citizens. This principle could be applied at the cantonal level where important segments of society could have the power to veto acts of the canton as far as the acts apply to that segment. Likewise, each canton should possess the ultimate veto and have the right to secede without molestation or armed conflict.
    To protect the cantons from the central government and to preserve their rights and the rights of their citizens, the cantonal governments should have control of a significant part of the armed forces.
    The plan proposed by Kendall probably will not solve South Africa’s problems. It will surely not save the Afrikaner. The plan that I have briefly outlined above may not solve South Africa’s problems either. However, it does offer the Afrikaner a much better chance of surviving. (I am convinced that the West will accept no solution short of turning South Africa into a Soviet colony with a Black-led puppet government.)
    As an unreconstructed Southerner, my sympathy and empathy are with the Afrikaner. I believe that Western civilization may well live or die with him. Just as the South stood against the world and fought and died for all the nobleness of Western civilization 125 years ago, so today does the Afrikaner. I wish him victory.

Copyright © 1986 by Thomas C. Allen.

More political articles.

A Look at a Libertarian Theory on Economics and Immigration

A Look at a Libertarian Theory on Economics and Immigration

Thomas Allen

One reason that some libertarians give for supporting open borders and unrestricted immigration is that it results in an economic boom for the country receiving the immigrants. That massive unrestricted immigration is economically beneficial is questionable. Most of the time it benefits most of the immigrants until they become so numerous and diverse that they bring the country down. That unrestricted immigration benefits the natives is questionable. To the extent that it benefits the natives, its benefits are more on the macro-level (economics on the national and global level) than the micro-level (economics on the individual and family level). Ironically, libertarian economists generally prefer the micro-level while the statist and central planning economists generally prefer the macro-level.

Libertarians assert that unrestricted immigration of aliens is a great economic benefit for the United States. Is it a great benefit to the natives who are not hired because the aliens will work cheaper? Doubtfully, the natives who are not hired would consider it a great economic benefit.

When the employees of Disney had to train foreigners, who worked for less pay, to do their jobs or forgo severance pay, did they consider the importation of these foreigners an economic benefit? Doubtfully, any of them replaced considered it a great economic benefit.

Some workers do not receive a pay raise or even receive a pay cut because of the large supply of workers resulting from unrestricted immigration. Do they consider unrestricted immigration an economic benefit? Doubtfully, any of these native workers would consider the large influx of aliens as a great economic benefit. (Henry George, whom Edward Harwood, the founder of the American Institute of Economic Research, esteemed, argued that Chinese immigrants during the nineteenth century pushed wages down.)

(Objecting to the great economic boom resulting from massive immigration just proves that these native workers are racists [but who is going to call a Negro racist when he objects to a Mexican replacing him], short-sighted, and selfish. Yet, according to the Randian Objectivist libertarians, selfishness is a great virtue.)

To these objections, libertarians counter that a growing population leads to an increase in demand for goods and services, which results in driving up wages and the standard of living. If a country were an autarky, this argument may have merit. However, since most goods are imported into the United States and many services are outsourced, this argument is weak.

If the libertarian theory that a large and growing population equals economic prosperity and, thus, a large per capita income and per capita wealth, then China and India should have the largest per capita income and per capita wealth. Yet, they do not. Many countries with much smaller populations have much higher per capita income and per capita wealth. (To the common man, per capita income and per capita wealth are more important than the country’s absolute income and wealth.)

Also, if the libertarian theory that immigration equals economic prosperity is true, then the opposite must also be true: A declining population reduces the demand for goods and services and, thus, reduces wages and increases poverty. Yet, the Black Death, which killed 30 to 50 percent of the population of Europe, greatly reduced the workforce and cause wages to rise sharply instead of devastating wages. Wages rose so much that governments fixed maximum wages.

Based on its theory of immigration equaling economic prosperity, libertarians must hate third world countries because they want to transfer a large number of their people to the United States. As a result, these third world countries become ever more impoverished. (This is especially true if the immigrants are highly educated and skilled.) Based on the libertarian argument, if libertarians really cared about the economic well-being of third world countries, they would be at the forefront demanding the prohibition of third-world immigration.

If the libertarian assertion that immigrants are a great economic benefit for the country to which they migrate, and if they really cared about nonwhite countries, then libertarians should be in the forefront demanding that all nonwhites be deported and repatriated to the countries of their ancestors. This great influx of immigrants should greatly improve the economies of these countries. Moreover, if the libertarian assertion is true, the mass exit of people (about 40 percent of the population of the United States) would cause an economic collapse of the United States and, consequently, giving the despicable, evil Whites left behind their comeuppance. Such a mass exit of people from the United States would plunge the economy to such a low level that even Haiti would look like the land of prosperity as the United States become a fifth world country. Moreover, if nonwhites left the United States and other White countries, they could quarantine the horrible, debilitating disease of whitism and protect themselves from it while bringing White countries to economic ruin.

Libertarians are not the only ones who preach that unrestricted immigration is a great economic benefit for the United States. Neoconservatives also use this economic argument to support unrestricted immigration.

Liberals and progressives do not believe this libertarian malarkey about unrestricted immigration being economically beneficial. Unlike libertarians, they are well aware of its destructive effects, which is the primary reason that they support unrestricted immigration. Moreover, as a side benefit, liberals and progressives use these immigrants to enhance their political power — just as the Republicans used freedmen to enhance their political power. (For the most part, Blacks supported the Republican party until Franklin Roosevelt and, especially, Lyndon Johnson bought them with the welfare state and civil rights.)

Many libertarians object to political borders. Consequently, they are globalists at heart. Therefore, they support the objective of the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Bushes, the Clintons, Kissinger, Brzezinski, and other globalists to destroy political borders and, by that, reduce the world to one. However, libertarians do oppose the political and economic policies of these globalists.

Although many libertarians object to national borders, they do not object to all collectives controlling their borders. If one collective can take action to control its territory, then why cannot other collectives do likewise? Libertarians have no problems with corporations, which are governmentally created collectives, a fact that most libertarians like to ignore, taking action to prevent outsiders from entering their territory. Yet, most libertarians object to countries, which are also collectives, from taking action to prevent outsiders from entering their territory.

Addendum
Nearly all economists believe in the economic law of supply and demand: If supply increases faster than demand, prices decline. However, some economists make an exception with labor. They argue that as the supply of workers rises, wages, the price of labor, rises because workers are also consumers. These additional consumers increase the demand for goods and services and, by that, the prices of goods and services, which increases their supply. This increasing supply of goods and services leads to an increase in wages.

When labor is scarce, more capital is invested in machine to do the work of labor. Thus, productivity rises. With the rise of productivity, wages and the standard of living of workers rise.

When labor is plentiful, little incentive exists to substitute machines for labor. More labor is used to increase the supply of goods and services. To substitute machines for labor is not economical. Thus, wages and the standard of living stagnate. If wages do rise, they rise much more slowly. However, they are likely to decline because of the high competition for jobs resulting from the large supply of labor.

Consequently, a small labor pool or a decline in workers leads to a rise in wages and the standard of living of workers. Machines are substituted for labor, which increases productivity per unit of labor and, by that, increases the wages of labor. A large labor pool leads either to a decline in wages or to no increase in wages, and therefore, a decline or stagnation in the standard of living for workers. For example, where labor is plentiful, hiring more workers to dig a canal with shovels is more economical than paying a worker ten times as much as a man with a shovel and hiring his capital, a power shovel, to dig the canal. Yet, the power shovel operator may do the work of 100 or more workers with their shovels.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Allen.

More economic articles.