False Paradigms

False Paradigms

Thomas Allen

Some, mostly conservatives, argue that the ruling elite manipulates and controls people by creating a false Left-Right paradigm. Their argument is flawed. Most of these paradigms are not false.

An example of the so-called false Left-Right paradigm occurs with the economy. One group wants a governmentally planned and controlled economy — the Left. Whereas, the other group wants a free-market, free-enterprise economy that is free of governmental meddling — the Right. Are these views false? One reality believes that a governmentally planned economy is morally superior to a free-market economy. The other reality believes the opposite. Either one view is false, or both views are false. Both cannot be true. Apparently, the promoters of the false paradigm believe that both are wrong. (This Left-Right paradigm does not include people who believe in a mixed economy of some governmental economic planning but not total governmental planning. This view is the synthesis of the two opposing paradigms, and is probably the goal of the ruling elite, but with more emphasis on governmental control.)

Moreover, conservatives have been moving leftward for a century or more. If the liberals had not moved farther leftward, the conservatives would have passed them by now and be farther left than liberals. Therefore, liberals must move farther and faster leftward toward the ridiculous to keep the conservatives from overtaking and passing them. This race explains why the United States have implemented 80 percent of the planks of the Communist Manifesto. (This ever leftward movement shows the success of the ruling elite in manipulating people to give the ruling elite ever more power.)

If the false paradigm promoters are correct, the conflict between libertists, those who want liberty, and statist, those who want governmental parentalism, is false. If this conflict is false, then which one is false? Are the liberties incorrect, or are the statists incorrect? At least one or both have to be false for a false paradigm to exist. Obviously, both cannot be true.

Another, and perhaps the most important paradigm, is the conflict between people who just want to be left alone and people who are determined not to leave them alone. As long as these two groups exist, conflict will exist. For peace to exist, one must destroy the other. Naturally, the ruling elite side with the controllers because they are kindred.

Many more paradigms exist that the ruling elite can and have used to control people and, by that, increase their power. Examples are segregation versus integration, free trade versus protectionism, individualism versus collectivism, forced vaccination versus freedom of choice, and Christianity versus Judaism versus Islam versus secular humanism.

These paradigms are not false. They exist and are real. All that the ruling elite has to do is to identify them and then amplify them. Their primary methodology of amplification is to heavily support and promote one, usually the Left, while corrupting the leaders of the others. By doing this, the ruling elite pushes the people in the direction that ruling elite want the people to go.

Ironically, most promoters of the false paradigm do not seem to believe that the opposing views are false. They describe these opposing views or paradigms as though they are real, which they are, and, therefore, are not truly false.

Consequently, they urge the opposing sides to compromise their views and join in the struggle against the ruling elite. However, this leads to another paradigm of the decentralists, those against the objectives of the ruling elite, and the centralists, those for the objectives of the ruling elite. How can these two compromise?

Nevertheless, the Left and the Right may be able to compromise on immigration. The Left wants unrestricted, unlimited immigration. The Right wants immigrants to enter the country legally. If the legal requirements for entry were reduced simply to placing the name of everyone who wants to enter the country on a list, then the concerns of both would be met.

In any event, compromise is nearly always a victory for the ruling elite. When the libertists (the Right) compromise with the statists (the Left), the statists usually win. While the statists may not get as much as they want when they compromise, they get much more than the libertists because the libertists usually surrender something and get nothing in return. Thus, the ruling elite wins as the power of the state, which they control, grows. Likewise a compromise between the centralists (the Left) and the decentralists (the Right), most of the time, is a victory for the centralists and, therefore, a victory for the ruling elite. Compromise is not the answer.

(An example of the typical compromise is taxation. The pro-excise tax people want to levy an excise tax of 20 percent on product A, which currently carries no excise tax. Opposing this tax is the anti-excise tax people, who want to eliminate all excise taxes. The typical compromise would be an excise tax less than 20 percent, such as 10 percent. Thus, the pro-excise tax people win, although they do not get as much as they want. Because a new excise tax has been adopted, the anti-excise tax people lose. Since it now has more revenue, the big winner is the ruling elite, who controls the government and, consequently, the state. A true compromise would have been repealing the excise tax on product X. Then both sides would gain something and lose something. Whether the ruling elite gains or loses dependents on whether there is a gain or lose in tax revenue.)

Even a truce between the Left and the Right benefits the ruling elite. It allows them time to consolidate their gains and to prepare their next assault on liberty. (This is why the ruling elite rotates political power between Democrats and Republicans, both of whom are statists and centralists. The elite puts the Democrats in power to push the elite’s agenda forward (leftward) into new territory. Then, the elite  put the Republicans in power to consolidate those gains and make them more efficient. The Department of Education is a prime example.

Nevertheless, the Left and Right do agree on some issues. Both despise the Southerner and the South and believe that Southerners and the South should be eradicated. Both believe in and promote integration and amalgamation and ardently detest segregation and separation. Thus, they are racial nihilists and practitioners of the new morality. Both worship Saint Martin Luther King. Perhaps the Left and Right  can unify on these issues, all of which were once solely left-wing positions.  Unfortunately, the ruling elite is also a strong proponent of these issues.

Contrary to what the promoters of the false Left-Right paradigm claim, the various paradigms that they identify as false are real. The ruling elite does not create them. They merely amplify and use them to advance their agenda of obtaining absolute power over mankind — that is, to become gods.

However, with its journey leftward, the Right should eventually become indistinguishable from the Left. Consequently the Left-Right paradigm will vanish, and the ruling elite will win.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Are COVID-19 Response Based on Science?

Are COVID-19 Response Based on Science?

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: Presented below is a letter-to-the-editor on COVID-19.]

Caesar Cooper claims that science guides him when he issues his edicts concerning COVID-19. Whatever guides him, it is not science.

Like other respiratory viruses, COVID-19 spreads via the air, not just via droplets or touching contaminated surfaces. COVID-19 has a diameter between 0.06 and 0.14 microns. Virus-laden saliva or respiratory droplets are between 5 and 10 microns. N95 masks, the best mask commonly available, can filter particles as small as 0.3 microns. Thus, it may prevent most respiratory droplets from escaping, but not aerosolized viruses, which are three times smaller than the holes in the mask. Cloth masks can block only 30 to 60 percent of respiratory droplets, but they do not protect against aerosolized viruses. Thus, using a mask to protect oneself from COVID-19 is like a person hiding behind a chain-link fence when someone is shooting at him.

Even the CDC has a study dated May 2020 posted on its website that claims that masks are ineffective in preventing the spread of respiratory viruses. Also, in its guidance dated June 2020, god-on-high, the World Health Organization (WHO), claims that healthy people gain no advantage in wearing face masks.

Moreover, Cooper must consider social distancing a hoax. If he really believes that social distancing prevents the spread of COVID-19, he would insist that protesters remain six feet apart. Further, he would limit the size of protests to no more than 50 people. Any protester violating these edicts would be arrested.

He requires others to obey his edicts on face masks, social distancing, and crowd size. So, why does he not require his kindred-in-arms, the protesters and rioters, to obey his edicts? Surely, he values his kindred more than he does churchgoers and attendees of a Republican convention. The logical conclusion is that he knows that his edicts are hoaxes and are not based on science. Thus, they must be based on politics, the lust to control.

Additionally, the number of cases and deaths related to COVID-19 is overstated. The tests used to identify infections of COVID-19 do not distinguish between COVID-19 and other coronaviruses including some that cause the common cold. Also, the US government encourages the States, hospitals, and doctors to overstate COVID-19 cases by paying them more for COVID-19 cases and deaths. Often people who die of other causes, such as car accidents, cancer, and heart attacks, who are diagnosed with a coronavirus are listed as dying from COVID-19 per CDC guidelines.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

The Antebellum Northerner’s Opinion of Blacks

The Antebellum Northerner’s Opinion of Blacks

Thomas Allen

In Northern Rebellion and Southern Secession (1904), E. W. R. Ewing describes the typical Northerner’s, including the typical abolitionist’s, opinion of and attitude toward Blacks.

Even before Ohio became a State, Ohioans saw Negroes as shiftless thieves and adopted laws to expel them. They found that Negroes lacked the fitness and capacity to provide for themselves (pp. 112-113).

Gerrit Smith, an abolitionist, concurred with the Ohioans. He “attested the incapacity, unfitness, and unwillingness of the Southern negro [sic] to provide for himself” (p. 113). He offered free and runaway Negroes farmland if they would farm it. His scheme failed from the want of takers.

When Cobb, a reporter of the Supreme Court of Georgia, asked the governors and leading politicians of the Northern States about the condition of the free Negroes in their States, he received the following replies (p. 288):
– from Connecticut: “not thrifty,” “immoral”;
– from New Jersey: “debased . . . generally indolent”;
– from Pennsylvania: “much deteriorated by freedom”;
– from Indiana: “sent forty this year to Liberia . . . hope finally to get rid of all . . . do not intend to have another negro [sic] or mulatto come into the State”;
– from Illinois: “thriftless, idle, vicious”;
– from New Jersey: “one-fourth criminals in State colored, while colored population is but one-twelfth.”

Nearly all Northerners held that the Negro was inferior to them. Regardless of any lip service that they may give to the proposition that “all men are created equal,” they regarded the Negro as a natural and social inferior.

Further, few Northerners, including abolitionists, would have allowed Negroes to marry their sisters or daughters, and the woman would have strongly objected to such a marriage. Moreover, in New England, Negroes had been burned alive for assaulting White women (p. 280).

Most Northern States denied Negroes, including mulattoes, the privilege of voting and other privileges and duties of citizenship. They considered the Negro “unfit for the exercise of citizenship” (p. 267).

Yet, among the last States to deny free Negroes the vote was in the South. South Carolina did not deny free Negroes the vote until 1835 (p. 281).

Moreover, although more free Negroes lived in the South than in the North (p. 286), they were treated with greater dignity in the South. In the North, many employers refused to hire Negroes, and Whites generally refused to work beside a Negro (p. 289). About the treatment of the Negro in business following Lincoln’s War, Booker T. Washington wrote:

There is almost no prejudice against the negroes [sic] in the South in matters of business, so far as the native whites are concerned; . . . But too often when the white mechanic or factory operative from the North gets a hold, the trades union soon follows, and the negro [sic] is crowded to the wall (p. 289).

Moreover, Illinois made it illegal for Negroes and mulattoes to enter that State with the intention or appearance of residing there. If found guilty, the Negro would be fined, and if he were unable to pay the fine, then he was to be sold at a public auction (p. 268). Michigan and Indiana also prohibited Negroes from coming into them to live there (p. 269). Likewise, Oregon prohibited Negroes from entering it (p. 271). Also, California prohibited Negroes from entering it to reside there (p. 274).

To Massachusetts goes the honor of being the first State to expel all free Negroes in her boundaries (pp 269-270).

In 1829, Ohio restricted public schools to Whites only (p 266). In 1833, Connecticut made “it a penal offence to set up or establish any school or literary institution for colored persons not inhabitants of the State; and any negro [sic] coming to the State for instruction could be forcibly removed therefrom” (p. 266).

For the most part, the Northern States considered free Negroes, including mulattoes, a danger to their society. Thus, they placed many social and legal restraints on them. Even as late as 1870, many Northern States forbade Negroes from owning property, making contracts, and testifying against Whites (p. 269). Hypocrites that they are, these Northerners railed against Southerners for denying Negroes rights that Northerners refused to grant them.

For decades following Reconstruction, the Northerner’s low opinion of Blacks did not change much. Even the last violent resistance to school integration occurred in Massachusetts. Furthermore, since 1960, more race riots have occurred outside the South than in the South. (See “Race Riots” by Thomas Allen.)

Since the Northerner, including the abolitionist, knew from first-hand experience the behavior of the Negro, free or slave, they must have hated the Southerner so much that they turned the freed Negro loose in the South in hopes that they would demoralize and eventually genocide the Southerner. The only other option is that these Northerners and abolitionists were stupid; however, as most of their leaders were intelligent men, stupidity can be ruled out. Some leading abolitionists openly admitted their hatred of Southerners and their desire to genocide them.

About the burden that was thrown on the South following Lincoln’s war, Booker T. Washington wrote:

The time is not far distant when the world will begin to appreciate the real character of the burden that was imposed upon the South in giving the franchise to four millions of ignorant and impoverished ex-slaves. No people was ever before given such a problem to solve. History has blazed no path through the wilderness that could be followed (p. 289).

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

Who Is the Militia and What Is its Purpose

Who Is the Militia and What Is its Purpose

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was written in 1995.]

    The short answer to who is the militia is every able-bodied man except for a few political leaders. The short answer to the purpose of the militia is to protect the people from their own government and foreign governments.
    The militia is not the National Guard. Congress established the National Guard to serve as a reserve force for the armed forces. The National Guard is akin to the Army Reserve except that it is under the control of the governors of the several states during times of peace (unless the President wants to use the National Guard to enforce federal edicts in a State). Because the federal government can require National Guardsmen to serve overseas, it cannot be the true militia because the Constitution does not allow the federal government to send the militia overseas. Furthermore, federal law recognizes the National Guard, in times of peace and war, as a component of the United States Army.
    The militia is not a collective right. It is an individual right. Historically and legally, the militia is the whole body of the people as individuals.
    That the right to bear arms belonged to the people individually can be easily substantiated by the comments made by the founding fathers:

        Fisher Ames: “The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing government, are declared to be inherent in the people.”
        Zachariah Johnson: “[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them. . . . The government will depend on the assistance of the people in the day of distress.”
        Thomas Jefferson: “[N]o free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
        Richard Henry Lee: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
        Patrick Henry: “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. . . . The great object is that every man be armed. . . . [E]veryone who is able may have a gun.”

Other founding fathers made similar statements proclaiming the right — nay, the duty — of every able-bodied man to be armed. When these men said “the people,” they meant, in the words of George Mason, “the whole people, except a few public officers.”
    The reason for possessing arms is not for hunting or sport. The reason is for self-protection, self-protection not so much from criminals and foreign governments, but from their own government. A well-armed citizenry is needed to prevent a constitutional government from degenerating into a tyrannical government.
    Noah Webster summed up the purposed of an armed citizenry:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.

    Alexander Hamilton, who favored a strong central government, stated the necessity of an armed citizenry:

This [a well-armed and trained militia] will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

   Obviously, these statements were made in the early days of the country. The people need to become much more heavily armed if they want to begin to match the firepower of the standing army and nullify the corrupt and despotic power of the United States government.
    Justice Joseph Story summed up the necessity of the militia in his Commentaries on the Constitution (1833):

The militia is the natural defense of a free country against foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample the rights of the people. The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

If there was ever a time for a well-armed militia, it is now.

Copyright © 1995 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.