Natural Rights

Natural Rights

Thomas Allen

What are natural rights? According to natural rights doctrine, the rights of a free people come from the laws of nature, which God has ordained. Unlike what many people claim or seem to believe, natural rights do not come from governments, i.e., states.

Nevertheless, much disagreement exists about natural rights. One ethnicity’s concept of natural rights often differs from another’s concept. The natural rights of a Christian, even a nominal Christian, country differ from those of a Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu country. Europeans, South Asians, East Asians, American Indians, and Africans have different concepts of natural rights — if they have any concept of natural rights at all.

Still, most people consider natural rights to be life, liberty, and property, plus the right and means to support and defend them. However, much disagreement occurs about liberty, property, and their protection.

Except for warmongers, proponents of abortion, and advocates of genocide, most people consider the right to life a natural right — at least for members of their ethnicity.

Before 1861, most Americans considered freedom of speech, religion, association, and assembly to be among the natural rights of liberty they were to enjoy. (The natural right of liberty did not include libertinism, public immorality, sexual perversion, and trespass against other persons or their property. Today, however, these are the natural rights of liberty, and traditional pre-1861 liberties are not.)

Many other societies do not consider these liberties to be natural rights. Today, in America, many of these liberties are being suppressed. Freedom of association died with the advent of the Civil Rights Era.

  Further, much disagreement exists over the right to own property and to use it as the owner desires, provided he does not trespass against another. This was the commonly accepted concept of property rights in the United States before 1861. This natural right is fading away. Except for some small personal items, it hardly exists in some countries. In socialist and fascist countries, the government regulates, i.e., controls the use of property — especially real property. Even in the United States, property rights are restricted via excessive taxation, zoning, and other laws that restrict the use of property, and the like. Moreover, while some, like the founding fathers, consider collective property, such as race, ethnicity, culture, and heritage, worthy of protection, others, like progressives and libertarians, do not. In America today, the latter now prevails over the former.

Many people consider the freedom from want to be a natural right. Where freedom from want is considered a natural right, the ownership of property is not a natural right. Freedom from want depends on forcibly taking property from people who have earned it and giving it to people who have not earned it.

Also, people dispute over the appropriate means to defend the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Does an individual have the right to defend his life, liberty, and property with deadly force? Although some jurisdictions allow the use of deadly force by an individual to defend life, others do not. Rare is a jurisdiction that allows an individual to use deadly force to defend property, and even rarer is one that allows a person to use deadly force to defend liberty. Instead, most, if not all, societies depend on governments to defend the natural rights of the people. Yet, governments, especially those that have morphed into states, are the greatest enemy of natural rights.

The United States were founded on the concept of the natural rights to life, liberty, and property and their protection. This concept of natural rights was the foundation of the constitutions of the several States, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of 1787. Moreover, the concept that sovereignty rests in the people of each State was another foundation of these constitutions.

People are not free because, at any particular moment, their government is not violating their rights. They are free if they force their government to live within the bounds of the constitution that establishes it — such a constitution being approved by the body politic, i.e., the people who wield political power in the territory under that constitution.

Today, Americans are not free because the federal government ignores most of the bounds of the Constitution that establishes it. Likewise, the State governments operate beyond the bounds of their constitutions. And the people let their governments violate the laws under which they are supposed to operate — mostly because the oligarchs, who control the federal government, have bought them with their (the people’s, i.e., the taxpayers’) money. To a lesser extent, State governments have acted likewise.

Unlike the federal government, which has strictly delegated powers beyond which it is not supposed to exceed, State constitutions grant their governments the authority to legislate on all matters where they are silent. Further, State governments are not to trespass against any restrictions that their constitutions place on them. Thus, all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are denied, while State governments have all the powers not denied.

Free people do not allow their governments to go beyond the limits of their constitutions. Therefore, Americans are not free because their federal and State governments act beyond these limits. Moreover, much of the rest of the world is not free because their governments exceed their constitutional limits. The exceptions are countries like North Korea and China, which were not free to start with because the ruling oligarchs set no limits on governmental power, and, therefore, they can never exceed their limits.

Unless the people rise and enforce their constitutions, they will continue to live in tyranny, i.e., live under an unlawful, arbitrary, and unrestrained government. To free their people, the States need to oppose the federal government and beat it back into the bounds of the Constitution. Similarly, the people of each State need to rise and force their State back into its constitutional bounds.

To force the federal government to return to its proper bounds, a powerful weapon that the States may use is to cease cooperating with the federal government in enforcing unconstitutional federal laws. However, to do this, the States would have to give up the bribe money that the federal government pays them. Probably, all States lack the fortitude and integrity to do this.

Nullification is another weapon that States may use. However, to be effective, the States need to arrest and jail any federal agent trying to enforce the nullified law. Again, probably all States lack the fortitude and integrity to do this.

Being sovereign, the people have the duty to force both the federal government and their State governments to operate within the bounds of their constitutions — with arms if necessary — hence, the reason for the Second Amendment of the US Constitution and similar clauses in their State constitutions. 

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

More Social Issues Related to Blacks

More Social Issues Related to Blacks

Thomas Allen

White supremacy, preservation of the American Negro, segregation at universities, and social justice reforms are discussed below.

White Supremacy

Do White supremacists exist in the United States today? Yes, a majority of the White population in the United States is White supremacists.

White supremacy is alive and prospering. However, it is not in the form of the stereotypical Klansman of yesteryear, who is now almost extinct. Today’s White supremacists are progressives, liberals, neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, many libertarians. Today, White supremacists are those who support the civil rights movement and the welfare state because they believe that Blacks cannot succeed on their own. They need Whiteys’ succor. If these people want to see a White supremacist, all that they need to do is to look in a mirror.

White supremacy today exists as White parentalism toward Blacks. These Whites believe that Blacks can only advance and prosper with Whitey’s aid. Thus, they have granted Blacks many privileges that they deny themselves, such as affirmative action, quotas, lower scores for college entrance, and set-asides. Further, these White supremacists support the Civil Rights Acts, the welfare state, and most of the programs of Johnson’s Great Society and their descendants. 

Moreover, Blacks who support or believe the claims of civil rights and welfare proponents believe in White supremacy because they believe that Blacks are so inferior that they can accomplish nothing without Whitey’s granting Blacks special privileges.

Preservation of the American Negro

If conservatives, liberals, progressives, and libertarians were asked if the American Negro, the Black race of America, should be preserved and saved from genocide, all would answer yes. Likewise, if asked if they opposed policies that resulted in the genocide of the American Negro and supported policies that preserved the American Negro, they would again answer yes.

However, if one looks at the policies that conservatives, liberals, progressives, and libertarians promote and the policies that they oppose, one would discover that they have lied. They do not care about protecting the American Negro from genocide. If they wanted to save the American Negro, they would support policies that segregate and separate the races. Moreover, they would oppose policies that integrate and amalgamate the races. Therefore, they act oppositely from their assertion about their desire to preserve the American Negro, the Black race of America. The exception is that some liberals and progressives weakly promote some policies that aid in the preservation of the American Negro. 

Segregation at Universities

Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) sent a letter to Attorney General Barr urging him to investigate the “alarming trend of racial segregation” occurring at some universities. Universities are allowing nonwhite students to create race-based dormitories and events for Blacks and other “people of color.” (Whites are not granted such privileges except by exclusion.)

Specifically, they object to one major university having racially segregated online discussion groups with racially segregated moderators. Thus, the university created a discussion group for nonwhites only and another for Whites only.

Also, they object to another major university holding “segregated training sessions for resident assistants (RA), students who oversee dorms and enforce policies and rules.” One session was for resident assistants who were White, and another was for resident assistants who were Black and other people of color. The nonwhite session was described as “Healing Space for Staff of Color,” and the White session was described as “White Accountability Space.”

These two senators claim that such segregation violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. They express sadness about the growing trend of segregation, especially on college campuses. (These two senators err in believing that the Civil Rights Act applies to segregation by nonwhites. It intended to prevent Whites from segregating. It was never intended to prevent nonwhites from segregating.)

These two senators rail against the defense offered by the universities. The universities’ defense is that racial segregation gives “members of certain racial groups, especially minority groups, spaces where they can discuss shared concerns and issues. Thus, these defenders attempt to portray racial segregation as a tool to further diversity.” (Blacks who are seeking segregation and the university administrators who approve these requests for segregation show much more intelligence than these two senators. Unlike these senators, Blacks know that segregation promotes diversity. They know that segregation preserves diversity while integration destroys diversity. [See “Diversity” by Thomas Allen.])

Like neoconservatives and liberals, Senators Cotton and Loeffler believe that the United States are a creedal country and not a genetic country. (Also, these two senators are racial nihilists, who practice the new morality, and have no qualms about genociding the American Negro. Genociding the American Negro will be the result of the policies that they are urging.)

(Reference: “Public Colleges Defy Federal Law with Racially Segregated Events to Further Diversity,” Judicial Watch, November 13, 2020, https://www.judicialwatch.org/corruption-chronicles/public-colleges-defy-federal-law-with-racially-segregated-events-to-further-diversity/, accessed December 2, 2020.)

Social Justice Reform

Social justice reform is easy. All that the government has to do is to release all Blacks from prison and exempt all Blacks from all laws. Then, Blacks would no longer have to pay taxes or obey traffic laws. Moreover, they will no longer be arrested for any crime including battery, theft, rape, or murder. Also, they should be allowed to take any job of any White including that of a CEO of major corporations. Further, the employer cannot require Blacks to do any work and cannot fire them. Blacks may take the house of any White along with his furniture, cars, and all other property, and the White may not object. Also, Blacks may use White women, men, and children for their sex toys without any objection from the White toys. Thus, Blacks will have received justice — if they can stop killing each other long enough to enjoy the fruits of their thefts.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Some Comments on Blacks

Some Comments on Blacks

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are judging people by their character and not their race, comparison of antebellum Blacks to today’s Blacks, the Jim Crow Era.

Judging by Character and Not by Race
Most White libertarians, conservatives, liberals, and progressives like to boast about not noticing a person’s race. That is, they like to boast about being racial nihilists. They cite M.L. King’s statement: “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

However, in noticing a person’s race, White liberals and progressives far exceed libertarians and conservatives in their hypocrisy. White liberals and progressives are quick to notice a person’s race when elevating a nonwhite above a White, when praising a nonwhite race, or when castigating the White race. Most White conservatives seem to suffer from some kind of disassociation disorder. They want to be politically correct and not notice a person’s race. Yet, they also hesitate to dishonor their ancestors and commit racial genocide. Having a suicidal ideology, libertarians are most consistent at being racial nihilists.

Most nonwhites do not have the racial problems that inflict Whites. They acknowledge that they are a genetic people, and most still believe that their genetics are worth preserving. Many Whites are torn between considering themselves a genetic people or a propositional people where race and, therefore, genetics are irrelevant, and the White race is not worth saving. Regrettably, for the White race, many Whites, especially neoconservatives, libertarians, liberals, and progressives have decided that they are a propositional people.

Now, let us return to judging people by character and not by race. While one of these White people is walking down the street in Detroit, for example, he encounters a group of Black teenage boys heading toward him. On the other side of the street is a group of White teenage boys. (1) Is he going to hurry toward the Blacks and interview them and then cross the street and interview the Whites so that he can discern their character? To carry out this approach, he has to command the Whites remain where they are while he interviews the Blacks and the Blacks remain where they are while he interviews the Whites. (2) Is he going to continue to walk toward the Blacks to prove that he is not a racist, not prejudice, not bias, and does not judge people by their race? (3) Or, is he going to play the odds by crossing the street where the White boys are, thus showing that he judges people by their race? Be honest, which would you do?

Blacks Then and Now
In antebellum times, the plantation owner provided his Blacks with free housing, free food, and free medical care. Today, the United States government and State and local governments provide their Blacks with free housing, free food, and free medical care. Moreover, they outdo the plantation owner by providing their Blacks with even more free stuff.

However, some important differences exist between the two. By requiring his Blacks to work for their keep, the plantation owner gave his Blacks some sense of dignity. Moreover, he paid for their keep with his money. Governments do not require work from their Blacks; thus, they make their Blacks parasites. Furthermore, governments reward their Blacks for not working. Even worst, they reward their Blacks with other people’s money.

Fortunately, some Blacks have freed themselves from the plantation mentality. Unfortunately, many Blacks have not freed themselves from the plantation mentality. For them, freedom means freedom from work.

Jim Crow
Most commentators harshly condemn the Jim Crow Era of segregation for its cruelty, injustice, discrimination, etc. Little is said or written about that era that is positive.

The primary difference between Jim Crow in the North and the South is that in the North restrictions on Blacks was by custom. In the South, they were by statue. These restrictions on Blacks were also restrictions on Whites; thus, these restrictions worked in both directions. (One Black noted that Jim Crow in the South was better than Jim Crow in the North. At least in the South, a Black knew in which restaurants he could and could not eat. However, in the North, a Black had to endure the embarrassment of not being waited on to know that he was not allowed to eat there.)

Nevertheless, the Jim Crow Era did have a positive effect on Blacks. It gave them independence and taught them to rely on themselves — collectively and individually — and not to rely on whitey. Unlike today, when Blacks receive preference for welfare to Whites, under Jim Crow, Whites received preference. Therefore, Blacks had to rely more on themselves during the Jim Crow Era than now.

Moreover, the Jim Crow Era created a growing Black middle class. For that reason, the Communist strove to replace Jim Crow with civil rights and integration. They were highly successful. After the Civil Rights Era of integration supplanted the Jim Crow Era, Blacks became ever more dependent on the government. Via the welfare state, they became slaves of the great White plantation master in Washington and his overseers in the State capitals.

During the Jim Crow Era, Blacks had a higher moral standard than they have had under the Civil Rights Era. Then, they had more families with both a father and a mother than now. They had a lower percentage of children born out of wedlock than now. Also, Black sacrificed far fewer of their children to Lucifer at the abortion clinics than now. Moreover, the rate of crime for Blacks then was lower than now.

During the Jim Crow Era, few Americans suffered from the mental illnesses of Confederaphobia, Dixiephobia, albusphobia, and racial nihilism. Nearly all adhered to the old morality of racial preservation, especially the preservation of one’s own race. In the Civil Rights Era, a large and growing number of Americans suffer from Confederaphobia, Dixiephobia, albusphobia, and racial nihilism. Although most nonwhites still follow the old morality, most Whites now follow the new morality of sacrificing the races, especially the White race, on the altar of humanity.

Whereas Jim Crow laws gave Whites advantages over Blacks, Civil Rights laws give Blacks advantages over Whites. Further, Civil Rights laws give Blacks more advantages than Jim Crow laws ever gave Whites. 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 — especially Southerners and their society and culture.

The Jim Crow Era ended with the last major White resistance to forced integration, which occurred in Boston in the mid 1970s. Thus, ended Jim Crow.

Nevertheless, contrary to the popular myth, Blacks had many advantages and benefits under Jim Crow that they have lost during the Civil Rights Era.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

A Propositional or Genetic Country

A Propositional or Genetic Country

Thomas Allen

Is America a propositional (creedal) country or a genetic country? Namely, is America a set of ideals (a set of principles) or a nation? (A nation or nationality is a people of the same biological race [species] who have a common origin, culture, language, and history; who have common traditions and customs; and who are capable of forming or constituting a nation-state.) 

Neoconservatives and most other conservatives and libertarians believe that being an American means believing in a set of ideals (propositions, creeds); being an American is certainly not genetic. Consequently, America is not a nation but is a set of ideals.

Likewise, nearly all liberals, progressives, socialists, and other left-wingers believe that America is a set of ideals. Nevertheless, they greatly disagree with conservatives and libertarians about what these ideals are or should be. All agree that America is not a nation; it is not genetic.

The guiding creed of most conservatives, libertarians, and left-wingers is that “all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights.” For conservatives and libertarians, this creed means equal opportunity. For left-wingers, it means equal outcome.

(Believing that America is a propositional country inspires many conservatives to promote the invasion of other countries to impose their ideals on them. Left-wingers think likewise, but their ideals differ from those of conservatives.)

Accordingly, conservatives, libertarians, and left-wingers support the immigration of nonwhites. They even place the immigration of nonwhites above Whites. They merely differ in the number allowed entry within a specific time. 

Conservatives want to limit the influx of immigrates such that the immigrants can be assimilated. Conservatives who believe that America is a set of ideals want to limit immigration not to protect the genetic American nation. They want to restrict immigration so that the immigrants come in such a small number that they can be fully assimilated, integrated, into their conservative set of American ideals. Yet, true assimilation requires miscegenation and, consequently, genocide; thus, most conservatives are racial nihilists who have no concerns about replacing Americans of all races with motley mongrel men.

The left takes the Jacobin approach and wants to flood the country with as many nonwhite aliens as possible in the shortest amount of time. It wants to utterly destroy the country so that it can rebuild the country in its own image. To achieve its Luciferian creed, the left must destroy America as a genetic nation, which is achieved by flooding the country with nonwhites.

Most libertarians support unlimited immigration. However, most fail to see the destructive effects of such immigration. Unwittingly or not, they ally themselves with the left in destroying America as a nation.

Like libertarians, conservatives are aiding the left’s program to destroy the American nation by not vigorously opposing letting nonwhites reside in the United States.

No matter which approach is taken, the race of the founding fathers ceases to exist. The left’s approach is merely quicker and far more obvious than the conservatives’ approach. Yet, in the end, both result in the death of the country that the founding fathers established — they established a nation and not a propositional country.

Ideals (proportions, creeds) transcend borders. Borders cannot contain them. However, borders are essential to the preservation of nations. If being an American is a set of ideals, creeds, no one has to come to the United States to be an American. Everyone can be an American wherever he is. 

However, if the United States are a nation and being an American is genetic, then allowing nonwhites to become residents destroys America. Supporting the immigration of nonwhites means supporting the destruction of the American nation.

Will conservatives and libertarians ever learn? Or, will they forever support the left in its drive to destroy America? So far, nearly all conservatives and libertarians are supporting the left’s war against the American nation.

The founding fathers wrote and ratified the US Constitution to keep the government under the law – a nomocracy. Contrary to what most conservatives, libertarians, and left-wingers assert, the founding fathers did intend for the Constitution to establish a teleology — a society based on abstract principles of natural rights, equality, democracy, etc. The founding father intended for the United States to be a White nation and not to be a propositional country.

Appendix

The American nation divides into several ethnicities. Among these ethnicities are the Southerner, Yankee, Northerner, and Westerner. Other nations inhabiting the United States are the Southern Negro and the Northern Negro and the ruminants of various Indian tribes. However, the population of nearly all Indian tribes is too small to support a nation-state.

With the massive invasion of Turanians and mestizoes from Latin America, one or more new nations are being formed in the United States. With the growing numbers of Turanians from Asia and Melanochroi from Asia and Africa, these people may soon be forming new nations within the United States.

Although most Whites and Indians and many Negroes may be willing to sacrifice themselves to form motley mongrel man, most of the newcomers are not so eager to sacrifice themselves.

Americans can assimilate Europeans because Americans and Europeans share a common race (Aryan, Homo albus), religion (Christianity), and major culture (Western Civilization). Whites from Europe and elsewhere do not destroy the genetic make of the American nation. However, some whites are much more difficult to assimilate than others. Because they are White Christians, Assyrians from the Middle East can assimilate without great difficulty. However, the assimilation of White Muslims from the Middle East like the Kurds and from the Maghreb like the Berbers are more difficult to assimilate because of religious and cultural differences. Likewise, because of religious differences, historical tribalism, and avariciousness and overbearingness especially at the higher echelons, Jews are more difficult to assimilate. Nonwhites cannot fully assimilate without destroying the American nation.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles. 

Libertarianism on Ethics and Order

Libertarianism on Ethics and Order

Thomas Allen

The following discusses libertarian ethics and the libertarian view of order verse liberty.

Libertarian Ethics
The following is an example of ethics in a libertarian society. It is also the ethics of the Puritan Yankee.

A city government decides to pursue the libertarian goal of abolishing itself. As part of this program, it privatizes its water and sewer system and its streets. Thus, it sells its waters and sewer system to A Company. Also, A Company buys the city streets. Finally, the city government abolishes itself.

Moreover, the city was built over a geological formation that requires wells to be drilled thousands of feet deep to produce water.

Now, having a monopoly over water and transportation, A Company raises water rates a hundredfold, which is the price just below the cost of drilling a well. (Some libertarians argue that monopolies are impossible.) If any customer fails to pay his water bill, the company immediately cuts off his water. Next, the company prevents any water from being transported over its streets. It also charges the residents an exorbitant fee for using its streets.

Without water, the residents are forced to sell at a great loss — if they can find any buyers, which is doubtful. Magnanimously, the company offers to buy their property at 0.01 percent of its last tax evaluation. If this offer is rejected, the resident has to either abandon his property or let the company take it for nonpayment of his water bill and street usage.

After the residents have been forced to abandon their property or sell it to A Company at a tremendous loss, A Company owns the city. Now, it can do with the city whatever it pleases to do.

Puritan Yankees would compliment the managers of A Company as shrewd businessmen. Because these shenanigans were by a private company, libertarians would defend the company’s actions. They would argue that the residents should have bought insurance to protect themselves from such an event. However, what insurance company would insure such an unknown, unpredictable event — at least at an affordable price? Libertarians would argue that the residents should have sold before A company established its monopoly, although some libertarians deny the possibility of monopolies. In short, the typical libertarian would blame the residents for their predicament and not the company.

As an alternative to insurance, the residents could hire a private security firm to protect their interest and to obtain water for their use and access to the streets. In retaliation, A Company hires a security firm to maintain its monopoly. Soon, the two security firms are warring, and the might of arms solves the disagreement.

Such are the ethics of the typical libertarian. They are almost indistinguishable from the ethics of the Puritan Yankee. A major difference between the two is that the Puritan Yankee does not hesitate to use the government to gain an advantage, while the libertarian loathes using the government.

Order and Liberty
Libertarianism, especially the anarcho-capitalist wing, is built on the false foundation of the notion that liberty and order are antagonistic principles. That is, liberty and order limit each other. As one increases, the other decreases. Locke, Blackstone, Hobbes, and Rousseau, among many others, espouse this notion. This notion led to the French Revolution.

Opposing this notion that liberty and order are antagonistic principles is the notion of the divine sanction of government. Under this notion, an increase in order leads to an increase in liberty. True liberty can only exist within the bounds of divine law. A just government maintains these bounds. (Despotic governments cause disorder and, by that, reduce liberty. Moreover, order may require a government, but it abhors a state because a state leads to disorder.) This is the notion that lead to the American Revolution.

Adherents of the antagonistic principle believe that natural liberty is a state of perfect freedom where a person acts as he thinks fit, without any restraint or control, i.e., the power to act as each man wills and pleases. Thus, public order reduces private liberty.

On the other hand, adherents of the divine sanction notion believe that natural liberty is a state where a person acts as he thinks fit within the bounds of divine law, i.e., the power to act as God wills. Thus, public order is necessary for private liberty.

Under the antagonistic principle, civil society arises from a surrender of individual rights; therefore, the right, power, or authority of society is derived from a transfer of individual rights. The law and government restrain the liberty of human will.

Under the divine sanction notion, civil society arises from a right originally possessed by all, i.e., from a solemn duty originally imposed upon all by God; therefore, the right, power, or authority of society is not derived from a transfer of individual rights; thus, neither the right to life nor liberty is transferred to society. The law and government restrain the tyranny of human will.

According to the antagonistic principle, freedom can be extracted and exist apart from the social whole. According to the divine sanction notion, freedom is inseparable from the social whole: Freedom cannot be separated from right reasoning.

Advocates of the antagonistic principle believe, or at least act as though they believe, that man is innately good, which is contrary to all history. Advocates of the divine sanction notion believe that man is naturally sinful, which history and personal experience easily support.

Thus, libertarianism rests on the false premise that humans are naturally good. Unbridled capitalism, as long as governmental collaboration is avoided, can sufficiently regulate, control, and suppress any sinful tendencies — so, libertarians believe. For the most part, a free-market economy may adequately regulate economic order and liberty. However, it fails as a regulator of political and social order and liberty.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

A Look at a Libertarian Theory on Economics and Immigration

A Look at a Libertarian Theory on Economics and Immigration

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Allen.

More economic articles.

Think Tanks and Artificial Intelligence

Think Tanks and Artificial Intelligence

Thomas Allen

Under discussion now is how many jobs will artificial intelligence (AI) replace. Among the easiest jobs that AI can do is that of the “intellectuals” at the typical progressive-liberal-Democratic (PLD), neoconservative-establishment conservative-Republican (NECR), and libertarian think tanks. Their jobs are so repetitive and predictable that AI would have no problem duplicating them. A simple algorithm can do their jobs.

Progressive-Liberal-Democratic Think Tanks
PLD think tanks believe that nonwhites are good; Whites are so bad that they must be eradicated. Likewise, with Western Civilization, it must also be eradicated. However, the Southerner is so egregiously vile and evil that he must be terminated through all eternity. Needless to say, Southern culture, heritage, and traditions must be annihilated. Consequently, nothing good can be said about Whites and Western Civilization and especially about Southerners and the South.

As for religion, PLD think tanks believe that Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and all other religions are good or at least acceptable except Christianity, which is abominable. Secularism and atheism are exceedingly good. However, the primary religion of PLD think tanks is the worship of their idol, the state. They continuously feed the state, so it can grow unbounded.

As for economics, PLD think tanks believe that Marxism and statism in all their forms are good. Central planning is desirable: The more regulations, the better. An economy that depends on a free market and free enterprise is bad.

The welfare state and dependency on the government are good; independence is bad. Anything that makes people more dependent on the government, i.e., that enslaves them more, is good. Anything that frees people from the government is detrimental.

Because PLS think tanks distrust the people with weapons, they want to disarm the people. (When the people are disarmed, they offer much weaker resistance to despotism.) However, when these same people become governmental employees, i.e., politicians, bureaucrats, and soldiers, they become saints who can be trusted with weapons. Thus, PLS think tanks trust bureaucrats, soldiers, and politicians with weapons.

PLD think tanks claim that homosexual, interracial, and other illicit sexual acts are admirable while heterosexual sex within marriage is deplorable.

Furthermore, PLD think tanks maintain that integration and amalgamation are good. Segregation and separation are cataclysmic unless nonwhites segregate or separate from Whites, then it is admirable. Diversity is of upmost importance although their policies destroy it.

PLD think tanks are strong proponents of reform and promote change for change’s sake — but always in the direction of more governmental control.

Neoconservative-Establishment Conservative-Republican Think Tank
NECR think tanks are almost identical to PLD think tanks. The primary difference is that NECR think tanks want to implement the programs promoted by PLD think tanks more slowly and make them more efficient, i.e., more despotic and tyrannical. Moreover, whereas PLD think tanks are Zionists, NECR think tanks are staunch Zionists. Also, NECR think tanks are more addicted to war than are PLD think tanks. NECR think tanks never saw a war that they did not like. Thus, they are more enthralled than PLD think tanks with an ever-expanding American Empire. (PLD think tanks are also supporters of an expanding American Empire.)

Like PLD think tanks, NECR think tanks also hate Whites. Thus, they are hostile toward Western Civilization, although they usually conceal their hostility. Although they disparage Southerners and the South, they are not as venomous as PLD think tanks.

Though NECR think tanks elevate Christianity more than PLD think tanks, they subordinate it to Islam and especially Judaism.

While they give lip service to free-market economics, NECR think tanks support business-government partnerships and collaboration between businesses and government.

Although NECR think tanks often praise independence, they also seek to enslave the people to the government. Like PLD think tanks, they are proponents of the welfare state; they just want one that is more efficient. Nevertheless, they often attack welfare for individuals, except veterans. However, they are reluctant to criticize welfare in the form of subsidies, trade restrictions, etc. for businesses, especially big businesses.

Being Janus-faced, NECR think tanks defend the right of the people to possess weapons while they eagerly compromise such rights away. Their primary disagreement with PLD think tanks is about how quickly the people are disarmed.

While not as ardent supporter and promoter of homosexual and other illicit sexual acts, except miscegenation, which they fine admirable, they have no real problem with homosexual or most other illicit sexual acts. However, they are not hostile toward heterosexual marriages.

Like PLD think tanks, NECR think tanks maintain that integration and amalgamation are good. Segregation and separation are cataclysmic. Whereas PLD think tanks support nonwhites segregating and separating themselves from Whites, NECR think tanks do not.

Also, like PLD think tanks, NECR think tanks praise diversity, but not as highly. Moreover, like PLD think tanks, NECR think tanks advocate policies that destroy diversity.

The major difference between NECR think tanks and PLD think tanks is that the PLD think tanks rush forward into Marxist and statism and their concomitant despotism with abandonment while NECR think tanks cautiously move forward into Marxism and statism to make their despotism more efficient.

Libertarian Think Tanks
Like PLD and NECR think tanks, libertarian think tanks support anything that contributes to the destruction of the White man’s Western Civilization, which birthed libertarianism, and to the White man himself.

Libertarian think tanks believe that corporations, especially international corporations, and their leaders are innately good; governments and governmental leaders are innately bad. Political borders are bad.

For libertarian think tanks, homosexual, interracial, and other illicit sex acts are good. However, heterosexual marriages are not necessarily bad.

Religiously, libertarian think tanks are agnostic with a predilection toward human secularism.

Also, they oppose the welfare state and governmental control of the people. However, corporate control of the people is acceptable.

According to libertarian think tanks, the people should be armed and the government should be disarmed. Thus, libertarian think tanks trust the people with weapons, but they distrust governmental employees with weapons.

In agriculture, financial profit per acre and not production per acre is what is important. Moreover, money trumps culture, heritage, traditions, and similar intangibles. However, unlike PLD and NECR think tanks, libertarian think tanks abhor businesses collaborating with governments to gain economic advantage. For libertarian think tanks, free market and free enterprise are always good; governmental intervention in the economy is bad, i.e., Marxism and statism are evil. Consequently, libertarians never worship the state; they condemn it.

Conclusion
All three of these think tanks have several things in common. First, they loathe the White race. Being albusphobes, they look forward with joy to the day when the White race no longer exists. Consequently, they oppose any action, especially by governments, to preserve the White race. Second, these think tanks abominate the Southerner and the South so intensely, that they passionately strive to genocide the Southerner and to erase the South from the memory of mankind, except as the example of unadulterated evil — something so evil that it even makes Satan look holy. Third, all three advocate policies that will destroy Western Civilization. Fourth, these think tanks adore globalism and cosmopolitanism and abhor localism and provincialism. They favor open borders and unrestricted, unlimited immigration because such action is highly detrimental to the White race and its Western Civilization. (NECR, libertarian, and some PLD think tanks deny that they have such hatred of the White Race, the Southerner, the South, and Western Civilization and seek their destruction. Nevertheless, destruction is the result of the policies that they advocate whatever their motives, and, furthermore, that is how they act.)

One of the easiest jobs for AI to take over is that of the “intellectuals” of the typical PLD, NECR, and libertarian think tanks. Their thought patterns are so routine and predictable that even a mediocre programmer could write the program.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Review of McBreen’s article on Black Protest at Syracuse University

Review of McBreen’s article on Black Protest at Syracuse University

Thomas Allen

In his article “Black Students at Syracuse U Protest in Favor of Self-Segregation,” November 23, 2019,  Keleen McBreen rebukes Black students who are protesting. These students want to be allowed to opt-out of rooming with White students in the college dormitories.

He starts his article by declaring that the protest “would have Martin Luther King Jr. rolling over in his grave.” The implication is that King would object to the goal of the protesters to segregate. McBreen, as are all the other Infowars reporters and especially its boss, Alex Jones, is like nearly all conservatives concerning King. They actually believe that this Communist sympathizer and frontman was a conservative. (With each passing day, distinguishing between a communist and a conservative becomes more difficult, especially in the social realm. They may be right: The communist King has transformed into conservative King without ever changing his position on anything. After all, the United States have already implemented about 80 percent of the planks of the Communist Manifesto.)

If the protest would cause King to roll over in his grave, it would be in support of the protesters. King did not promote integration for the sake of integration. He demanded integration for many reasons, none of which are those proclaimed by his conservative toadies. First, it satisfied his lust and the lust of his comrades and handlers by destroying the South and genociding the Southerner. Moreover, it leads to the destruction of the White race in America. Reducing the White race to insignificance would make the United States easy prey for the communist. (As the White race has declined, communism has become more prevalent.) Furthermore, King sought integration because it makes Blacks a privileged class, the new American royalty, and advances Black power. King’s integration has gone a long way in elevating Blacks to superiority, in converting the United States to communism, and in reducing Whites to insignificance.

McBreen writes that this protest results from “liberal indoctrination at American colleges,” which leads to negative effects like the reasons for this protest. Liberal indoctrination demonizes Whites and glorifies nonwhites.

This protest shows that many Blacks still adhere to the Old Morality of protecting, preserving, and promoting their own race. McBreen, like most conservatives and libertarians, adheres to the New Morality of scarifying the races, especially the White race, on the altar of humanity. The New Morality amalgamates humanity into motley mongrel man or, as William Carr calls him, UNESCO man. At least, McBreen wants to sacrifice the Black race along with the White race on the altar of humanity and his corrupt conservative (or is it libertarian) ideology. Unlike McBreen, Alex Jones, and most conservatives and libertarians, these Blacks know that segregation preserves while integration destroys.

(Although Jones and his staff adamantly oppose globalism, they promote policies of globalism that lead to the dissolution of the races [species] of man, which is a goal of globalism, illuminism.)

Whites are hellbent on annihilating themselves. If the White race survives, it will be because nonwhites refuse to associate with Whites.

This protest also illustrates the hypocrisy of American universities in particular and America in general. If a group of White students were protesting to have the privilege of opting out of having nonwhite roommates, the only attention that the administrators would give them would be to expel them. (Nearly all Black leaders maintain that Blacks should be allowed to segregate, but Whites should not have the right or privilege to segregate themselves. Many Whites, especially liberals, agree.)

McBreen is correct about one thing. Students who hate Syracuse University are free to leave. They are not prisoners of the University.

Moreover, if the school administrators yield to this demand for segregation, Black students will demand more. When will the demands stop? Will the demands continue until Syracuse University is a completely Black university void of any non-Blacks?

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Economic Advantage

Economic Advantage

Thomas Allen

One argument that libertarians and other proponents of free trade use is economic advantage. That is, if country A excels in producing agricultural products and country B excels in producing agricultural implements, A benefits from trading its agricultural products for country B’s agricultural implements instead of manufacturing them itself — and vice versa.

For example, the South excelled in producing cotton and tobacco. Great Britain excelled in manufacturing fabric, tools, and other manufactured products. So, the South traded its agricultural products for British manufactured goods and vice versa. For that reason, the North imposed protective tariffs on manufactured products to give itself an economic advantage over Great Britain.

However, few libertarians and other proponents of economic advantage see any advantage of one race or culture over another. To them, all cultures and, especially, races are equal. If they acknowledge that races and cultures cause economic advantage, then they would have to advocate policies to protect and preserve racial and cultural differences and, consequently, racial and cultural advantages. To keep the advantages of different races and cultures from disappearing, they would have to promote segregation and separation, which is highly politically incorrect.

Libertarians and other proponents of free trade either ignore or fail to realize the importance of race and culture. Race determines culture, and culture determines economic advantage.

Although the natural resources of a country are important, race and culture are more important. They decide if anything is done with them and what is done with them. Africa is a prime example of race and culture determining economic advantage. Great mineral treasures and agricultural potential lie in Sub-Sahara Africa. From their creation, Negroes and Khoisans have inhabited this region. Yet, they did little to develop it. Until the Aryan settlers arrived, the Negro’s most important export was slaves — first to the Melanochroi and then to the Aryans of Europe and later New England. Aryans developed Africa’s mineral resources and agricultural potential.

An example of cultural impact on economic advantage occurred in Europe during the Middle Ages. The Church prohibited the charging of interest on loans. So, if a clergyman, king, nobleman, or merchant needed to borrow money, they had to borrow from the Jews, who were not covered under the Church’s anti-usury edict. Thus, culture gave Jews an economic advantage in lending and later banking.

To retain and maintain economic advantage, racial and cultural advantages, i.e., differences, have to be protected and preserved because economic advantage grows out of racial and cultural advantages. To retain and maintain cultural advantage, races have to be protected and preserved because culture grows out of race. (Race precedes culture and, therefore, makes a culture.) Segregation and separation are the only sure way to preserve and protect the races, and, thus, they are the only ways to maintain economic advantage. Goods and services can cross borders without people (immigrants) crossing borders freely — especially, immigrants of different races and alien cultures.

Contrary to what libertarians and other proponents of free trade may believe, racial and cultural diversity and, therefore, advantages and differences are at least as important as, if not more important than, economic advantage. All are necessary for the well-being of mankind. Economic advantage depends heavily on culture, and culture is the product of race. Therefore, if economic advantage is to be retained and maintained, the races have to be protected and preserved. Only segregation and separation can protect and preserve them, and, by that, retain and maintain economic advantage.

Copyright © 2019, by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on economics.

Review of Boudreaux’s “Questions for Immigration Skeptics”

Review of Boudreaux’s “Questions for Immigration Skeptics”

Thomas Allen

Like most libertarians, Donald Boudreaux is a proponent of open borders and unrestricted immigration from the third world. In his article “Questions for Immigration Skeptics,” he faults several issues that opponents of open borders and unrestricted immigration use to support protecting the borders and restricting immigration. Below, are responses to some of the issues that Boudreaux identifies.

Using a common libertarian argument, Boudreaux contents that the mostly unrestricted immigration between 1607 and World War I resulted in a boom in the culture and economy of the British colonies and later the United States. Virtually unrestricted immigration of northern and western Europeans during this era was economically beneficial to European immigrants.

However, was this unrestricted migration of Europeans an economic and especially a cultural boom for the North American Indian? It certainly was not a boom for the Indian tribes that are now extinct. Moreover, this unrestricted immigration was such a cultural boom for the Indians that many no longer know the language of their ancestors, with many of these languages having become extinct. Much of what remains of traditional Indian culture is fading.

Boudreaux complains that placing restrictions on immigration reduces the freedom of Americans, both Blacks and especially Whites, by reducing the opportunity to mate with people of other races and thus hastening their extinction by breeding themselves out of existence. Thus, for Boudreaux and other libertarians, flooding the country with third-world nonwhite aliens is a great benefit. These nonwhite aliens offer White Americans the great benefit of amalgamating with them. Because of such miscegenation, the hated White race becomes extinct, which is a goal of liberal democrats and progressives and apparently of libertarians and neoconservatives. As most libertarians and neoconservatives are White, they must be consumed with self-hate.

Oddly, many libertarians agree with the desire of the liberal democrats, progressives, and neoconservatives to destroy the White race, Christianity, and Western Civilization — that is to destroy the foundation of libertarianism. (Has libertarianism ever risen in any other culture, religion, or race?)

Paradoxically, Boudreaux and other libertarians prefer flooding the country with evermore statists, as though enough of them are not already here. They want more people who have little used for a free market economy and see the government as the solver of all problems. Does not the country already contain enough people with this mentality?

Boudreaux complains that placing restrictions on immigration reduces the freedom of Americans to interact with non-Americans commercially. If so, such restriction of interaction is not significant. Most products that Americans buy are manufactured by non-Americans or contain parts manufactured by non-Americans. Furthermore, many agricultural products that Americans eat are grown by non-Americans. Even much of their computer services are provided by non-Americans. Apparently, Americans do not have to import non-Americans to interact with them commercially.

Another freedom that Boudreaux identifies that restricted immigration obstructs is learning from non-Americans. This complaint is so absurd that it hardly requires a response. With today’s internet and electronic communication systems (cell phones, television, radio, etc.), little restrictions exist for learning from non-Americans outside of China, North Korea, and a few other extremely authoritarian countries.

As an argument for open borders, Boudreaux notes that from Washington through the Garfield administration, the US government did not restrict immigration. If a duty of the government is to protect and control the country’s borders, the US government failed to perform this fundamental duty.

He fails to notice two important things. First, the people who were entering the country then came as true immigrants; they did not come as invading hordes of colonists as they are coming today. Second, except the Negro slaves and Chinese laborers, who were considered more as guest workers than immigrants, nearly all these immigrants were White Europeans and, therefore, of the same race (White), culture (Western Civilization), and religion (Christianity) as the Americans for whom the founders wrote the Constitution.

One great benefit of not restricting immigration during the antebellum era was that a large number of radicals from the failed Revolution of 1848 fled to the United States. Uniting with the Puritan Yankees, they succeeded in bringing Lincoln to power in 1861. To him, Americans owe the type of government that they have today — an all-powerful central government that claims the right to control everything, not only in this country, but also throughout the world, and seeks to do so. Bordeaux and other libertarians should rejoice; for this is the fruit of unrestricted immigration. Instead, they object to the results of their policy of unrestricted immigration.

One aspect that Boudreaux and other libertarians ignore is that before the early nineteenth century, Europeans came to the United States as colonists and not as immigrants. They came to supplant the Indians. They did not want to assimilate into the Indian culture. If any assimilation were to occur, the Indians would have to assimilate into the European culture.

Likewise, a large number of people entering the United States today come as colonists and not as immigrants. They have no intention of assimilating. Some, such as La Raza, admit as much. They want to retake the Southwest through colonization. Whites can assimilate with them or leave.

Like many libertarians, Boudreaux is so myopic that he only sees the potential benefits of unrestricted immigration, if all the things that he claims result from unrestricted immigration are truly beneficial. He all but ignores the culture, social, and racial destruction; to the extent that he does consider them, he finds their destruction desirable. However, liberal democrats and progressives are well aware of the destructiveness of unrestricted immigration, which is why they promote it.

Just as the Eastern Indian tribes learned earlier, the Plains Indians came to learn what happens when a people fail to protect their borders from unrestricted immigration. Failing to stop, much less restrict, immigrants from entering their country, the Plains Indians, like the Eastern Indians, lost their country. Moreover, these immigrants, who were really colonists, drove the Indians who had survived the genocidal wars to exterminate them to reservations, most of which were on undesirable land. Apparently, these open-borders-unrestricted-immigration proponents, who are mostly White, want Whites and, for that matter, Blacks to go the way of the North American Indian.

Open borders and unrestricted immigration have reduced the North American Indian to insignificance. Therefore, Bordeaux and other libertarians who promote open borders and unrestricted immigration must not care much about the North American Indian. Moreover, they do not care much about Whites or the American Negro. Unrestricted immigration will reduce them, if they survive the genocide, to the status of the North American Indian because Melanochroi and especially Turanians are coming to colonize the country. In general, Melanochroi and Turanians have little uses for Whites (Aryans) and none for Blacks (Negroes). Thus, libertarians, liberal democrats, progressives, neoconservatives and other proponents of open borders must disdain Whites and Blacks and adore Turanians, except the North American Indian, and Melanochroi.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Allen.

More political 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.

Review of Ebeling’s “Freedom Is Why Immigrants Come to America”

Review of Ebeling’s “Freedom Is Why Immigrants Come to America”

Thomas Allen

The following is a review of “Freedom Is Why Immigrants Come to America” by Richard M. Ebeling dated May 22, 2019, and posted by the American Institute of Economic Research. His article primarily covers immigration between 1840 and 1914. He claims that the immigrants of this era came, and even today come, to the United States because they wanted to live free or to escape troubles of Europe and to find a better life. (Today, only a few come from Europe.)
Unlike today, all the immigrants who came to the United States during this time were from Europe, i.e., they were White, with the exception of Chinese imported to work in the West and some Japanese. They were of the same race, White (Aryan), the same religion, Christian, and the same cultural background, Western Civilization, as Americans. (Not being White, Negroes were not true Americans; they had to be incorporated through the unconstitutionally ratified fourteenth amendment.) Now most immigrants are of alien races and cultures and often non-Christian. However, like the immigrants of old, the new immigrants come seeking a better life — usually in the form of welfare.
Also, unlike today, no welfare state existed to support them. They had to support themselves. (Ebeling  implies that today’s “immigrants,” most of whom are nonwhite, come for the same reason. Some do; they are mostly Whites. Most come to receive their rapine from stupid Whites through various welfare programs. Thus, like the immigrants of old, they also come to improve their lives. However, instead of coming to make their way with their labor like the immigrants of old, they come to improve their lives through handouts from the welfare state.)
Ebeling notes that before the early 1900s, European immigrants usually did not need a vista or a passport to enter the United States. (The inference is that today’s immigrants should not need a vista or passport to enter the United States.) In the 1880s, the first major restrictions were placed on immigration; they were placed on Chinese and Japanese, primarily for racial reasons. (His implication is that no restrictions should be placed on immigration. If they are, they are primarily racist.)
He argues that immigrants came to the United State because of individual freedom. That may have been true before the welfare state. Now, most come for their free handouts. Also, even then more probably came to improve their economic status than for freedom. That is certainly true today where most seem to come to improve their economic status by living off welfare. Then, they were expected to work to improve their status. Now, they are not.
According to Ebeling, classical liberal principles guided America. This may be somewhat true in the economic realm where the liberal principles of the free market prevailed — except for industries protected with protective tariffs. However, since the 1933 when Roosevelt brought fascism to the United States, socialism has been the guiding economic principle.
Unfortunately, in the social realm, liberal principles have come to dominate. The new morality of racial genocide, which is closely related to liberalism, which abhors racial distinction, has supplanted the old morality, which protects and preserves the races.
According to Ebeling, the lack of governmental interference in economic and social life drew people to the United States. This may have been true in the past. However, today, with the government’s attempt to manage the economy and especially social affairs with all sorts of Black privileges, that can hardly still be true.
Freedom can scarcely be what draws people to the United States today. The police state that Bush put in place has brought the United States down to the level of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Communist China, even though the worst of these tyrannies have yet to manifest themselves in the United States. (If the United States are the freest country today, that is a said commentary on the rest of the world.)
Interestingly, Ebeling accuses the South of political intervention in the economy via slavery. However, he ignores real political intervention in the economy like protective tariffs, subsides to businesses, contracts to political favorites for internal improvements, and fiat money. Generally, Southerners opposed most of these whereas Northerners promoted them. Moreover, New Englanders did not oppose slavery while they were amassing fortunes in the slave trade. Only after the importation of slaves became illegal did the Puritan Yankee began to become abolitionists.
Ebeling claims that, except in the South before 1860, only a “few instances of state-sponsored, state-endorsed or state-enforced discrimination and persecution of ethnic, racial or religious groups” existed. Apparently, Illinois prohibiting free Blacks from entering that State was not state-sponsored or state-enforced discrimination — likewise, with the Northern States that outlawed interracial marriages.  Moreover, the whole debate about prohibiting slavery in territories was to keep Blacks out of the territories and preserve them for Whites only. Furthermore, because of the few numbers of Blacks in the North, custom was usually sufficient to keep most Blacks “in their place” away from Whites. Later, these customs were often enforced by governmentally protected labor union monopolies and racial exclusionary clauses in deeds and contracts, which governmental courts enforced.
Ebeling notes that most immigrants who came to the United States avoided the South. He blames this avoidance on slavery before the War and the segregation laws of the South after the War. Moreover, according to him, politics were more separated from economics in the North and West than in the South.
He ignores several important factors in avoiding the South. For most immigrants, New York City was the port of entry. From here, traveling across Pennsylvania and the Midwest was easier than traveling to the South. Historically, people of New England and New York had moved across Pennsylvania and the Midwest and from there farther westward. Only a few migrated to the South. So, routes westward were better established than routes southward.
Another, and more important, was the presence of Blacks. Most Blacks resided in the South — as slaves and then as freedmen. Like most people, liberals and libertarians excepted, these European immigrants preferred living among their own kind. (How many liberals and libertarians practice what they preach and live in predominately Black neighborhoods?)
A third reason was that the North and Radical Republicans (descendants of the Puritan Yankees and radicals who fled to the United States after the failed Revolution of 1848) had destroyed the South economically with the War and Reconstruction. So thorough was the economic destruction of the South that almost a century was needed for it to recover. Even today, parts still have not recovered — Mississippi for example. Unless the immigrant was a scoundrel, a mountebank, or had political connections with the US government, he had little chance of acquiring a comfortable estate in the South. Too many impoverished Blacks and Whites lived in the South against whom he would have to compete. Moreover, they were too poor to be good customers if he were a merchant. Only in the North and the West, did he have much economic opportunity.
Based on his description of his ancestry, Ebeling is not a descendant of Puritan Yankees. However, he certainly displays their anti-Southerner biases and prejudices.
Ebeling closes his article by praising immigrants. According to him, they are far superior to native Americans. He ignores the hordes that come to the United States as colonists and who enjoy the free handouts that stupid Americans give them while they bring down the United States and forever end the hope of the libertarian paradise that Ebeling seeks. He gives many of the trite remarks that liberals and libertarians use to support open borders and unlimited immigration, so I will not repeat them other than he considers them more patriotic than most native Americans.
Also, he is a great proponent of the melting-pot principle. That principle is mixing the races together to form motley mongrel man, which is genocide and the end of not only racial diversity but all diversity.
For him, the biggest danger resulting from restricting immigration is turning from a free marketplace to a political planning of society based on an identity politics of race and gender and possibly class, and abandoning the “ideals of individual liberty, free enterprise, and voluntary association for human dignity, material betterment, and social harmony and peace.” Like neoconservatives, liberals, and most libertarians, Ebeling places no value on natural collectives like race. He preaches freedom, but it is not the freedom of the White man as a White man or the Black man as a Black man: It is the freedom of the Mulatto man.
Also, like neoconservatives, liberals, and nearly all libertarians, Ebeling is a disciple of the new morality. Unlike his despised antebellum Southerners and Southerners of the Jim Crow era and most nonwhites, who were and are followers of the old morality, today, most Whites and unfortunately most Southerners are followers of the new morality. Likewise, except for the Puritan Yankees and the radicals from Europe, nearly all Northerners and immigrants from Europe between 1840 and 1914 followed the old morality. Furthermore, like nearly everyone else in the United States today, he believes that the United States are a propositional country and not a genetic country. Thus, the United States are doomed to perish and with that all hope for Ebeling’s libertarian nirvana will die.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.