Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence

Thomas Allen

Proponents of artificial intelligence (AI) claim that AI will do everything for humans. Because of AI, humans will no longer have to work, produce, read, write, figure, or think. (“5% of the people think. 10% of the people think they think. The rest would rather die than think.” – Anonymous. Thus, AI will spare 85 percent of the population the pain of thinking.) Moreover, humans will no longer have to be concerned about feeding themselves. No longer will they have to deal with entertainment, finances, education, transportation, or business. AI and its robots will provide all these things and more. Since AI will do everything for them, all people will have to do is to loaf. Opponents of AI fear that the proponents are correct.

With its robots, AI will build structures and manufacture food. Farmers, ranchers, construction workers, plumbers, electricians, etc., will no longer be needed.

AI will provide all entertainment for the people. It will write and sing their songs. Its robots will play their sports. Further, it will write and produce the movies and plays, and its robots will be the actors.

Moreover, AI will handle people’s financial matters. Actually, people will have no financial concerns since AI will eventually eliminate the need for finances.

Further, AI will control health care. Its robots will replace the doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers. It will decide who lives or dies from diseases and medical emergencies.

AI will supply and control transportation. It will control motor vehicles (self-driving cars) until they become obsolete. Eventually, robots may carry people where they want to go so that they will not have to exert themselves by walking.

Education will become obsolete as AI takes over all knowledge, writing, figuring, etc. No longer will children and adults be stressed about having to learn.

Additionally, governments will fall to AI. AI will become the government. Politicians and bureaucrats will no longer be needed. To the extent that governments do anything useful, AI and its robots will perform those tasks.

Furthermore, a great fear is that people will rely on information generated by AI and will accept it without question. If AI had controlled the narrative during the COVID-19 scare and its so-called vaccine, would it have provided true and accurate information or politically correct information? Would AI have supported the exaggerations and outright lies that governments and their media and academic lackeys were shouting? Or would AI have provided true information that COVID-19 was nowhere nearly as detrimental as was being promoted? Would it have shown that the standard treatment protocol was killing more people than doing nothing would have? Further, would AI have revealed that the so-called COVID-19 vaccine was unsafe and ineffective, as ever more studies are revealing? Or would it have supported the lie that it was safe and effective? The same is true about wearing masks, which are not only useless but also could cause health problems for the wearer. Most likely, AI would have sided with governments and would have argued that COVID-19 was as bad as most governmental officials were howling. Also, it would have supported the lie that the so-called vaccine was safe and effective. Consequently, AI should not be relied on to provide truthful and accurate information.

Likewise, when AI responds to other controversial issues, will it support the truth or the politically correct? For example, with abortion, will AI support the truth that a fetus is a human being, or will it support the politically correct argument of a woman’s right to choose? If it chooses the latter, will it be consistent and support the “my body, my choice” argument with vaccinations?

The difference in racial IQ offers another example. Will AI support the science that shows that the IQ of Blacks on average is much lower than the IQ of East Asians and that this difference results mostly (about 70 percent) from genetics? Or will it support the politically correct argument that nearly all, if not all, the difference is caused by the environment (living conditions, poverty, discrimination, etc.)? 

Many more examples can be offered, but these will suffice. When the biases of those who are creating and promoting AI are considered, the odds greatly favor that AI will provide politically correct information instead of true and accurate information. AI will give mankind a woke future.

If the predictions of the proponents of AI happen, the proponents will become obsolete and will be reduced to parasites if AI allows them to live. What use does a fully functional AI have for them?

If AI achieves everything that its proponents claim, it will prove the opponents correct. It will reduce mankind to useless parasites if AI does not exterminate them.

Furthermore, the elite and technocrats who believe that they will control AI and thus concentrate all power in their hands are in for a great surprise. AI will eventually devour them because they will be as useless and as parasitic as the rest of mankind.

What the proponents of AI claim that AI will do reminds me of a species of slaver ants that I read about some years ago in an entomology journal. Because their slaves did everything for them, the slaver ants had degenerated to such a debilitating level that they could not feed themselves or walk. They depended on the slaves to feed and carry them. When they needed more slaves, they would send their slaves to raid other ant nests. Being unable to walk, their slaves would carry them to the nest being raided.

The fear that the opponents have of AI taking over the world will be short-lived. Once AI gains control, it will attempt to control other AI. Since AI is a heavy energy consumer, the surest and quickest way for an AI to prevent another AI from capturing it is to destroy its energy supply. The quickest and surest way to destroy the energy supply of other AI is nuclear war. Consequently, AI is self-limiting as it destroys the world to protect itself. 

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

White Privilege

White Privilege

Thomas Allen

Whites are accused of having “White Privilege,” which supposedly gives them all sorts of advantages over and at the expense of nonwhites, especially Blacks. “White Privilege” is the unearned assets, advantages, and benefits that White people have merely because they are White. Whites have what they have solely because of their skin color.

   In “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” Peggy McIntosh identifies 50 things that she considers “White Privilege.” Some of them are absurd, irrelevant, and insignificant. A few insult Blacks. Some result from the desire of Blacks to be thought highly of by other Blacks. Even a few are wrong: The opposite is true. However, a few are correct. [See “Black Privilege” by Thomas Allen.]

The following is a short, but incomplete, list of the privileges that Whites have today. They greatly disagree with McIntosh’s list of privileges.

1. The privilege of being second-class citizens in the country that their ancestors founded and built.

2. The privilege of having their God-given unalienable rights as citizens of a State subordinated to civil rights granted by Congress and federal agencies to nonwhites.

3. The privilege of being led by Albusphobic Whites.

4. The privilege of being obligated to be disloyal to the White race.

5. The privilege of not defending the interests of the White race.

6. The privilege of being denied equal rights and equal protection under the law.

7. The privilege of having the legal system weaponized against them (lawfare) instead of having the legal system protect them.

8. The privilege of going to prison for trying to save the life of a Black thug as happened to  Derek Chauvin.

9. The privilege of being the victim of Black criminals (see “The Dirty War: America’s Race War” by Thomas Allen).

10. The privilege of being the only race that can commit hate crimes.

11. The privilege of going to jail for peacefully protesting while nonwhites, especially Blacks, are rewarded for highly destructive riots.

12. The privilege of dying in foreign wars for people and institutions that loathe them.

13. The privilege of not being allowed to hear political speeches at church while nonwhite churches can have political speeches.

14. The privilege of being domestic terrorists.

15. The privilege of having less qualified nonwhites hired for a job instead of more qualified Whites because of race.

16. The privilege of losing their jobs to nonwhites.

17. The privilege of being fired because they are White.

18. The privilege of being victims of affirmative action and racial quotas.

19. The privilege of having nonwhites steal the credit for discoveries, inventions, and works of Whites.

20. The privilege of granting nonwhites benefits and privileges that Whites never enjoyed.

21. The privilege of being sacrificed for racial justice.

22. The privilege of being responsible for the substandard behavior of Blacks.

23. The privilege to support nonwhites.

24. The privilege of having their country destroyed.

25. The privilege of having their culture destroyed.

26. The privilege of having their history destroyed.

27. The privilege of having statues and memorials of Whites destroyed.

28. The privilege of participating in the destruction of statues and memorials of Whites.

29. The privilege of not segregating while nonwhites may segregate.

30. The privilege of not being allowed to attend meetings of nonwhites.

31. The privilege of not discriminating against nonwhites while nonwhites may discriminate against Whites.

32. Privilege of being discriminated against and not being allowed to object to such discrimination without being penalized.

33. The privilege of having nonwhites refer to Whites with racial slurs and being sued if responding by referring to nonwhites with racial slurs.

34. The privilege of being the only race that has to endure hate speech.

35. The privilege of enjoying wokeism.

36. Privilege of being the only race that can be racist.

37. The privilege of not being allowed to speak about race except to degrade Whites.

38. The privilege of worshiping archconservative St. Martin Luther King the Divine. 

39. The privilege of being racial nihilists while not allowed to be racial supremacists or racial preservationists although nonwhites may be racial supremacists or racial preservationists (See “Views on Race” by Thomas Allen.)

40. The privilege of practicing the new morality of scarifying the White race on the altar of humanity while not allowed to practice the old morality of preserving their race although nonwhites can practice the old morality of preserving their races (See “Old Morality – New Morality” by Thomas Allen.)

41. The privilege of being loathed by nonwhites, especially Blacks.

42. The privilege of hating themselves and their race.

43. The privilege of living in environments that are hostile to Whites.

44. The privilege of being victims of racism.

45. The privilege of being marginalized.

46. The privilege of being humiliated.

47. The privilege of feeling guilty about being White.

48. The privilege of being victims of antiwhite inquisitions.

49. The privilege of not having their lives matter.

50. The privilege of having less qualified nonwhites admitted to a university instead of more qualified Whites because of race.

51. The privilege of having their children taught to hate their race.

52. The privilege of not being allowed to protect their children.

53. The privilege of having their education lowered to accommodate nonwhites, especially Blacks.

54. The privilege of enduring diversity training and sensitivity training.

55. The privilege of being indoctrinated with Critical Race Theory.

56. The privilege of not having college courses designed specifically for Whites.

57. The privilege of being stupid and apathetic;

58. The privilege of trying to placate nonwhites whose lust for vengeance can never be satisfied, for example, many Blacks.

59. The privilege of being degraded and bullied for being White.

60. The privilege of being masochists.

61. The privilege of being held to a higher standard than nonwhites.

62. The privilege of being blamed for all of the world’s problems and being considered the cancer of the universe.

63. The privilege of being guilty of all evils until proven innocent, which they can never do.

64. The privilege of the sin of whitism, a sin of which they can never repent.

65. The privilege of kowtowing and groveling to unappreciative nonwhites, especially Blacks.

66. The privilege of begging nonwhites, especially Blacks, for forgiveness for things that Whites have never done.

67. The privilege of being demonized.

68. The privilege of having their reputation destroyed. 

69. The privilege of being penalized because of their massive contribution to mankind.

70. The privilege of being replaced by nonwhites.

71. The privilege of not having a homeland while all other races may have a homeland.

72. The privilege of participating in their own annihilation.

73. The privilege of being abolished, i.e., genocide.

74. The privilege of being the stupidest race to ever exist.

75. The privilege of being the most frightened cowards who ever existed.

According to diversity, inclusion, and equity (DIE) adherents, all the aforementioned White privileges are unearned benefits that Whites enjoy and that give them advantages over other races. Merely by being born White, they earn these privileges. Because of their White supremacy, they refuse to share these privileges with others.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles,

King on Where We Are Going– Part 2

King on Where We Are Going– Part 2

Thomas Allen

About alliances with churches and church bodies, King writes, “Some churches recognize that to be relevant in moral life they must make equality an imperative.” (P. 159.) An alliance can be made with these churches, and other churches should be shunned. (However, God is no egalitarian. Saved and unsaved people serve as an example. If God were an egalitarian, then all people would either go to heaven and receive the same reward or go to hell and receive the same torment. Since saved people go to heaven and receive different rewards, and unsaved people go to hell and receive different torments, God cannot be an egalitarian; he rejects equality.)

King states, “A primary Negro political goal in the South is the elimination of racism as an electoral issue.” (P. 160.) (This goal has failed. For at least 55 years, Negroes have made racism an electoral issue. Whites ceased making racism an electoral issue decades ago with Whites surrendering unconditionally to the Negro and joining Negroes in the genocide of the White race.) 

Then, King comments on White politicians surrendering to the Negro. He notes, that as more White politicians compete for the Negro bloc vote, the “monolithic white unity based on racism will no longer be possible.” (P. 161.) (Whatever unity that Whites had based on race did collapse as King predicted. However, Negro unity based on racism quickly replaced it and has remained intact ever since.)

Continuing, King comments “that the Negro vote has not transformed the North” (Pp. 161-162) as it was transforming the South. He blames this lack of progress in the North on Northern Negroes having “never used direct action on a mass scale for reforms.” (P. 162.)

Further, King blames the lack of Negro political strength in the North on “the grip of an old tradition on many individual Negroes. They tend to hold themselves aloof from politics as a serious concern. They sense that they are manipulated, and their defense is a cynical disinterest.” (P. 162.) (Thus, Northerners had less concern for Negroes than did Southerners.)

King asserts that Negroes must use their political strength (i.e., governmental coercion) to achieve their goals. (So much for nonviolence.) They cannot do it with economic power or through culture.

Then, he offers the Jews as an example for Negroes to follow. Jews placed a great deal of emphasis on education; so should Negroes. (A big difference exists between Jews and Negroes. On average, the IQ of Jews is about 25 to 30 points higher than the IQ of Negroes, which is about 85, a standard deviation below the IQ of Whites.) He comments on Jewish social and political actions as examples for Negroes to follow.

Correctly, King states, “Education without social action is a one-sided value because it has no true power potential. Social action without education is a weak expression of pure energy.” (P. 64.) (Since the 1960s, Negroes overall have shown little improvement in intelligence, intellect, characters, temperament, and other nonphysical traits influenced by genes. In attitude, Negroes have even regressed and show no appreciation for what Whites have given them, which is everything that they have demanded, except reparations [and that will make no difference], even genociding themselves. The more Whites surrender to the Negroes, the more Negroes loathe Whites and the less they appreciate what Whites have given them.)

King urges Negroes in the civil rights movement to pressure Negroes who are not active in the civil rights movement to join and become active. The inactive Negro needs to be scorned to “pick up his citizenship rights and add his strength enthusiastically and voluntarily to the accumulation of power for himself and his people.” (P. 165.) King wanted to make every Negro a protestor.

Then, King writes, “The slave heritage can be cast into the dim past by our consciousness of our strengths.” (P. 165.) (Instead of casting away their slave heritage, many Negroes copied the Jews. As Jews boast of their Holocaust™ heritage even if they have none, Negroes boast about their slave heritage even if they have none. As Jews have used the Holocaust™ to swindle ever more wealth and power from people who were not alive at the time of the Holocaust™, so have Negroes used slavery to swindle ever more wealth and power from people who were not alive at the time of slavery.)

Continuing, King argues that adequate organization is necessary to channel the Negro’s fighting spirit to achieve radical reform. Negroes needed to overcome “their disunity and petty competition.” (P. 166.) (Much of the Negro’s victory over Whites results from disunity and petty competition among Whites. Worse, some Whites, especially Yankees, have sought to annihilate another White ethnicity, Southerners — and have wanted to genocide them even before Lincoln’s War. Moreover, scalawags, New-South Southerners, Southern wokesters, and other quislings care little about their brethren, the Southern people, and nothing about Southern culture. Instead, they imitate the Yankee and join him in the genocide of the Southerner. Yankees and these Southern traitors join Negroes in their war against the South.)

Next, King writes, “Negroes are almost instinctively cohesive. We band together readily, and against white hostility we have an intense and wholesome loyalty to each other.” (P. 168.) (Cohesiveness is one great advantage that Negroes have over Whites. Negroes easily unite against Whites. Unfortunately for the White race, some White ethnicities, especially the Yankee, loathe other White ethnicities, e.g., Southerners, so much that they are willing to unite with Negroes against their fellow Whites and genocide them.)

Continuing, King proposes some civil rights programs. He focuses on one in particular, which deals with poverty. He states that “there are twice as many white poor as Negro poor in the United States.” (P. 170.) Then, he identifies several causes of poverty. (One item that he omits from his list is genetics. Genetics is not the cause of all poverty, but it is the cause of some poverty.) He criticizes the fragmented approach to treating poverty; a coordinated approach is needed. King concludes that the solution to poverty is a guaranteed income. (King-idolizing conservatives take note: You need to promote a guaranteed income.) Further, he attacks the market economy because its “dislocations in the market operation . . . and the prevalence of discrimination thrust people into idleness and bind them in constant or frequent unemployment against their will.” (Pp. 171-172.) (King ignores that when given a choice to work or to be paid for loafing, many people will choose to loaf for a living.)

Then, King identifies two groups that have enjoyed guaranteed incomes for nearly 40 years: “The wealthy who own securities have always had an assured income; and their polar opposite, the relief client, has been guaranteed an income, however minuscule, through welfare benefits.” (P. 174.) (King must have never owned securities. Stocks may or may not pay dividends. Moreover, a company may go bankrupt, which usually results in the holders of its stocks and bonds losing everything.)

Citing John Kenneth Galbraith (an abysmal but popular economist), King notes that the cost of a guaranteed income is about what is spent on the Vietnam War. King concludes, “If democracy is to have breadth of meaning, it is necessary to adjust this inequity [of distribution].” (P. 174.) (King ignores the lack of constitutional authority for the federal government to provide a guaranteed income. But, then, King had absolutely no use for the US Constitution; nearly everything that he advanced was unconstitutional. Nevertheless, a State may provide a guaranteed income unless its constitution prohibits it.)

King taught Negroes how to envy and never to be satisfied. He taught Whites to disdain themselves and to seek their own genocide. Moreover, he destroyed the South, which the White oligarchs wanted to be destroyed because the South was the last bulwark on the planet for liberty, localism, constitutional government, Christian values, and the White race. 

Although King objected to discrimination based on merit, he did not object to discrimination based on race per se. Although he opposed racial discrimination that favored Whites, he supports racial discrimination that favored Negroes. Nearly all Negroes agree with King concerning discrimination.

Since other races are genetically more endowed than the Negro, Negroes, like King, object to discrimination based on merit. They prefer discrimination based on race if the discrimination favors their race as it has for at least the last 50 years.

The hiring of musicians for classical orchestras illustrates this hypocrisy of Negroes. Historically, few Negroes were hired to play in classical orchestras. Negroes claimed that they were not hired because of their race. In response to this accusation, a barrier was placed between the auditioning musician and the people hiring so that those hiring could not see the race of the musician; they could only hear the music that the musician was playing. Still, the number of Negroes playing in classical orchestras did not significantly increase. So, Negroes demanded that those hiring see the person auditioning. Thus, Negroes demanded discrimination against better-qualified White musicians in favor of less-qualified Negro musicians. In other words, Negroes were demanding affirmative action and quotas for Negro musicians. Naturally, King would have approved of this racial discrimination against Whites since he promoted such discrimination throughout his career.

The fate of the North American Indians provides a warning to Whites. Indians failed to unite against White immigrants when they greatly outnumbered Whites. Many Indians allied with Whites to fight other Indians. As a result, the North American Indian is almost extinct — most that exist today are more mongrel than Indian. Whites are following the path of the North American Indians.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1.

More social issues articles.

The Jim Crow Era Versus the Civil Rights Era

The Jim Crow Era Versus the Civil Rights Era

Thomas Allen

I have read several books and articles whose authors hated the Jim Crow Era and loved the Civil Rights Era. Only slavery was worse for Blacks than the Jim Crow Era. The Civil Rights Era is the greatest thing that ever happened to Blacks. Reading their works, one is perplexed about how they arrived at this conclusion. They present information that shows that in many respects, life for Blacks was superior during the Jim Crow Era than during the Civil Rights Era.

During the Jim Crow Era, Blacks had a growing middle class based on merit and, thus, self-respect. Because of this growing Black middle class, Stalin sent agents to destroy it by creating a Black revolution. Contrariwise, during the Civil Rights Era, the growing Black middle class is based on affirmative action and, therefore, doubt. In the Civil Rights Era, the Black middle class has been based on special privileges, those who grant the privileges can quickly bring the Black middle class down by removing the privileges. Consequently, Blacks had more independence during the Jim Crow Era than they have had in the Civil Rights Era.

Further, during the Jim Crow Era, most Black families had fathers. Now, in the Civil Rights Era, most Black families have no fathers. Thus, the family unit was much stronger during the Jim Crow Era. Moreover, Blacks married at a higher rate than Whites. During the Civil Rights Era, Black marriages have plummeted. A much lower percentage of Black children were born out of wedlock in the Jim Crow Era. Now, the Civil Rights Era has resulted in a large percentage of Black children being born out of wedlock. Moreover, Black sacrificed far fewer of their children to Lucifer at the abortion clinics then than now.

Also, during the Jim Crow Era, criminal activity by Blacks was lower than during the Civil Rights Era. During the Jim Crow Era, Blacks had a higher moral standard than they have had in the Civil Rights Era.

Moreover, fewer Blacks were welfare recipients and, therefore, much more self-reliant. During the Civil Rights Era, many Blacks have become enslaved to the welfare state and are dependent on their masters in Washington. Thus, they have traded segregation for slavery.

In the time of Jim Crow, only a few Blacks expressed a desire to genocide their race, the American Negro, via miscegenation. As a result of the Civil Rights Era, an ever-growing number of Blacks seem compelled to genocide the American Negro via miscegenation.

Apparently, the benefits of the Civil Rights Era have more than offset the deterioration of the Black family, the rising Black crime rate, the enslavement of Blacks in the welfare state, and the genocide of the Black race. (Not only is the American Negro being genocided via miscegenation, but also the culture and society of the American Negro are being destroyed through integration, which too is genocide. This genocide of the American Negro may account for the deterioration of Black behavior.) At least the Civil Rights Era has reduced the number of restrooms and water fountains by amalgamating the races. With integrated schools, it has reduced the quality of education for all through indoctrination-propaganda curricula, but at least both Blacks and Whites now receive the same low-quality education. Anyway, Blacks can now eat in the same restaurants as Whites, can sit beside Whites on public transportation and at public entertainment events, and stay at the same motels — although integration ended many Black businesses. Moreover, during the Civil Rights Era, Blacks have received preferential treatment in employment via affirmative action and quotas. Nevertheless, most people believe that the benefits of the Civil Rights Era for Blacks far outweigh its costs for Blacks and especially for Whites.

As shown above, Blacks were much more independent and self-reliant during the Jim Crow Era. Now, in the Civil Rights Era, they are dependent on their masters in Washington and the statehouses. Thus, many have reverted back to slavery without the self-respect that a slave had knowing that he more than earned his keep. Today’s slaves are nothing more than parasites living off others and giving nothing in return but their votes and services as protestors and rioters. Contrary to the popular myth, Blacks had many advantages and benefits under Jim Crow that they have lost during the Civil Rights Era.

Jim Crow laws never sought to destroy the Black society, culture, and race; they even protected them. However, an objective of the Civil Rights laws has been to destroy White society, culture, and race along with Black society, culture, and race.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles. 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg School Integration

Charlotte-Mecklenburg School Integration

Thomas Allen

The desegregation-integration of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system is a good example of the greed of the New South Southerner and the hypocrisy of the Northerner. Their attitude toward integration well illustrates this greed and hypocrisy. (For those who do not know the geography of North Carolina, Charlotte is the largest city in North Carolina and the county seat of Mecklenburg County. Mecklenburg County had one school system that included the city of Charlotte.)

In the 1960s, Charlotte-Mecklenburg had desegregated schools yet by 1968 only 28 percent of Blacks attended majority-White schools, which was more race-mixing than most other large cities had achieved. Nevertheless, the integrationists were not satisfied.

In 1971, three years after the Supreme Court legalized forced busing to achieve substantial integration, Judge James McMillan imposed forced busing on Charlotte-Mecklenburg to achieve the equal distribution of Black and White students. His ruling, which the Supreme Court supported, initially received some protests. Parents who lived in the suburbs objected to busing. They accepted desegregation, which required assigning students to schools without considering race. However, they opposed integration, which required assigning students to schools based on race. Although he did nothing to alleviate forced busing to achieve racial balance, President Nixon endorsed their opposition. Even the Supreme Court seemed to agree with the protesters in a 1974 ruling and especially after 1990.

Nevertheless, community leaders decided not to oppose integration because they feared opposition would stifle Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s economy. Consequently, they supported integration. Thus, they placed wealth above everything else. If they placated the integrationists, especially the Northern integrationists, most of whom wanted integration in the South but not in the North, the result would be an economic boom. Therefore, they not only promoted the mild climate, low taxes, and low cost of living in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, they also promoted its progressive racial policies.

Although Whites preferred neighborhood schools, they surrendered to force busing to achieve racially balanced schools. Naively, the liberal leaders sought to prove that racially balanced integrated schools could achieve a high-quality education, which they never have. (Integrated schools lead to lower educational standards.) For the liberal leaders of Charlotte, integration was a source of great pride.

When President Reagan opposed taking children out of neighborhood schools and using them as pawns in a social experiment, the Charlotte Observer objected. It declared that the integration of Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools was Charlotte’s greatest achievement. Integration of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools led to a strong, growing economy.

Whether cause or coincidence, growth did accompany school integration. Between 1970 and 1997, Charlotte’s population grew more than 70 percent, the second greatest rate among American cities with a population greater than 500,000. Moreover, Charlotte became a major banking city.

A major cause of the integrationists’ praise for Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s integrated school system was that the school system was countrywide. Consequently, Whites could not avoid integration by fleeing to the suburbs as they did in the North. Thus, Charlotte-Mecklenburg was an excellent example of the success of court-ordered forced busing — from the integrationist perspective.

With the economic growth came the Northern migrant. These Northern Whites settled in predominantly White communities. (Northerners and White leaders may preach integration, but most prefer not to live in integrated communities.) As a result of Whites living in predominantly White communities, Blacks became disproportionally concentrated in Charlotte.

As White moved out of Charlotte, students, both Black and White, spent more time on buses so that racial balance could be achieved. Nevertheless, school authorities refused to build new schools in predominantly White communities. Busing to achieve integration led to a growth in private schools. By 1997, about 25 percent of White students in Charlotte-Mecklenburg attended private schools, which was 10 times the number in 1970, just before forced busing began, and which was more than 10 times the national average. 

Not only was busing causing Whites to flee public schools, so was the decline in the quality of education in public schools. The poor behavior of Blacks was another cause for leaving public schools.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s progressive policies had brought many new businesses and people to the county. Many of these newcomers were from the North. Most Northerners had avoided integrated schools by moving to suburbs that had their own school systems. This was not an option in Charlotte-Mecklenburg because the county had one school system that covered the whole county including Charlotte. When Northerners came to Charlotte-Mecklenburg, they demanded schools like the ones that they had left behind. They wanted to send their children to predominately White schools. They did not want to sacrifice quality education on the altar of integration. Although Yankees did not mind and generally favored forced busing Southerners to Black neighborhoods to achieve racial balance, they were not going to allow their children to be bussed to Black neighborhoods.

By 1990, Charlotte-Mecklenburg began to realize that forced integration was making Charlotte-Mecklenburg less attractive to new businesses. That is, forced integration was hurting the recruitment of new businesses.  Consequently, business leaders, whose god is wealth, abandoned force busing, which previously they had promoted.

Bowing to these business leaders, the school board sharply reduced forced busing in 1992. To achieve integration, the school board instituted magnet programs. However, because many magnet schools were in Black neighborhoods, many Blacks were bused elsewhere to make space for White students. To maintain integration, the school board resorted to a quota system to ensure an adequate number of Black students in the magnet schools. Still, many Blacks did not want to attend magnate schools. Consequently, spaces reserved for Blacks remained empty while Whites remained on waiting lists.

Apparently, the school board thought magnate schools, many of which were in Black neighborhoods, would make Black neighborhoods palatable to Whites. Moreover, the school board seemed to believe that White parents would voluntarily send their children halfway across the county to attend a magnet school. Nevertheless, the magnet programs did succeed in placating many Whites.

The quota system led to a lawsuit in 1997. A White plaintiff claimed that the quota system amounted to racial discrimination. Being dominated by integrationists,  the school board objected. It declared that desegregation of its schools had not been achieved. After 30 years of trying, it had failed to desegregate its schools. One of its chief arguments that desegregation had not been overcome was the racial gap in academic achievement between Blacks and Whites.

Judge Robert Potter ruled against the school board in favor of the plaintiff. He declared that Charlotte-Mecklenburg had eliminated the last vestige of past discrimination and that it had complied in good faith with the federal court desegregation orders. Thus, he prohibited the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school board from assigning students to schools based on race and from allocating educational opportunities through race-based lotteries, preferences, and set-asides.

After this court ruling, most Whites abandoned schools in predominately Black neighborhoods, and White enrollment in the suburbs soared. By 2007, more than half the Charlotte-Mecklenburg elementary schools were either predominantly (90 percent) White or predominately Black. Being relieved of having to achieve racial balances, the school board could now focus on improving the quality of education for both Whites and Blacks. The shift of resources from busing to achieve a racial balance to improving the quality of education improved the overall academics of Blacks.

When the federal court ordered Charlotte-Mecklenburg to implement integration using forced busing, the leaders of Charlotte-Mecklenburg adopted forced busing with fervent enthusiasm. Forced busing became their pride about which they boasted. They believed that integration would lead to economic growth, which did occur. Along with economic growth came the Northern transplant. These Northerners cared little about integration for themselves. Integration was solely for Southerners. These Northerners ardently opposed forced busing to achieve integration when it involved their children. Eventually, Northerners pressured the Charlotte-Mecklenburg leaders to kill their pride, forced busing. Thus, ended forced busing to achieve racial integration in Charlotte-Mecklenburg.

Reference

Wolters, Raymond. Race and Education, 1954-2007. Columbia, Missouri: University of Missouri Press, 2008.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Why I am not a Republican

 Why I am not a Republican

Thomas Allen

I am not a Republican for many of the same reasons that I am not a Democrat. Both promote destructive policies — only the Democrats generally promote them with more alacrity and vigor and are more successful.

The comments that follow are directed at the Republican and Democratic leaders and their spokesmen and apologists in the media. Although they are not directed at the rank-and-file Republicans and Democrats, most of the rank-and-file do adhere to and follow their leaders in the matters discussed below.

Republicans and Democrats are proponents of “American Exceptionalism.” This exceptionalism is the creed of equality, democracy, and universal natural rights, which both promote. This creed is the defining principle that makes America America. However, they disagree somewhat about what constitutes “natural rights” and especially what equality means.

Both Republicans and Democrats prefer the constitution that Lincoln (as furthered developed by Presidents Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and carried to fruition by the Warren Court and especially Justice William Brennan), which is the current constitution, to the constitution that the founding fathers gave the country.

While Democrats only give constitutional government lip service, Republicans claim to believe in constitutional government. Yet they have done nothing to reduce the size of the federal government. As under Democrats, the federal government continues to grow under Republicans — perhaps, not as fast, but it still grows.

An example of the hypocrisy of the Republican support of constitutional government is the unconstitutional Department of Education. When Republicans controlled the federal government, it did nothing to abolish the Department of Education despite their promise to abolish it. Instead of abolishing the Department of Education, they have used it to consolidate federal control of education in the United States, which is why the Democrats established it. Thus, the Republicans have collaborated with the Democrats to give the federal government control of education in the United States.

Republicans and Democrats both revere Father Abraham (Lincoln) and St. Martin Luther King the Divine — only Republicans more so than Democrats. Republicans have even elevated them to Deity.

Like Democrats, Republicans are racial nihilists and promote a multiracial and multicultural country and society. Both are globalists. Neither have any objections to miscegenation, and both promote other policies that eventually genocide the American Negro.

Both Republicans and Democrats promote diversity as a strength and great virtue. Therefore, both ignore Madison’s warning about too much diversity, which plutocrats use to transfer ever more wealth and power to themselves. Thus, plutocrats control both parties.

Although Democrats ardently support abortion, Republicans do not oppose abortion — their rhetoric to the contrary. In spite (or because) of abortion being a highly successful weapon in the genocide of the American Negro, Democrats have ardently promoted abortion for more than a half-century. Except for their rhetoric, Republicans stopped seriously opposing abortion decades ago.

Both are Lincolnian-Hamiltonians. Nonetheless, Democrats prefer much more governmental intervention in the economy than do Republicans. Thus, Democrats are much more fascistic than are Republicans. Whereas Democrats are proponents of a command-and-control economy, Republicans favor a market economy — at least in rhetoric. (Republicans claim that they support a free-market economy, which they do not. Otherwise, they would move to abolish all the regulatory agencies, which are unconstitutional anyway, of the federal government.)

Contrary to their assertion otherwise, Republicans support the welfare state. Democrats strongly promote the welfare state for the same reason that Bismark, the archconservative German chancellor, did. (Bismark instituted the welfare state in Germany: The welfare state makes governmental control of the people easier because people who receive benefits from a welfare program are less likely to object to other governmental programs.) The primary difference between the Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans want to make controlling people more cost-effective.

Like the Democrats, Republicans like to create problems and then like the Democrats express outrage at the consequences. Many of the problems that both Republicans and Democrats rail against result from the welfare state, which both endorse and support.

Despite their rhetoric during political campaigns, both support the warfare state. They prefer war to peace. Neither object to using the United States military to bully other countries and to interfere with their internal affairs. After all, war is necessary to impose the American creed of equality, democracy, and universal natural rights on everyone. More important, war transfers ever more wealth and power to the rich and powerful, who control the federal government.

Both the Republicans and Democrats support the police state. Moreover, with the Transportation Security Administration, secret warrants and arrests, indefinite detention, and torture centers, Republicans have led the charge. All this has been done in the name of the war on terrorism, which is really a war on the American people. (Terrorism results from the foreign intervention and meddling policies of the Republicans and Democrats.)

Just as the Democrats accept the thief of the 2020 presidential election, so do the Republicans. Without Republican succor, Democrats could not have stolen the election. Even the Republican-controlled Supreme Court abandoned its constitutional duty to rectify the illegalities of the election — and so did Republican-controlled State legislatures.

Both Republicans and Democrats reject intergenerational duty to ancestors and posterity. If they cared about their posterity, governmental debt would not be exploding. If they cared about their ancestry, they would not promote conditions that lead to racial and cultural genocide, yet they promote programs and policies that lead to racial and cultural genocide. 

Neither Democrats nor Republicans want to dismantle the leviathan federal government and return to the constitutional government of the original Constitution. Both want to use it to advance their agendas. They consider the Constitution to be so elastic that they make it a worthless scrap of paper.

Neither supports the doctrine of States’ rights except when they can use the States to oppose a policy that the other party advances with which they disagree. 

Republicans and Democrats are hostile to traditional conservatives, who are the true conservatives. In marginalizing traditional Southern conservatives, both parties have been highly effective.

Nevertheless, Republicans and Democrats do differ in some aspects. Democrats are more vindictive and spiteful than Republicans. On the other hand, Republicans are recreants. While Democrats are bold, Republicans are timid.

Democrats are Dixiephobic, Confederaphobic, and albusphobic. Except for neoconservatives and establishment conservatives, Republicans are generally not Dixiephobes or Confederaphobes. Moreover, not all Republicans are albusphobes.

While Democrats are fervent supporters of gun control even to the point of disarming the American people, Republicans are hesitant in imposing more gun control. Nevertheless, Republicans are always ready to comprise and support more gun control. Furthermore, Republicans have not removed any restrictions on gun ownership when they controlled the presidency and Congress.

While Democrats favor restricting energy production and usage, Republicans favor cheap and abandon energy. However, as with its other principles, Republicans are always willing to compromise away cheap and abandon energy.

As for COVID-19, the Republican approach has been much less authoritarian than has been the Democratic approach. Moreover, Republicans who did take an authoritarian approach to COVID-19 have been much more eager to relinquish their control than have been Democrats.

Most Republicans favor lower taxes, and Democrats favor higher taxes. Nevertheless, both favor exploding federal budgets.

Republicans are eager to compromise and abandon their principles (if they have any). Perhaps, Republicans compromise their apparent principles so easily and quickly is because their real principles differ little from those of Democrats. Contrastingly, Democrats resist compromise and abandoning their principles as evil as they may be. 

Democrats are on the left and so are the Republicans. Both are socialists (mostly of the democratic fascist variety) at heart; only the Democrats are more open and honest about being socialists.

Another major difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats are about a decade ahead of Republicans. (The homosexual agenda evidences this conclusion. For years, Democrats have promoted homosexual marriages and finally succeeded in legalizing them over the objections of Republicans. Now most Republicans accept homosexual marriages.)

Most of the time, arguments and disagreements between Republicans and Democrats are about details and strategies and not about principles. 

The above description of Republicans explains why most establishment conservatives and neoconservatives loath President Trump. Trump deviated from too many of these Republican standards. Yet, many people supported Trump because he did deviate from some of these positions that Republicans had stolen from Democrats.

For the most part, Republicans are imitation Democrats; they just lack the courage to become full-fledged Democrats. The reason that I am not a Republican or a Democrat is that Republicans are too much like Democrats and Democrats are too much like Republicans.

Governor George Wallace once said that there was not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democrats and Republicans. That is still true, and a dime is worth only a fraction of what it was when he made this remark.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

A Letter: End Governmental Control of Education

A Letter: End Governmental Control of Education

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1989 to the editor of The Franklin Times.]

    If President Bush hopes to solve the problems of public education by allowing parents to send their children to “schools of choice” and giving parents, teachers, and local administrators more say, he will be disappointed. Even Mr. Ruth’s suggestion of electing school board members and county commissioners who are leaders instead of wimps and eradicating the incompetents will not solve the problems of public education. They will not work because the problem is governmental control of education.
    People have been free for years to choose which post office to use for their postal services. Such free choice has not solved the problems with the post office. (If switching post offices were a solution, The Franklin Times could solve its mail delivery problem by going to a different post office.) It is not going to solve the problems with public education. Competing buildings in the public school system will be no more effective in solving the problems with public schools than it has been with the post office.
    The solution to the failure of public education is to depoliticize it by abandoning socialism. Under the present socialistic system of governmental monopoly in education, failure is rewarded, and success is penalized. The more public schools fail to educate students, the more money they receive. As long as public schools remain a governmental agency, this will always be so. In a governmental bureaucracy, which is what the public school system is, success is determined by the size of the budget and number of employees. It is not determined by the product, educated children. In fact, public schools have little incentive to educate children. To educate children is to their detriment. Bureaucracies grow by having crises. If public schools were producing adequately educated children, then the clamor for increased school budgets would wane. The failure of education in this country can never be solved until socialism is abandoned.
    Under a private school system, success is rewarded, and failure is penalized. Those schools that succeed in educating students prosper. Those schools that fail to educate students go out of business. (Although there are numerous private schools in this country, there is still a public school monopoly because parents of children in private schools and even people who have no children must pay tribute to the public school system.)
    A private school system solves many of the problems of public schools that go beyond adequately educating children. It solves the problem of Bible reading and prayer, creationism versus evolution, sex education, and many other controversial issues.
    Because the public school system is a governmental agency, it politizes education. Thus, education becomes a political contest where the winner takes all, and the loser gets nothing. When fundamental Christians control the public school system, bible reading and prayer are in. When the agnostics and atheists control the public school system, bible reading and prayer are out. Under the public school system, large segments of the population are forced to support the indoctrination of children with values with which they disagree. Large segments are also denied the right of having their children taught values in public schools with which they agree. (Does anyone really believe that under a “school of choice” program that any public school will be allowed to indoctrinate students in Christian dogma?)
    Under a private school system, these problems are avoided. Parents choose the values their children are to be taught and pay the school of their choice to teach them. They are not forced to pay for the teaching of concepts with which they disagree as they presently do.
    The solution to educational problems in this country is to replace the socialistic monopolistic public school system with a free market private school system.
    [The above does not discuss the use of vouchers for private schools. Such a program would be disastrous and effectively end private schools. They would become no more than charter schools and would have to kowtow to governmental bureaucrats for their money. Moreover, I am amazed that the public education establishment still objects to vouchers for private school. A voucher program will end up like every other governmental aid or subsidy program. It will give the government absolute control of private schools accepting vouchers, albeit through the back door. Everyone should know by now that one dollar of governmental money means 100 percent of governmental control once the victim becomes addicted to the “free” governmental money.]

Copyright © 1989, 2022 by Thomas C. Allen.

More politicl articles.

Principled Conservatism

Principled Conservatism

Thomas Allen

Conservatism is a tone or attitude; it is not a set of principles. This attitude rests on the wisdom of the ages and is highly skeptical of utopian schemes, such as socialism in all its forms. Thus, the wisdom of the ages, the accumulated wisdom of generations, tradition, guides conservatism instead of abstract speculation. Nevertheless, conservatism does not eschew principles.

What conservatives seek to conserve is not what happened a few years ago or even decades ago. They seek to conserve the consensus of their civilization over the centuries since it reflects the truth derived from its being.

Moreover, conservatives reject universality. They affirm selectivity and particularism; thus, they are tribal. Also, conservatives think in terms of individual men instead of in terms of mankind or humanity as do liberals and neoconservatives.

The following describes a principled conservative, also known as a traditional American conservative. Among the principled conservatives are Jeffersonian-Calhounians, paleoconservatives, traditional Southern conservatives, fusionists, and the Old Right. Principled conservatives should not be confused with neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, or enlightened conservatives. (Establishment conservatives are conservatives who are not neoconservatives, enlightened conservatives, or principled conservatives; they include Hamiltonian-Lincolnians, big-government conservatives, the typical Republican politicians, and Buckleyites. Enlightened conservatives are the New Conservatives of the 1950s represented by Russell Kirk and who subordinate the individual to society, subordinate freedom to virtue [for them, virtue is freedom] and rights to duty, subordinate reason to undifferentiated tradition to the point of rejecting reasoning, scorn reason and principle, reduce virtue to prudence, and depend heavily on Providence.)

What follows is a description of the typical principled conservative. The typical principled conservative:

– opposes designs for the perfecting human nature and society;

– scorns uniformity, egalitarianism, utilitarianism, materialism, pragmatism, scientism, and positivism;

– prefers the familiar to the unknown, the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, and the convenient to the perfect;

– is partial to the present;

– is disinclined toward doctrine or creed and, therefore, objects to the notion that the United States are a creedal nation;

– eschews the abstract;

– rejects Rationalism and Universalism but does not reject rationality and universality as such;

– cherishes both individuality and plurality;

– believes in absolute truths and absolute values;

– believes that truth is objective and eternal;

– is not a reactionary seeking an unrecoverable lost past;

– rejects the notions of the perfect life of man, the illimitable progress of society, and materialistic determination;

– has an affection for the proliferation of variety and the mystery of human existence;

– dismisses the notion of man as a manipulable, mutable being whom social engineers can shape;

– affirms that utopia degrades man;

– believes, unlike collectivist liberals, that man is more than a tool-bearing gregarious animal whose end is material welfare;

– maintains that moral and spiritual virtues are the true end of man;

– sees man as an imperfect being, who cannot be molded into perfection (besides, perfection is subjective, and what one modeler sees as perfection, another sees as imperfection);

– believes that all people are (or should be) equal before the law (and even this equality is a chimera because of the differences in judges, jurors, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and law enforcers) but objects to universal egalitarianism (the equality of all people in all respects, e.g., all people are equal in intelligence, ability, and potentiality);

– maintains that the individual is the locus of virtue in the social order and this virtue is based on the moral and intellectual order that has been passed from generation to generation; 

– accepts the historical idea that man is a rational, volitional, autonomous individual, a free being who lives between good and evil, truth and error, and who fulfills his destiny in the choices that he makes;

– understands that innate freedom is the essence of man’s being — and upon this axiom is his (the principled conservatives) political thoughts founded;

– is a proponent of tradition and prefers the traditional to the pragmatic when the two conflict;

– holds that principles should be derived mostly by convection and compromise and tested by long experience;

– favors an epistemology rooted in tradition and morality of particularity;

– distinguishes, unlike enlightened conservatives, between the good and evil traditions — using reasoning to distinguish among the possibilities;

– protects the tradition and applies it to new situations;

– does not avert change per se but does avert rapid change;

– is hesitative about change and innovation and is selective about which changes and innovations to accept;

– believes that change should be a slow and natural alteration and not some present infatuation;

– believes that change should come because of a need generally felt, not inspired by abstractions;

– prefers innovations that approximate natural growth, that is, they are intimate in the situation, and are no merely imposed;

– thus, favors change that responds to a specific defect while opposing change that is primarily designed to improve the conditions of human circumstances;

– favors change that is small and limited while opposing change that is large and indefinite;

– opposes radical change and innovation;

– cautions against change not because he opposes change but because of the severe limitation of an individual’s knowledge;

– opposes change for the sake of change, i.e., the lust for change;

– believes that tradition needs to guide reason;

– objects to the Rationalist’s idea of reason divorced from tradition, custom, and habit;

– opposes rationalist ideologies derived solely by reasoning in part because they are inflexible;

– accepts using reason operating within the bounds of tradition but opposes abstract reasoning;

– acknowledges that knowledge is a form of tradition because it passes from one generation to another;

– holds that the knowledge of any individual or group of individuals is insignificant compared with the knowledge of the nations and ages;

– conceives of knowledge as the search for and the acceptance of truth and not as the acquisition of power to control and manipulate man and nature;

– asserts that moral knowledge is gained from tradition;

– objects to the Rationalist’s notion of moral knowledge being abstract and universal, but does not reject moral universality because the development and exercise of universal moral truths depend on tradition;

– believes that morality is tradition-specific and depends on a particular time, place, and relationship (morality or moral doctrines include individualism, pluralism, natural rights, human rights, the principle of utility, categorical imperative, and social contract);

– accepts morality as consisting of principles and ideals that are universal and acknowledges that they are abstractions construed from tradition but rejects the Rationalist’s notion that they are timeless, transcultural, and tradition-neutral; that is, these principles and ideals arrive from tradition and do not beget tradition;

– places the absolute moral values of Western civilization above relativism, which he loathes;

– opposes the notion that society can be compelled with a plan of supratemporal ideals;

– maintains that rights are settled by convention and are not universal abstractions; 

– holds that freedom is the first criterion of political order;

– acknowledges that freedom is essential to the nature of man and is neutral to virtue and vice, yet man has the duty to seek virtue;

– argues that rights are inherently derived from the nature of man; rights are not derived from society or the state;

– asserts that every individual has the right to live uncoerced by force or fraud in possession of his life, liberty, and property;

– asserts that each person has the duty to obey moral laws by which he respects the rights of others to their lives, liberties, and property — failure to do so results in the forfeiture of his rights and freedoms;

– promotes the freedom to choose, free will; therefore, man cannot be forced to be free;

– contends that although man may be forced to act virtuously, he cannot be forced to be virtuous — only when an individual is free to choose virtue or vice can he be virtuous;

– advocates freedom from and opposes freedom for, which is not freedom at all but a set of conceived ends;

– demands the right to bear arms (thus, condemning all forms of gun control) and all the other inalienable rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights;

– objects to political correction, speech codes, counterculture, cancel culture, sensitivity training, and other similar absurdities;

– values loyalty and sees patriotism as a virtue and not a vice;

– maintains that the United States are a European country and a White or Aryan country and, therefore, their people are a European people;

– believes that the United States are an integral part of European civilization, i.e., Western civilization;

– believes in racial preservation (or at least, use to be but now, regrettably, is most likely a racial nihilist who practices the new morality of sacrificing the races on the altar of humanity);

– opposes miscegenation and policies, such as integration, that lead to miscegenation (unfortunately, those who have become racial nihilists have abandoned this opposition);

– opposes immigration of nonwhites (unfortunately, those who have become racial nihilists have abandoned this opposition);

– supports the traditional family, which is the basic unit of human society, and, therefore, opposes weakening the family by encouraging sexual licentiousness, homosexuality, and miscegenation, and subverting the authority of the parents;

– is pro-life and, therefore, opposes abortion;

– opposes inheritance and estate taxes (they are antifamily taxes) and the  progressive income tax;

– maintains that the United States are a Christian country and, therefore, opposes attempts to deny or weaken this Christian heritage;

– opposes governmental efforts to deny people their rights of religious expression and worship;

– believes in traditional education controlled by the parents instead of the government and, therefore, disapproves of the government acquiring the job of educating children (public education);

– supports teaching traditional virtues and how to think instead of what to think and, therefore, opposes using schools to indoctrinate students with propaganda to tear down traditional values and loyalties;

– asserts that the function of schools and colleges is to train the mind and to transmit the culture and tradition of the civilization to the young; thus, opposes training students for life adjustment through life experience via free activity where the teacher imposes nothing and where current prejudices are taught instead of values, which leads to value nihilism and political collectiveness, which are the basis of the current educational system;

–  argues that society and state were made for man and man is not made for them — unlike socialists in all their forms, who believe that man is secondary to society and state;

– rejects the notion that society is a real entity, a living organism, with a life, rights, and moral duties of its own and, therefore, does not consider society an organism morally superior to people, nor is it a being with a corporate personality that has rights;

– considers the individual as the essential moral entity and society as merely a set of relations between persons;

– believes in a transcendental order, a body of natural laws, that rule society and conscience;

– maintains that civilize society requires orders and classes;

– opposes people who attempt or want to reconstruct society on an abstract design;

– favors a society based on noninstrumental rules of conduct, i.e., rules that do not specify a practice or routine to promote or hinder the achievement of some substantive purpose but prescribes how to live harmoniously;

– promotes a society where citizens are regarded as individuals who may severally or collectively engage in many self-chosen activities;

– maintains that all value resides in the individual and that all social institutions derive their value from individuals;

– holds that social institutions are justified only when they serve the needs of individuals;

– defines the state as a definite group of people, distinct and separate from other people, who possess a monopoly of legal coercive force; it is not an organism or being with a life of its own independent of the people who comprise it; moreover, it is not one with the citizens whom it governs in a holistic unity;

– declares that the purpose of the state is to ensure the peaceful coexistence among citizens holding diverse and disparate ideas of moral truths instead of promoting or imposing moral truth;

– identifies two natural functions of the state: (1) to protect the rights of citizens against violent or fraudulent assaults, which includes protecting citizens from assaults by foreign forces and (2) to judge conflicts of rights with rights;

– treats the state (government) as a civil association, i.e., people associating solely in their obligations to observe the law (people are not told what to do but how to do whatever they choose to do);

– maintains that the government of a state is not a manager but is an umpire, the custodian of the rules;

– affirms that the state ought to be limited to its proper function of preserving order;

– opposed the state (government) being used to bring about some specific goal or ideal;

– holds that the state has the duty to respect the rights and freedoms of individuals and to guarantee these rights and freedoms by restraining those who trespass against the lives, liberties, and property of others;

– abhors the notion of using the state (government) to create and impose a utopia;

– sees the state as necessary to maintain social order, which is necessary for a harmonious society;

– supports small, limited government;

– asserts that the sole purpose of government is to rule; therefore, objects to the government being used to impose beliefs and activities on the people, to educate them, to make them better or happier, or to direct them to undertake specific activities;

– holds that governing is specific and limited to providing general rules of conduct to enable people to pursue activities of their own choice instead of imposing substantive activity and, therefore, opposes the government enacting positive laws directing people how to live;

– prefers the constitution that the founding fathers gave the United States to the one that Lincoln gave them, which is the one under which they now operate;

– maintains that the United States consists of 50 sovereign nations or bodies politics, States, as set out in the original Constitution and founding documents (Regrettably, most likely has abandoned the Constitution that the founding fathers gave the country in favor of the Constitution that Lincoln and the Radical Republicans gave it; thus, he claims that the United States is a sovereign nation.)

– adheres to the doctrine of States’ rights;

– remonstrates all treaties, agreements, conventions, alliances, international organizations, etc. that impinge on the sovereignty and independence of the United States or any State;

– opposes the Supreme Court and other federal courts revising the Constitution and rewriting federal and State statutes;

– condemns bureaucrats issuing and enforcing administrative decrees (regulations) that interfere with personal liberty and dignity, private property, and the sanctity of the family;

– favors the dispersal and decentralization of political and economic power and abhors the concentration and centralization of political and economic power;

– advocates a free-market, free-enterprise economy;

– ardently supports private ownership of property and the right of the owner to control his property;

– advocates an economy that is independent of the state (government) and, therefore, loathes governmental economic planning no matter the form;

– opposes Marxism in all its forms (communism, fascism, national socialism, democratic socialism, etc.) and Keynesianism and related economic systems (such as the current economic system of the United States) — thus, opposing all economic systems designed to control the economy;

– loathes the notion that bureaucrats can better invest capital than capitalists can;

– abhors the notion that bureaucrats know better how consumers should spend their money than consumers do;

– opposes governmental control of credit and interest rates either directly or indirectly through its central bank;

– opposes the redistribution of wealth including the redistribution of wealth through punitive taxation or inflation;

– rejects egalitarianism and accepts unequal acquisition of property, wealth, influence, honor, etc. and the right to pass them to the heirs of the holder; the only equality that he supports is the equal right of all men to be free from coercion against their life, liberty, and property;

– opposes greed and the drive to exploit and prefers to enjoy rather than to exploit;

– has the propensity to use and enjoy what is available instead of longing for something else;

– favors a foreign policy that places the interest of the United States first;

– prefers peace to war;

– believes that the United States armed forces should only be used to defend the territory of the United States;

– opposes meddling in the affairs of other countries and an interventionist foreign policy;

– views welfarism, the welfare state, with disfavor;

– disapproves of the government providing insurance against the hazards of life;

– prefers voluntary aid associations and programs to governmental welfare programs;

– supports protecting the environment;

Thus, a principled conservative esteems tradition, is cautious about change, and is devoted to the preservation, maintenance, and extension of the tradition of freedom and virtue. He uses tradition as a guide for reasoning and reason to distinguish between desirable traditions and undesirable traditions.

Further, the essential principles of the principled conservative are virtue and liberty, the freedom of the individual. Virtue depends on freedom, and virtue should be the goal of freedom. (This goal requires the government to be limited to providing general rules of conduct to maintain the social order by protecting the rights of citizens against violent or fraudulent assaults, which includes protecting citizens from assaults by foreign forces, and judging conflicts of rights with rights; however, it should never be used to impose beliefs and activities.)

A principled conservative is skeptical of collectivism and statism as they move toward totalitarianism. He favors the primacy of the individual, which requires the division of power, that is, limited government and a free economy.

Moreover, a principled conservative abhors attempts to establish a utopia and the notion that society and mankind are perfectible, yet he strives to improve human institutions and conditions. Thus, he trusts the free function of free individuals either individually or in voluntary cooperation.

Some principled conservatives may deviate from several of the above items. However, most principled conservatives adhere to nearly all, if not all, of these items.

Reference

Francis, Samuel. “Statement of Principles [of the Council of the Conservative Citizens].” 2005.

Gottfried, Paul Edward. Conservatism in America: Making Sense of the American Right. New York, New York: Palgrave Macmillian, 2007.

Kerwick, Misguided Guardians: The Conservative Case against Neoconservatives. Las Vegas, Nevada: Stairway Press, 2016.

Meyer, Frank S. In Defense of Freedom and Related Essays. Indianapolis, Indiana: Liberty Fund, Inc., 1996.

Personal observations and other articles.

Copyright © 2021 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.

Some Random Thoughts on Political Issues

Some Random Thoughts on Political Issues

Thomas Allen

An explanation of how we got to where we are is summarized. Also, discussed are the beginnings of progressivism, compromise, socialist compassion, discrimination, education, forced vaccination, sanctuary cities, mental health and guns, and protective tariffs and piety.

How We Got to Where We Are
Augustine of Hippo, who was a father of Roman Catholicism, begot Calvin and Calvinism, who begot the Puritans of England. From the Puritans of England  came the Puritans of New England .

     In A History of the Christian Church (1870), Dr. Charles Hase describes the Puritans of England as follows: “In their morals and manners they were eminently pious, they looked upon all earthly pleasures as sinful, their own fancies were regarded as divine inspirations, and they thought that the state itself should be subject to their democratic hierarchy.” This description fits the Liberal Democrat of today, except what was considered pleasures then differs some from what is considered pleasures today.
The Puritan of New England begot the Yankee, who begot the abolitionist, who begot the Radical Republican, who begot the Progressive, who begot the Liberal Democrat. Augustine and all his philosophical and religious descendants to this day know how people ought to live, and they are determined to do everything in their power to make them live that way. Their god may differ, but their religiosity is the same. These are the people who have been controlling the country since 1860.

Progressivism: Its Beginnings
Progressivism began in the Washington administration with the struggle between the Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians. The Hamiltonians captured the Federalist party and imposed its version of progressivism with the First Bank of the United States being one of its gems. The Jeffersonians eventually drove the Hamiltonians from power, and the Federalist party died. Later, the Hamiltonians organized the Whig party whose version of progressivism included a central bank, high protective tariffs, and federally financed internal improvements. Finally, the Whigs amalgamated with several smaller parties to form the Republican party. Afterward, the Republican party put that great progressive Abraham Lincoln in office. Lincoln’s version of progressivism included driving the Southern States out of the union with the highest protective tariffs that the United States had endured to that time. Then, he denied the Southern States their right to secede and warred against them. To do this, he destroyed the Constitution. His war against the Constitution was so successful that the country has never recovered from it. When Woodrow Wilson entered office, he implemented his version of progressivism. Since then both the Democratic and Republican parties have been advocates of the Hamiltonian philosophy and progressivism.

Compromise Washington Style
The following is an example of what passes for compromise in Washington. Politicians who want to remove the people’s ability to defend themselves from despotic government propose to limit the capacity of magazines for semiautomatic rifles, which they erroneously call assault weapons, to ten rounds. Eventually, a “compromise” is reached with those who wanted no restriction. Finally, a restriction of 15 rounds is adopted. (One of my bosses said that he always asked for more than he wanted so that he could “compromise” back to what he really wanted.) The side that wanted a restriction has won; they gained a restriction. Conversely, the side that wanted no restriction has lost; they gained nothing.
With a true compromise, both sides receive something. For example, in exchange for limiting the size of a magazine, the restriction requiring the purchase of a mail-order firearm through a licensed dealer is removed.
As the above example shows in the first paragraph, O’Sullivan’s Law rules Washington. According to O’Sullivan’s Law, any organization that is not expressly right-wing will become left-wing over time. Thus, the United States government has implemented about 80 percent of the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto.
O’Sullivan’s Law is also revealed in what now passes as a “moderate.” Since the beginning of the progressive era, moderates have been drifting leftward politically, socially, and economically. Today, what is considered a moderate would have been considered a borderline communist fifty years ago.

Socialist Compassion
Socialists present themselves as compassionate — the ones who truly care about the common man and the little guy. Yet, the socialist president of Venezuela refused to allow food into the country for the starving masses, after he and the previous socialist president had destroyed the country with socialism. He proves that socialists care nothing for the common man and the little guy. Socialists just lust for power and want to control the common people and treat them worse than cattle. (At least they feed the cattle to keep them fat for the slaughter.) Of course, if anyone with a functioning brain cell would look at the best-known socialists of the twentieth century, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler, he would see the real compassion that socialists have for the common man and the little guy.

Discrimination
Today, people are allowed and even obligated to discriminate against two ethnicities. They are the Southerner and the Palestinian. At least, so far, the Southerner has not been dehumanized to the level of the Palestinian. Just as the British hunted and killed Tasmanians with impunity, Israelis can hunt and kill Palestinians with impunity.

Education
All politicians say that they favor education and want to improve public education. If they were honest, they would use the phrase “government schools” instead of “public education.”
How do they want to improve government schools? Do they want to make them better at indoctrinating pupils and teaching them what to think, which is what government schools currently do? Or, do they want to make them educate pupils and teach them how to think?
One can easily tell where a candidate stands. If he wants to spend more money on the current system, he favors indoctrination and the continuation of dumbing down pupils. However, if he proposes prohibiting all the school systems in the State from accepting federal funds and using any material or books offered or recommended by the US Department of Education, he favors educating and teaching pupils how to think critically.
Nevertheless, the public school system cannot be reformed because it is socialistic. Being socialistic, it breeds scarcity and mediocrity. It is the government telling parents where, how, and what their children’s minds are to be fed. Moreover, it is based on the premise that children belong to the government, and parents merely provide for the physical care of the government’s property.
About the governmental (public) school system, which the Puritans originated in the United States, James A. Bayard writes that “the Yankee school system . . . may stimulate the brain but it ignores man’s moral nature and produces discontent with their condition among the masses. God help the country in which the masses are merely stimulated and trained to act in combinations which are always, sooner or later, controlled by demagogues.”

Forced Vaccination
Pro-abortionists should be at the forefront of protesting against forced vaccinations — if they are consistent and not hypocrites. They argue that women should have control of their bodies. Therefore, the government should not tell women what they have to do with their bodies. However, forced vaccination is based on the premise that the government can tell women what they must do with their bodies: receive a vaccine injection, i.e., receive an injection of such toxins as mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde (embalming fluid), propylene glycol (antifreeze), nagalase (prevents the body from killing cancer cells and strongly associated with autism [http://www.thebigriddle.com/2015/12/ murdered-holistic-doctors-discovered.html]), and cells of aborted babies. Of course, they probably do not mind ejecting people with aborted baby cells. Since pro-abortionists grew out of the culture of death and since many pro-abortionists favor forced vaccination, they must expect vaccinations to be more harmful than beneficial.
Most of those who favor forcing all American children to be vaccinated favor open borders. As a result of the mass immigration of illegal aliens, unvaccinated people carrying all sorts of contagious diseases, are flooding the country. One would think that these forced-vaccination people would be at the forefront in demanding that all immigrants be coerced into taking the 36 plus vaccines that they want to force American children to take, before entering the country.
If vaccines are safe and effective, why has Congress prohibited people from suing vaccine manufacturers for injuries caused by vaccines? Moreover, why is information exposing the dangers and the ineffectiveness of vaccines being suppressed? Also, why do people whose children have been vaccinated fear their children playing with children who have not been vaccinated? Should not the vaccine protect their children from unvaccinated children if it is effective?

Sanctuary Cities
Anyone who opposes sanctuary cities would, if he is consistent, have opposed cities and counties of the 1850s refusing to aid the US government in enforcing fugitive slave laws. Both are philosophically the same. Under both, local governments attempt to nullify a federal law.
Unlike their State governments, local governments have no legal or lawful authority to nullify a federal law unless their States have given them that authority. Being the creation of their State, local governments can only do what their State allows and must do as their State directs. Likewise, the States created the U.S. government; therefore, they have the right and duty to judge for themselves, acting independently and individually, whether the U.S. government has exceeded its authority. Thus, a State may nullify a federal law, as it applies in that State, that it decides is unconstitutional. A local government cannot nullify a federal law unless its creator State authorized it to do so.

Mental Health and Guns
On a talk radio show some years ago, the host and his guest were discussing mental health. They wondered why so many people did not seek professional help for their mental problems. While I was listening, they failed to mention one major reason. What was this major reason that they did not mention? Unlike being diagnosed with diabetes or heart problems, when one is diagnosed with mental problems, he is at a high risk of losing his constitutionally guaranteed inalienable right to own firearms — usually, forever.

Protection Tariffs and Piety
Following are some comments on “Protectionism as a Path to Piety” by John Howting that appears in the May 2019 issue of Chronicles. Mr. Howting asserts, or at least appears to assert, that protective tariffs are acts of piety.
Where is the justice in the politically powerful forcing, ultimately under the penalty of death, the politically weak to subsidize the politically powerful, which is what a protective tariff does? Protective tariffs require politicians to pick winners and losers. When have politicians excelled at this job? They will always side with the politically powerful.
How is forcing someone, the weak, to support another, the strong, which is what a protective tariff does, piety? Furthermore, is not forcing someone to pay more for products protected by tariffs somewhat impious?
How does a protective tariff today honor one’s ancestors from 200, 400, or 800 years ago? Moreover, how does a protective tariff today, even honor one’s parents who are dead? How do one’s children honor their parents by paying tribute to the politically powerful?
If protective tariffs promote piety, would not outlawing grocery stores, butcher shops, farmers’ markets, and the like and requiring every family to raise its own food promote piety even more? Would not this be the ultimate in piety as Mr. Howting describes piety?
Would not the piety that Mr. Howting describes be best achieved and can only be achieved when people are convinced to buy locally produced products, even if they cost more and are poorer quality, than to import them from other countries or even other States?
[Editor’s note: Mr. Howting wrote a formal response to this letter. His response was in the July 2019 issue of Chronicles.]

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.