Gottfried and Equality

Gottfried and Equality

Thomas Allen

In “Flawed Reasoning on CRT,” Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, September 2021, page 9, Paul Gottfried discusses equality. This article is somewhat confusing —at least to me. At times, he writes as though he favors equality of opportunity while at other times he seems to believe that equality of opportunity is unachievable because of genetics. Thus, to seek to achieve equality of opportunity leads to a loss of liberty. (He is ambivalent about genetics. Most of the time he appears to hold that genetics are irrelevant — not so much in this article as in others.) Moreover, he seems obsessed with equality but writes that people should not be obsessed with it.

Gottfried writes, “In America we are committed to the proposition that ‘all men are created equal’ [Lincoln’s assertion].” He continues, “America stands for equality of opportunity [the neoconservative position], not equality of results [the progressive position]. . . .” Since he is not a fan of Lincoln and disagrees with many of the neoconservatives’ positions, that he would support their positions on equality seems strange. His opposition to equality of results is in keeping with his political philosophy.

Yet, he opposes the obsession with equality and making it the overriding goal of the country. He prefers “a government under the law providing its citizens with ordered liberty.”

According to him, until the country “achieves a more level playing field,” equality of results is a more correct answer than equality of opportunity. However, he fails or refuses to recognize the importance of genetics. Genetics prevents a level playing field.

Equality of opportunity is more of a chimera than equality of results or equity as it is now commonly called. Does a five-foot, fat, klutz have the same opportunity of becoming a professional basketball center as does a seven-foot, agile, athlete? Does a dimwit have the same opportunity of becoming a doctor or engineer with a Ph.D. as does a genius? The answer to both questions is “no” although proponents of equality of opportunity would have to argue otherwise. For the klutz, their solution is more training though training will not overcome his genetically caused height disadvantage. For the dimwit, their solution is more education although education will not overcome his genetically caused low IQ. 

However, the proponents of equality of results can give the illusion of equality by forcing a professional basketball team to use the klutz as its starting center. Also, they can force a company to hire the dimwit as an engineer or doctor instead of the genius. Moreover, they can force the company to use the work of the dimwit engineer or doctor.

Genetics guarantees that some will have an advantage over others at the starting gate. At conception, genetics predestine some people to be tall or geniuses and others to be short or dimwits; most fall in between. Environment decides how people will use their physical and mental abilities or to compensate for their lack of these abilities. Even then, genetics influence the how.

Only despotism can retard and suppress the more gifted and advance and raise the less gifted. But even here genetics will dominate. Genetics give some people the advantage of becoming a despot. Thus, genetics along with opportunity will be a major factor in deciding who will be the despot. 

Where a despot exists, equality cannot exist. Of necessity, despotism divides society into two classes: the ruler and the ruled. Only a few have the opportunity of being the despot; thus, equality of opportunity does not exist. Moreover, equality of results cannot exist in a despotism since the ruler has the power and the ruled are his slaves, which is a highly unequal result.

People should learn to live with the hand that Deity, fate, or nature dealt them and cease being obsessed with equality — be it equality of opportunity or equality of results. Their lives would be much happier.

An obsession with equality leads to envy, and envy leads to an obsession with equality. Envy is highly destructive and results in misery. Consequently, God commands people not to envy.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Basic Principles of the Modern Left

 Basic Principles of the Modern Left

Thomas Allen

In “The Modern Left Is Not Marxist, It’s Worse,” Chronicles, November 2020 (page 19), Paul Gottfried identifies four basic principles or practices of the modern left. The modern left rose after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

(1) Leftists are globalists or universalists. They find Western Christian White society revolting and seek its demise. Unlike the right that values particularity and the sanctity of local and natural traditions, the left rejects particularity and traditions.

(2) Leftists worship equality and endeavor to obliterate all human distinctions and differences. Nothing is more valuable than equality. Consequently, the ideal human is a unisexual (asexual, hermaphroditic, sexually fluid — any sex except male or female), motley, mongrel being — and all these humans have the same intelligence, beauty, talents, skills, and standard of living.  Thus, the ideal society consists of indistinguishable beings. (Since most rightists are racial nihilists, they agree with the leftist desire to create motley, mongrel humans, but they disagree on the sexual part.)

(3) Since “historically grounded natural rights do not advance equality or ‘human dignity,’” leftists promote the expansion of “human rights.” Human rights call for the extinction of social and historical distinctions. They want to replace “long established customs and conventions” with whatever “journalists and academics deem conducive to greater equality.”

(One equality that modern leftists shun is equality before the law, which is an equality that rightists accept. For leftists, anyone who promotes equality and other leftist agendas can violate all sorts of laws with immunity. Examples of lawbreaking leftists escaping punishment are the Clintons and members of Black Lives Matter or Antifa.)

(4) Leftists believe that humans are perfectly malleable. For example, any male  can become a female including replacing his male Y chromosome with a female X chromosome.  Likewise, any female can become a male including replacing one of her female X chromosomes with a male Y chromosome. Judges and other governmental officials should defend the right of a person to become any of the more than 100 current sexes, and everyone should accept such sex, even if it changes daily, and find it admirable and heroic. Consequently, leftists spurn the notion of the right that “human identities are rooted in tradition and nature.” Thus, the left believes that genetics do not influence a person’s nature (many rightists also hold this belief).

Therefore, the goal of modern leftists is to destroy sexual identity, the White race and other races (racial nihilism) if they are consistent, Western civilization, and Christianity — the last two because they are products of the White, Aryan, race. All distinction and differences are to be sacrificed on the altar of equality.

Gottfried notes that the old left of the Soviet-Union days focused on economic equality (socialism, communism, welfarism) and gave little attention to social equality except for the civil rights movement (which they orchestrated). The modern left focuses more on social equality. Nevertheless, modern leftists do not ignore economic equality. However, they prefer welfarism with a highly progressive income tax, expanded welfare programs, and other wealth redistribution programs. Instead of governmental ownership of businesses, industries, and farms as advocated by the old left, the modern left advocates a highly regulated economy. Thus, they prefer the fascist model of socialism where governmental central planning is through governmental control of privately owned businesses, industries, and farms.

Also, Gottfried observes that some of the biggest supporters and pushers of modern leftism are major multinational corporations. Could it be that these corporations promote the leftist agenda because it leads to a homogenous market? After all, the leftist lust for equality destroys diversity. The destruction of diversity would result in a homogenous market, and a homogenous market would reduce the cost of production and marketing because everyone would want the same things.

Whereas old leftists emphasized economic equality, modern leftists emphasize social equality. Thus, modern leftists advocate racial nihilism and the new morality with no sexual differences — that is, racial and sexual amalgamation. Moreover, they seek to annihilate the White race, Christianity, and Western civilization. They strive to nullify human nature and to remake mankind to be contrary to his natural genetic makeup. Individuals, races, and the sexes are naturally unequal and can never be made equal. Naturally low-quality people can never be raised to the level of naturally high-quality people. However, high-quality people can be suppressed. Consequently, leftists need to institute a totalitarian government to achieve equality by suppressing everything superior — except the ruling elite. Ironically and hypocritically, although they preach equality, leftists believe that they are superior to rightists and other deplorables — yet, most leftists may deny their superiority.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Rebuttals to Some Unlimited Immigration Arguments

Rebuttals to Some Unlimited Immigration Arguments

Thomas Allen

Below are rebuttals to arguments that immigration helps the economy and does not destroy languages or genocide people.

Destructiveness of Uncontrolled Immigration
Ask the Tasmanians how much immigrants helped their economy. Oh, I forgot, immigrants drove the Tasmanians to extinction. One would need a seance to ask them.

Ask the Indians of Hispaniola how much immigrants helped their economy. Again, I forgot that immigrants, mostly from Africa, drove them out of existence; what was not killed off were bred out of existence.

How well are the Chinese immigrants, who are genociding the Tibetans, helping the Tibetans economically? It may help the Chinese, but it is driving the Tibetans to extinction.

Then there are the Palestinians. Jewish immigrants have taken much of the land of the Palestinians and drove most Palestinians into large-scale concentration camps into which the Israelis fire missiles. Immigration may have helped the immigrant Jews economically, but it has done little for the native Palestinians.

Immigration was a great benefit to the Roman Empire. It so utterly destroyed the Roman Empire that nearly a thousand years were needed before the economy of the area covered by the old Empire returned to where it was before immigration destroyed it.

Mexico lost Texas to Anglo-American settlers primarily because they came as colonists and not as immigrants. They were of a different culture and language than Mexico and came in such numbers that they did not have to assimilate.

Immigration and Language
Some opponents of open-borders-unrestricted immigration claim that unrestricted immigration can change, corrupt, and even obliterate the language of a country. Some supporters of unrestricted immigration claim that such a notion is nonsense.

As evidence to support their assertion that unrestricted immigration does not destroy language, they point to the French-speaking Canadians. French-speaking Canadians have preserved their language for centuries in a sea of English speakers.

The proponents overlook the North American Indians. The North American Indians drowned in a flood of unrestricted immigration from Europe. As a result, many Indian languages are now extinct. Furthermore, many tribes became extinct — having been genocided by disease, war, and miscegenation. Moreover, not only do many remaining tribes no longer speak the language of their ancestors, none know how to speak it.

The Romans offer another example that supports those who oppose unrestricted immigration. Failing to control immigration, the Romans lost their Empire. If it were not for the Catholic Church adopting Latin as its official language, Latin would have died with the Empire. It would have gone the way of Gothic, Doric, Hittite, Babylonian, Assyrian, Punic, Egyptian, Coptic, and many other dead ancient languages.

Both the opponents and proponents of unrestricted immigration can find examples to support their argument. Nevertheless, the weight of the evidence supports the opponents.

North American Indians
As discussed above, many Indian languages and even Indian tribes have perished under the weight of uncontrolled immigration. Moreover, as a result of uncontrolled immigration, some Indian tribes have deteriorated so much that they no longer use genetics to decide who is a member of the tribe. Instead, they use cultural identity: Anyone who identifies with the culture of the tribe is a member. (In this respect, they are like many Southerners, Paul Gottfried [a Northerner], and some writers of Abbeville Institute. They identify Southerners, a term that they use to cover not only Whites, but also Blacks and presumably other races, by culture instead of genetics. Thus, they err. Correctly speaking, “Southerner” is an ethnic group, i.e., a genetic and cultural group, and identifies Whites born and reared in the South and Whites who have lived in the South so long that they are indistinguishable from native Southern Whites. Moreover, Blacks in the South differ culturally from Southerners and, also, from Whites.)

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Review of “Resurrecting the Old Right”

Review of “Resurrecting the Old Right”

Thomas Allen

In his article, “Resurrecting the Old Right” in Chronicles (September 2019), Paul Gottfried presents himself as a paleoconservative and a disciple of the Old Right. In his article, he stresses the need to resurrect the Old Right.
He may be a paleoconservative, but his racial views are indistinguishable from neoconservatives, libertarians, progressives, liberals, and communists, and a majority of Americans. Like them, he is a racial nihilist and, therefore, cares nothing about the White race or any other race as unique species that God created, and, consequently, none is worthy of preservation. (Gottfried’s attitude toward Whites is based solely on this article.) Moreover, like all neoconservatives, libertarians, progressives, liberals, and communists and most Americans, he believes that the United States are a propositional country. He definitely does not believe that they are a genetic country as the founding father established.
He strongly condemns the establishment conservatives, the neoconservatives. They avoid discussing homosexual marriages, feminism, and other divisive social issues (and especially the sin of miscegenation, which Gottfried seems not to consider a sin). They often defend progressive and liberal social positions. On immigration, distinguishing between establishment conservatives and liberals is often difficult. Typically, liberals want to flood the country with an unlimited number of third-world immigrants, most of whom they expect to vote for Democrats. On the other hand, most conservatives want to flood the country with large numbers of third-world immigrants albeit via streamlined legal means. Other conservatives prefer restricting the number of third-world immigration to a level low enough to amalgamate them into the population. Gottfried seems to support the amalgamators. Almost no one favors prohibiting nonwhites entering the country.
At least, he rightly condemns conservatives, such as Rich Lowery, editor-in-chief of National Review, for supporting and promoting the destruction of Southern monuments and history.
Also, Gottfried denounces neoconservatives for kowtowing to the liberal controlled old media. They also fail to mention all the Zionist funding that conservative organizations receive — and that these Zionists support the left-wing social agenda.
Neoconservatives condemn anti-intervention Southern conservatives and all who are labeled “racist” or “antisemitic.” Gottfried identifies a few prominent conservatives whom the establishment conservatives have condemned, such as, M.E. Bradford. For its opposition to the Vietnam War, the establishment conservative William Buckley chastised the John Birch society. (Buckley was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and, perhaps more important, Skull and Bones. He also worked for the CIA and participated in the Bohemian Grove. Thus, Buckley was an establishment insider whose job was to control conservatives.)
Another group whom the establishment conservatives condemn is the White nationalist. (Does any White nationalist organization exist that does not have some federal agency or left-wing organization behind it?) Gottfried also denounces White nationalism and considers it an “obstacle to a credible, authentic right.” About White nationalism, he writes, “Its adherents represent a moribund ideology that offers an imaginary antidote to a misdiagnosed pathology.”
For Gottfried, the war is cultural and not racial — as though culture can exist independently of race. Thus, he thinks one-dimensionally. He thinks solely in terms of culture and ignores race. He refuses to recognize that culture depends on race. As race preceded culture, it created culture. Therefore, culture is racial. Consequently, each race has a different culture with each ethnicity of that race having its own subculture. To use some trite analogies, race and culture go together like hand and glove, love and marriage, and horse and carriage.
Contrary to what Gottfried may believe, most White nationalists are not as one dimensional as he is. Most recognize the connection between race and culture.
However, Gottfried is correct in that the leaders of the war to destroy the culture that he wants to save are White. Nevertheless, that does not mean that the war is not racial. Luciferians, self-hating White, and White racial nihilists are using nonwhites to bring down America and the civilization that Whites created and to genocide White race (species) — and, by that, annihilate everything that Gottfried values. Gottfried seems to be acting like the typical libertarian by condoning, if not outright promoting, policies that result in the death of his goal.
Unlike Gottfried, White nationalists at least dimly see that the war is racial. Unfortunately, they mostly ignore the primary leaders of this war to genocide the White race because these leaders are White. Thus, they focus on the nonwhite pawns instead of the White kings and queens.
Why would Whites seek to destroy the White race? All the top leaders are Luciferians. Lucifer, Satan, seeks to destroy the race (species) created in God’s image. They are merely doing their master’s bidding. Another group is the self-hating Whites like members of Antifa. However, like Gottfried, most are racial nihilists, who see no need to preserve the White race, the Black race, or any other race.
Gottfried reproves White nationalists for being too willing to accept the agenda of the left on nonracial issues, such as sexual immorality. (Gottfried does not seem to recognize that miscegenation is a sin; at least White nationalist acknowledge this sin and denounce it.) For White nationalists, the issue is Whites against everyone else. Correctly, Gottfried condemns White nationalists for having too narrow of a focus. They ignore the cultural aspects of the war just as Gottfried ignores the racial aspects.
Furthermore, Gottfried condemns White nationalists who seek to become acceptable in the national debate. These White nationalists typically hold left-of-center views except they are staunch Zionists and advocates of an aggressive, missionary foreign policy. Unfortunately, to receive positive support from the establishment, they have to compromise significantly their racial views. At least, he credits them with attempting to raise the self-esteem of Whites about their race. Nevertheless, for a racial nihilist like Gottfried, why should self-esteem about one’s race matter?
According to Gottfried, for anyone on the right who wants to be “acceptable to large numbers of people on the right,” he has to free himself from being seen as a White nationalist. Thus, Gottfried shows that most people on the right are racial nihilists who loathe racial identitarians. In this respect, they are indistinguishable progressives, liberals, and libertarians, and even self-hating Whites of Antifa and Luciferian Whites. Therefore, the White race (species) is doomed to extinction.
Moreover, Gottfried is “especially bothered by the reductionist argument about racial IQ.” He recognizes the importance of IQ to society and civilization and the possibility of some parts of the world (he avoids “race”) having a cognitive advantage over others.  However, he questions general intelligence being the only precondition for managing human development.
Gottfried is correct about highly intelligent people leading the destruction of America and Western Civilization. Again, he fails to recognize that the annihilation of the White race is part, the most important part, of this destruction.
Furthermore, Gottfried is proof that being White and highly intelligent does not automatically make one an albusphile. He is White and highly intelligent, yet he is completely indifferent to the fate of the White race. He does not care whether the White race lives or dies if the culture that it created survives.
Gottfried claims that he never stopped believing in the Old Right. However, from my reading of the works of the Old Right, none gave me the impression that he believed in the new morality of sacrificing the races, especially the White race, on the altar of humanity. To the contrary, they all seemed to believe in the old morality of racial preservation. Unlike Gottfried, who seems to have no concerns about the sin of miscegenation, they seem adamant in opposing interracial mating. (Gottfried claims to want to restore social morality. Yet, he ignores the sin of miscegenation, the amalgamation of the species of men.)
In conclusion, Gottfried is a racial nihilist and abhors racial identitarians. He is a disciple of the new morality. His revival of conservatism would be void of any race consciousness.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political issues articles.