Some Observations

Some Observations

Thomas Allen

The following describes the ideal state and its government and comments on Europe’s lust for war with Russia.

The Ideal State and Its Ideal Government

What follows is a description of the ideal state and its ideal government according to most left-wingers, especially progressives, socialists, fascists, and many nationalists.

In an ideal state, bureaucrats rule. Bureaucrats are isolated from special interests — so they believe. However, as COVID-19 and the Black Lives Matter riots illustrate, special interests have as much control over bureaucrats as they have over politicians. Nevertheless, statists are correct that bureaucrats are more difficult to replace than elected politicians. For statist, difficulty in replacing bureaucrats is a good thing and, therefore, bureaucratic rule is the ideal government for the ideal state.

Bureaucrats are supposed to be guided by the common good, which is what is best for the community. Yet, the concept of the common good is highly subjective. For example, some believe that a disarmed citizenry is for the common good, while others believe that a heavily armed citizenry is for the common good. In the end, personal prejudices and biases, the lust for power and wealth, and ideology guide most bureaucrats, especially those at the higher levels, in deciding what is the public good. Many lower-level bureaucrats are guided by the notion of doing their jobs.

The state is an abstraction that cannot exist without people. What is the state? The people who control the government. (See “The State” by Thomas Allen.) When bureaucrats rule, the state is the high-ranking bureaucrats and the people who own or control them, i.e., the oligarchs, who are ultimately the state.

Of course, people who promote the bureaucratic-ruled state are convinced that the bureaucrats who control the government think like they do. The bureaucrats will promote policies and agendas with which these promoters agree and suppress those with which they disagree. While progressives, socialists, fascists, and other statists find the bureaucratic-ruled state desirable, traditional conservatives, constitutionalists, libertarians, and other libertists find it deplorable.

Unfortunately, the United States are close to achieving the ideal state and its ideal government.  As the statists rejoice over their coming victory, the libertists are mourning the death of their country and its Constitution. (For the differences between a statist and a libertist, see “Statists Versus Libertists” by Thomas Allen.)

Europe’s Lust for War with Russia

Many of the European political leaders are working diligently to start a war with Russia. Following the example of most modern belligerents, they are trying to provoke Russia to fire the first shot so that they can blame Russia for starting the war and, thus, draw the United States into another useless European war. (The leadership of the United States either is stupid enough or controlled enough to carry the United States into another no-win war, but this war will totally destroy the United States.)

These European leaders are beginning to prepare their countries for war with Russia. Several countries are increasing their production of war materials and increasing the size of their armies. Moreover, they are telling their citizens to prepare for war. Some are considering reinstituting the draft.

With whom or what do they plan to fight such a war? They have completely demobilized their native White ethnicities. Whites have been taught that they are the cancer of the universe and do not deserve to exist. Their political leaders have relegated them to second-class citizens in their own countries. Such a demoralized people make a poor army that can be easily defeated.

Do these European leaders plan to use the immigrants from the Middle East, South Asia, and Northern Africa who have flooded Europe over recent decades? These immigrants owe Europe no allegiance. Most came to plunder and conquer. Why should they risk their lives to defend Europe?

Consequently, Europe cannot rely on these immigrants or the demoralized native Whites to fight Russia. Additionally, Europe has depleted much of its war materials by sending them to Ukraine.

Apparently, using Russia’s war with Ukraine as their model, some of these European leaders act as though they will fight Russia for months, if not for years. If the war goes nuclear, which it most likely will, Russia could utterly destroy all major cities in Europe in less than 10 minutes. (If Russia thought that the United States would retaliate, it could destroy the US missile silos before they could fire and take out most of the bombers on the ground. Moreover, it could destroy many major cities, airports, and military and naval bases in less than 30 minutes. Its hypersonic missiles can travel from New York to Los Angeles in less than half an hour. Neither Europe nor the United States have any defense against Russia’s hypersonic missiles. Moreover, Russia also has nuclear torpedoes that can flood much of coastal Europe.)

Do these European leaders believe that they can defeat Russia? Probably not. However, defeating Russia is not the objective. It will not be fought to defeat Russia but to annihilate the Whites of Europe.

Being possessed by Satan’s demons, these European leaders seek to obliterate the White race from the planet because the White race (species) is the race created in God’s image. (See “What Race Was Adam?” by Thomas Allen.) Eradicating the White race with massive nonwhite immigration is taking too long. What better way to achieve their goal than a nuclear war?

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

False Paradigms

False Paradigms

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Mencken on the Failure of Puritanism

Mencken on the Failure of Puritanism

Thomas Allen

    In 1926, H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) wrote Notes on Democracy in which he expressed his views on democracy and related issues. He was a journalist, satirist, and critic and a libertarian and one of the leaders of the Old Right. In his book, he describes the failure of Puritanism, pages 177-186. Below is an overview of his discussion on the failure of Puritanism; my comments are in brackets.
    Mencken describes the action of Puritanism as follows: “Under the pressure of fanaticism, and with the mob complacently applauding the show, democratic law tends more and more to be grounded upon the maxim that every citizen is, by nature, a traitor, a libertine, and a scoundrel. In order to dissuade him from his evil-doing the police power is extended until it surpasses anything ever heard of in the oriental monarchies of antiquity.” [For example, ever more things said by a White, especially a White male, and even more so by a White Southern male, that might possibly hurt the feelings of a supersensitive person who is searching for someone to hurt his/her/its feelings is proscribed. If such words do not result in a jail sentence, as often happens in Europe, they certainly lead to expulsion from school and a loss of employment.] As a result, “it is almost a literal fact that the citizen has no rights that the police are bound to respect.” [One can hardly imagine Mencken’s disgust of the power that the police now have in America’s emerging police state where the police can often arrest a person for resisting arrest when the police have not charged the person with any crime.] Mencken continues, “These awful powers, of course, are not exercised against all citizens. The man of influence with the reigning politicians, the supporter of the prevailing delusions, and the adept hypocrite — these are seldom molested.” [Hillary Clinton is an excellent example of one who is not molested; she is shielded.] “But the man who finds himself in an unpopular minority is at the mercy of the Polizei [police], and the easiest way to get into such a minority is to speak out boldly for the Bill of Rights.” [One needs only to listen to talk radio, especially on shortwave and the Internet, to discover many people whom the government has victimized for speaking for the Bill of Rights. Also, many judges deny the defense appealing to the Bill of Rights.]
    The procedure operates as follows: “First an unpopular man is singled out for persecution, and then a diligent search is made, with the police and prosecuting officers and even the courts co-operating, for a law that he can be accused of breaking. The enormous multiplicity of sumptuary and inquisitorial statutes makes this quest easy. The prisoner begins his progress through the mill of justice under a vague accusation of disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace; he ends charged with crimes that carry staggering penalties.” [One cynical commentator claims that between the time the average person gets out of bed and eats breakfast, he has already committed five felonies. During the day, the average person probably commits several felonies and dozens of misdemeanors and even more civil infractions without knowing that he has committed a crime. The government has made a criminal of everyone, which makes imprisoning everyone who becomes a nuisance legally easy. To increase the likelihood of people violating a law, laws are often written to contradict other laws. Thus, by obey one law, the person has to disobey another law.] Making criminals of people “for merely thinking unpopular thoughts,” as many Puritans[, Yankees,] want to do today, is not new. Mencken comments on laws that outlawed unpopular thoughts. He writes, “Once he is accused of such heresy, the subsequent proceedings take on the character of a lynching. His constitutional rights are swept away as of no validity, and all the ancient rules of the Common Law — for example, those against double jeopardy and hearsay are suspended in order to fetch him. Many of the newer statutes actually suspend these safeguards formally, and though they are to that extent plainly unconstitutional, the higher courts have not interfered with their execution.” [This situation that Mencken abhors has gotten infinitely worse since he wrote. For example, double jeopardy appears in the application of many civil rights laws. If a White person is found not guilty of a crime against a Black person, then the U.S. government may file charges against the White person for violating the Black person’s civil rights. The White person is being charged with committing a crime of which he has been found innocent by merely changing the name of the crime.] He cites the Volstead Act as an example of a law that “destroys the constitutional right to a jury trial, and in its administration the constitutional prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the rule against double jeopardy.” [The Volstead Act was the law that enforced the Eighteenth Amendment, the Prohibition Amendment. Much of the legislation enacted by Congress since 9-11 voids the Bill of Rights.] He continues, “The mob is always in favour of the prosecution, for the prosecution is giving the show. In the face of its applause, very few American judges have the courage to enforce the constitutional guarantees — and still fewer prosecuting attorneys.” [This explains the lack of popular support for the people who are persecuted and prosecuted for standing up for liberty and the inalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution.]
    Furthermore, “a prosecuting attorney’s success depends very largely upon his ferocity. American practice permits him an extravagance of attack that would land him in jail, and perhaps even in a lunatic asylum, in any other country, and the more passionately he indulges in it the more certain becomes his promotion to higher office, including the judicial.” Judges who had previously been prosecuting attorneys “seem to be generally convinced that any man accused of crime is ipso facto guilty, and that if he is known to harbour political heresies he is guilty of a sort of blasphemy when he mentions his constitutional rights.” [An early television judge showed such bias and prejudice. Whenever someone appeared before him whom he thought was a “racist,” that person lost his case even if the evidence overwhelmingly supported his cause.]
    Mencken notes, “This doctrine that a man who stands in contempt of the prevailing idealogy has no rights under the law is so thoroughly democratic that in the United States it is seldom questioned, save by romantic fanatics, robbed of their wits by an uncritical reading of the Fathers.” [Mencken’s observation may be true of a true lover of liberty, a libertist, but it is not true of others. However, courts have gone out of their way to ensure that the rights of Communists and their allies who want to abolish all real liberties and convert the United States to totalitarianism are protected.]
    Next, Mencken remarks, “It is difficult, indeed, for democracy to reconcile itself to what may be called common decency. By this common decency I mean the habit, in the individual, of viewing with tolerance and charity the acts and ideas of other individuals — the habit which makes a man a reliable friend, a generous opponent, and a good citizen.” [One of the most amusing ironies in America today is that the people who preach tolerance and yell the loudest that we must all be tolerant are the most intolerant people in the country. What would one expect from a Puritan Yankee, to use a tautology?] Then Mencken adds, “The democrat, despite his strong opinion to the contrary, is seldom a good citizen. . . .His eagerness to bring all his fellow-citizens, and especially all those who are superior to him, into accord with his own dull and docile way of thinking, and to force it upon them when they resist, leads him inevitably into acts of unfairness, oppression and dishonour which, if all men were alike guilty of them, would quickly break down that mutual trust and confidence upon which the very structure of civilized society rests. Where democratic man is so firmly in possession of his theoretical rights that resistance to him is hopeless, as it is in large areas of the United States, he actually produces this disaster.” [Can one say “California?”] For “any well-informed and self-respecting man” living in such a community is almost impossible. Not accepting “the democratic epistemology and the Puritan ethic” of such communities, he is harassed until he flees.
    Continuing, Mencken explains the uneasiness in American life: “This irreconcilable antagonism between democratic Puritanism and common decency is probably responsible for the uneasiness and unhappiness that are so marked in American life, despite the great material prosperity of the United States. Theoretically, the American people should be happier than any other; actually, they are probably the least happy in Christendom. The trouble with them is that they do not trust one another — and without mutual trust there can be no ease, and no genuine happiness.” [Multiculturalism and multiracialism, both of which the Yankee has forced on the country, cause much of this distrust and the resulting unhappiness. As European countries have become more multicultural and multiracial, they too are suffering from distrust and the resulting unhappiness and uneasiness. People in monoracial and monocultural countries are more trusting of one another and, therefore, happier.] Mencken concludes, “The thing that makes life charming is not money, but the society of our fellow-men, and the thing that draws us toward our fellow-men is not admiration for their inner virtues, their hard striving to live according to the light that is in them, but admiration for their outer graces and decencies — in brief, confidence that they will always act generously and understandingly in their intercourse with us. We must trust men before we may enjoy them.” Then he remarks that “it is impossible to put any such trust in a Puritan. With the best intentions in the world he cannot rid himself of the delusion that his duty to save us from our sins — i.e., from the non-Puritanical acts that we delight in — is paramount to his duty to let us be happy in our own way. Thus he is unable to be tolerant, and with tolerance goes magnanimity. A Puritan cannot be magnanimous. He is constitutionally unable to grasp the notion that it is better to be decent than to be steadfast, or even than to be just.” Furthermore, the democrat “is simply a Puritan doubly damned.” [Mencken seems not to realize that “Puritan” and “Yankee” are synonymous. That is, a Puritan is a Yankee and a Yankee is a Puritan. Hillary Clinton is an excellent contemporary example of a Puritan Yankee.]

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Mencken on Liberty in a Democracy

Mencken on Liberty in a Democracy

Thomas Allen

    In 1926, H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) wrote Notes on Democracy in which he expressed his views on democracy and related issues. He was a journalist, satirist, and critic and a libertarian and one of the leaders of the Old Right. In his book, he describes liberty in a democracy, pages 157-162. Below is an overview of his discussion on liberty in a democracy; my comments are in brackets.
    Whenever the liberties of the people “are invaded and made a mock of in a gross and contemptuous manner,” as occurred “in the United States during the reign of Wilson,” some observers always marvel that people bear such “outrage with so little murmuring.” About such observation, Mencken remarks, “Such observers only display their unfamiliarity with the elements of democratic science. The truth is that the common man’s love of liberty, like his love of sense, justice and truth, is almost wholly imaginary.” [The response of most people to 9-11 supports Mencken. Their quick surrender of liberty to the ruling elite shows their lack of love of liberty.] Unfortunately, for the lovers of liberty, the common man, of whom the masses comprise, is not “happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. He longs for the warm, reassuring smell of the herd, and is willing to take the herdsman with it.” Thus, “[l]iberty is not a thing for such as he. He cannot enjoy it rationally himself, and he can think of it in others only as something to be taken away from them.”
    When liberty is a reality, it is the “exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority of men, like knowledge, courage and honour. A special sort of man is needed to understand it, nay, to stand it — and he is inevitably an outlaw in democratic societies.” Mencken continues, “The average man doesn’t want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.” [Hence, the response of the average person to 9-11: throw away liberty for safety — and end up with neither. The common man, the inferior man, the democratic man, fails to realize that without liberty, real safety cannot exist.]
    Mencken cites Nietzsche as saying that liberty “was something that, to the general, was too cold to be borne.” However, Nietzsche “believed that there was an unnatural, drug-store sort of yearning for it in all men, and so he changed Schopenhauer’s will-to-live into a will-to-power, i.e., a will-to-free-function.” [Friedrich Nietzsche {1844 –1900} was a German philosopher, cultural critic, poet, and philologist. Arthur Schopenhauer {1788 –1860} was a German philosopher.] Mencken believes that Nietzsche “went too far, and in the wrong direction: he should have made it, on the lower levels, a will-to-peace.” Mencken remarks, “What the common man longs for in this world, before and above all his other longings, is the simplest and most ignominious sort of peace the peace of a trusty in a well-managed penitentiary. He is willing to sacrifice everything else to it. He puts it above his dignity and he puts it above his pride. Above all, he puts it above his liberty.” [As statists promise such peace, statists always have an advantage over lovers of liberty, libertists, in a democracy.]
    The common man loves peace and safety far more than he loves liberty. This may “explains his veneration for policemen, in all the forms they take — his belief that there is a mysterious sanctity in law, however absurd it may be in fact.” Mencken adds, “A policeman is a charlatan who offers, in return for obedience, to protect him [the common man] (a) from his superiors, (b) from his equals, and (c) from himself. This last service, under democracy, is commonly the most esteemed of them all.” [In reality, the ultimate job of the police is to protect the ruling elite, the real powers behind the political leaders, from the masses, i.e., the common man.] “In the United States, at least theoretically, it is the only thing that keeps ice-wagon drivers, Y.M.C.A. secretaries, insurance collectors and other such human camels from smoking opium, ruining themselves in the night clubs, and going to Palm Beach with Follies girls.” [To Mencken, the primary job of the police is to prevent personal vice.]
    Although the common man is deceived about liberty, “he starts from a sound premise: to wit, that liberty is something too hot for his hands — or, as Nietzsche put it, too cold for his spine. Worse, he sees in it something that is a weapon against him in the hands of his enemy.”
    Mencken adds, “The history of democracy is a history of efforts to force successive minorities to be untrue to their nature. Democracy, in fact, stands in greater peril of the free spirit than any sort of despotism ever heard of.” He continues, “The despot, at least, is always safe in one respect: his own belief in himself cannot be shaken. But democracies may be demoralized and run amok, and so they are in vast dread of heresy, as a Sunday-school superintendent is in dread of scarlet women, light wines and beer, and the unreadable works of Charles Darwin.” Then he remarks, “It would be unimaginable for a democracy to submit serenely to such gross dissents as Frederick the Great not only permitted, but even encouraged.” He notes, “Once the mob is on the loose, there is no holding it. So the subversive minority must be reduced to impotence; the heretic must be put down.”
    If a primary purpose “of all civilized government is to preserve and augment the liberty of the individual, then surely democracy accomplishes it less efficiently than any other form.” [The dictatorship of the proletariat does a much worse job. But, then, Mencken considers the dictatorship of the proletariat to be a form of democracy.] If the individual is worth thinking about, then “the superior individual is worth more thought than his inferiors.” Yet, “the superior individual  . . . is the chief victim of the democratic process. It not only tries to regulate his acts; it also tries to delimit his thoughts. . . . The aim of democracy is to break all such free spirits to the common harness. It tries to iron them out, to pump them dry of self-respect, to make docile John Does of them.” [Nearly all laws coming out of Congress and the statehouses seem to have as their primary objective the breaking of all free spirits to a common harness.]
    Democracy measures its success by the extent that it brings down superior men and makes them common. “The measure of civilization is the extent to which they resist and survive. Thus the only sort of liberty that is real under democracy is the liberty of the have-nots to destroy the liberty of the haves.” [Thus, the inferior man is a strong supporter of the welfare state because it brings down the superior man and destroys the liberties of the haves.] Mencken adds, “This liberty is supposed, in some occult way, to enhance human dignity.” In one aspect, perhaps, it does: “The have-not gains something valuable when he acquires the delusion that he is the equal of his betters. It may not be true but even a delusion, if it augments the dignity of man, is something.” Under this apparent reality, “the peasant no longer pulls his forelock when he meets the baron, he is free to sue and be sued, he may denounce Huxley as a quack.” [Thomas Huxley {1825–1895} was an English biologist and a prominent proponent of evolution, in which Mencken ardently believed.] Unfortunately, as the inferior is raised, the superior is lowered. Mencken notes, “If democracy really loves the dignity of man, then it kills the thing it loves.” It reduces all to a common level.

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Statists Verse Libertists

Statists Versus Libertists

Thomas Allen

    Throughout the history of America, two political and economic philosophies have competed for control of America. They are the philosophies of the statist party or Hamiltonians and the libertist party or Jeffersonians. Today, the statist party has clearly won the contest. A third but insignificant philosophy, anarchism, also exists.

    Below is a description of the statist party, the libertist party, and the anarchist party and a comparison of the philosophies of the Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians.

Statist Party
    The statist party is the party of the pietists (remaking man in the image of the pietist: hence, public schooling, anti-drug and anti-smoking laws, prohibition [ever lowering of driving under the influence standard], democratizing the world, etc.);  the progressive (remaking man in the image of the progressive: hence public schooling, welfare state, governmentally provided healthcare, democratization of the world, globalism, foreign interventionism, etc.); Hamiltonians (protection and promotion of big business: hence, mercantilism, commercialism, central banking, protective tariffs and import quotas, fair trade, managed trade, globalism, extensive regulation of manufacturing and commerce, agribusiness, warfare state, etc.), hence:

    ‒ adherents and advocates of ever-growing government,
    ‒ concentration and centralization of political power,
    ‒ welfare-warfare state,
    ‒ military-industrial complex,
    ‒ large standing armed force,
    ‒ socialism, state capitalism, corporatism, fascism,
    ‒ empire building, imperialism, globalism,
    ‒ fiat money,
    ‒ civil rights movement,
    ‒ parental government,
    ‒ false diversity and amalgamation,
    ‒ rule of man although statutes and regulations abound, etc.

    Statists trust politicians and bureaucrats and distrust the people.

    It is the party of mainline Republicans, Democrats, progressives, populists, modern liberals, New Left, neo-conservatives, living constitutionalists, socialists, fascists, communists, authoritarians, totalitarians, Zionists, etc.

    Government is the answer: What is the problem?

Libertist Party
    The libertist party is the party of the Jeffersonians (agrarianism, local business, artisanism, decentralized banking, voluntary markets [free enterprise, free markets, free trade], limited government, etc.), hence:

    ‒ adherents and advocates of small government (government restricted to the protection of life, liberty, and property from theft, fraud, and trespass; remaking man is not a proper function of government),
    ‒ dispersal and decentralization of political power (states’ rights),
    ‒ personal liberty (but not libertinism) and freedom,
    ‒ personal responsibility,
    ‒ individualism,
    ‒ self-reliance,
    ‒ home and private schooling,
    ‒ commodity money,
    ‒ laissez-faire economics,
    ‒ nationalism, localism,
    ‒ noninterventionist foreign policy,
    ‒ small standing armed force with well-armed local militias,
    ‒ true diversity and preservation,
    ‒ rule of law although statutes and regulations are sparse, etc.

    Libertists trust the people and distrust politicians and bureaucrats.

    It is the party of paleo-conservatives, Old Right, classical liberals, strict constitutionalists, libertarians, etc.

    Freedom is the answer: What is the problem?.

Anarchist Party
    The anarchist party adheres to and advocates the abolition of all governments and governmental authority, which are replaced by voluntary cooperation among individuals and groups and ranges from extreme individualism (adherents of economic freedom) to collectivism (rejecters of economic freedom). Anarchism is highly unstable and has seldom existed. It generally and quickly degenerates into some form of statism imposed by the stronger internal factions or by external conquering powers.

Hamiltonians Verse Jeffersonians
    Hamilton was a statist. Jefferson was a libertist. Since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1789, two philosophies, that of Hamilton and that of Jefferson, have competed to control the political and economic views and policies of America. The following compares the philosophy of the Hamiltonians and the Jeffersonians.

Government.
    Hamiltonians trust politicians and bureaucrats and believe that:
    ‒    government should be highly centralized and unlimited and unrestrained;
    ‒    the best government is that which governs most;
    ‒    the purpose of government is national greatness;
    ‒    citizens are servants of the government; the government is the master of the people;
    ‒    taxes should be high with an abusive and arbitrary tax collection system and a standing army of tax collectors; taxes should be pervasive and confiscatory;
    ‒    governmental debt should be large;
    ‒    executive power should dominate;
    ‒    judicial activists should centralize all power into the U.S. government and then into the imperial president.

    Jeffersonians trust the people and believe that:
    ‒    government should be limited, restrained, and decentralized;
    ‒    the best government is that which governs the least;
    ‒    the purpose of government is to protect the lives, liberties, and property of its citizens;
    ‒    citizens of the States are the masters of the government; the government is the servant of the people;
    ‒    taxes should be minimal, and tax collection minimized with the least intrusion possible;
    ‒    government should be frugal and debt-free;
    ‒    the executive power should not dominate; the branches of government should be equal with the legislative branch being first among equals;
    ‒    judges apply the law instead of making it and ensure that laws comply with the Constitution interpreted as it is written, strictly and expressly.

Constitution.
    Hamiltonians believe that:
    ‒    the Constitution is  living, dynamic, and flexible;
    ‒    the Constitution is a grant of power;
    ‒    the Constitution grants the U.S. government implied powers;
    ‒    original sovereignty is in the nation and not the States; the U.S. government is sovereign;
    ‒    the “general welfare” clause authorizes the U.S. government to enact whatever it wants if it claims that it is for the general welfare; Congress may spend money on anything that it declares to be for the general welfare;
    ‒    the interstate commerce clause authorizes the U.S. government to regulate anything that it deems may affect commerce including intrastate commerce and allows the U.S. government to plan every economic enterprise;
    ‒    the U.S. Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means; it is the final arbitrator of the constitutionality of a law;
    ‒    no State may leave the union; any that attempt to must be forced back in.

    Jeffersonians believe that:
    ‒    the Constitution is to be construed strictly;
    ‒    the Constitution is a restrain on the powers of the U.S. government;
    ‒    the Constitution does not grant the U.S. implied powers; it only grants specific and expressly delegated powers;
    ‒    original sovereignty resides in the States; the people as States are sovereign; the U.S. government has only delegated sovereign powers;
    ‒    the “general welfare” clause grants no powers; it authorizes Congress to spend money on the enumerated powers and only if it is for the general welfare as opposed for the benefit of a specific group or region;
    ‒    the interstate commerce clause authorizes the U.S. government to regulate interstate commerce to promote free trade among the States and to prevent States from enforcing protective policies;
    ‒    the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion does not decide the meaning of the Constitution; the President, Congress, and States are equal to the Supreme Court in deciding the meaning of the Constitution; the people themselves, usually but not necessarily acting through their respective States, are the final arbitrator of the constitutionality of a law;
    ‒    States may peacefully leave the union.

Federalism.
    Hamiltonians oppose real federalism and believe in:
    ‒    nationalism with the U.S. government being supreme;
    ‒    opposition to states’ rights;
    ‒    the U.S. government being the master of subordinate puppet States;
    ‒    the States being administrative units of the U.S. government;
    ‒    the consolidation of political power;
    ‒    the people being citizens of and owing their allegiance to the United States.

    Jeffersonians support real federalism and believe in:
    ‒    State governments being as strong as if not stronger than the central government;
    ‒    supporting states’ rights;
    ‒    the States keeping the U.S. government from exceeding its bounds;
    ‒    the States being free and independent sovereigns;
    ‒    dispersal of political power;
    ‒    the people being citizens of and owing their allegiance to their respective States.

Economics.
    Hamiltonians lack confidence in the market economy and believe in:
    ‒    subsidizing business in general and the affluent in particular;
    ‒    corporate welfare; mercantilism; fascism; business-government partnership;
    ‒    governmental (centralized) economic planning;
    ‒    protective tariffs;
    ‒    centralized and highly regulated banking; banking and government partnership;
    ‒    politically controlled money supply; politics driving monetary growth;
    ‒    the government and central bank manipulating the economy, thus creating the boom-bust cycle;
    ‒    government being the best judge of excellence in manufacturing.

    Jeffersonians have confidence in the market economy and believe in:
    ‒    laissez-faire economics without subsidies or centralized planning;
    ‒    government and business remaining separate with the government functioning as an umpire to ensure all follow the same rules; no corporate welfare or subsidies;
    ‒     free trade;
    ‒    decentralized banking with minimal regulation; separation of banking and government;
    ‒    market controlled money supply; economics driving monetary growth;
    ‒    the consumer being the best judge of excellence in manufacturing.

Foreign policy.
    Hamiltonians advocate:
    ‒    interventionism and imperialism;
    ‒    a mercantilist empire;
    ‒    a foreign policy that advances the interest of the politically powerful and politically connected, i.e., multinational corporations and international financiers;
    ‒    a large standing army;
    ‒    foreign military alliances;
    ‒    foreign aid to buy and control foreign governments.

    Jeffersonians advocate:
    ‒    nonintervention (do not interfere in the affairs of other countries);
    ‒    no empire building;
    ‒    a foreign policy that defends America;
    ‒    no standing army;
    ‒    no foreign military alliances;
    ‒    no foreign aid.

Freedom.
    Hamiltonians believe in:
    ‒    the government granting, permitting, and limiting freedom;
    ‒    the welfare state, i.e., making as many people as possible dependent on the government.

    Jeffersonians believe in:
    ‒    the government guaranteeing and protecting freedom;
    ‒    the separation of charity and state; making as many people as possible independent of the government.

Copyright © 2011 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on politics.