Founding Principles of the Governance of the United States

Founding Principles of the Governance of the United States

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are some of the founding principles of the United States. They are the relationship of church and state and the destructiveness of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Separation of Church and State

In “Religious Liberty and the Genius of the American Founding,” Imprimis (December 2024 | Volume 53, Number 12), Glenn Ellmers argues that America’s founders solved the problem of establishing the sacredness of the law while avoiding religious conflict and persecution. They combined human reason and divine revelation to establish religious liberty. (First, today, the country lacks reason. Second, whose religion is used to establish the sacredness of the law? Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all claim to be descended from Abraham’s religion. Yet, they are incompatible with each other. Further, Hinduism, which is growing rapidly in the United States, is even more incompatible.)

The Founding Fathers recognized that people “are born into both a physical and moral world that” they did not create. American politics was built on this foundation. (Unfortunately, many American political, religious, academic, business, and other leaders have been diligently working to destroy this foundation.)

Next, Ellmers discusses the problems that the Founding Fathers solved. “First, they solved the split between piety and citizenship by supplying a common ground for morality.”  With reasoning, people can understand the difference between virtue and vice. Thus, “the law can enforce moral precepts that are acknowledged by both political and ecclesiastical authorities.” (What about vices that some religious authorities recognize as vice, but political authorities do not? Gambling is an example that some religious authorities condemn, but many political authorities do not. Through State-sponsored lotteries, some States use gambling as a source of revenue. This action prevents them from considering gambling as immoral, although some religious authorities do.)

“Second, this common ground of morality makes it possible to delineate in a clear way the political and religious realms.” Thus, “the separation of church and state becomes possible.” The Declaration of Independence’s “teaching about the laws of nature and nature’s God establishes a kind of political theology, a non-sectarian ground of legitimacy that makes the laws ‘sacred’ without getting the government involved in theological disputes about the Trinity, faith versus works, etc.” 

“Third, the Founders solved the problem of religious persecution. Because the government and the churches can agree on a moral code that is compatible with both reason and revelation, each can operate in its proper realm without intruding on the other.” Consequently, a religious test for office was prohibited. (Although no government today requires a religious test for office, some States in the early years of the United States did.)

(What happens if the law is used to protect immorality instead of prohibiting it? Abortion and sexual immorality, such as homosexual acts and miscegenation, are examples. Abortion and abortionists are protected in many States. Likewise, homosexual marriages and miscegenation are protected in all States. Yet, traditional Christianity condemns them as sins that should be legally prohibited. When the political realm [reason] conflicts with the religious realm [revelation], the political realm prevails, at least in this world, because it wields the rifles.

In spite of the separation of church and state, today, the political realm has chosen the religion of secular humanism as the state religion. When it conflicts with the other religions, the political realm [the government] nearly always sides with secular humanism.)

The Fourteenth Amendment

The  Fourteenth Amendment is unconstitutional because it is incongruent with fundamental principles of the Constitution that it amended. Not only was it ratified unlawfully and illegally, but it also violates at least three basic principles underlying the Constitution. 

(1) The Fourteenth Amendment usurped the sovereignty of the people of each State and gave it to the oligarchs who controlled the federal government. Before the Fourteenth Amendment, the States were independent nations that were members of a federation. The federal government was their agent that attended to foreign affairs and a few domestic issues. It had no sovereignty. Accordingly, the Constitution of 1788 was a contract between independent sovereign republics, which created an agent, the federal government, to carry out specific and limited activities. The Fourteenth Amendment voided that contract and usurped all the sovereignty and powers of the States, the parties to the contract, and placed them in the federal government. Now, the States have only those powers that the federal government condescends to grant them. Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment changed the United States from a federation of sovereign republican States to an empire.

(2) It changed the fundamental principle of citizenship. Before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, individuals were considered citizens of the United States by being citizens of a State. After the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, individuals became citizens of a State by being citizens of the United States.

(3) (This one will really anger most people, especially conservatives and libertarians.) The Constitution was written by Whites, for Whites, and only for Whites. The Fourteenth Amendment changed the Constitution from being monoracial to being multiracial by making Negroes citizens. Consequently, it changed the United States from a White country for Whites only to a multiracial country (and all today's problems with nonwhite immigration). 

Consequently, because the Fourteenth Amendment is incompatible with the underlying principles of the Constitution and is, therefore, unconstitutional, courts should ignore it until it is repealed.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States were independent sovereign republics. After Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States lost their independence, sovereignty, and republican form of government and became little more than administrative districts in a consolidated empire.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

A Discussion with an Idiot

A Discussion with an Idiot

Thomas Allen, editor

Below is a discussion between me and an idiot. This discussion resulted from a comment that I made to a comment that another person made to an article. The article is titled “Police Officer Arrests Man Reciting Bible Verse at Pride Rally” at https://wltreport.com/2023/06/06/police-officer-arrests-man-reciting-bible-verse-at-pride-rally/#comment-6210524182. [Note: If you go to this site, you will not see my comments because it has banned me. Apparently, I objected too much about it censoring my comments telling the truth about God’s chosen people and their political movement.]

The idiot is somewhat arrogant and a racial nihilist. As a racial nihilist, she does not care about persevering the American Negro and seems to rejoice in the Negro’s demise. On the contrary, she denies that the Negro race, the White race, and any other race exists. (I use “she” and “her” for pronouns for this idiot because she did not specify which one of the 100 plus pronouns is her preferred pronoun.)

Moreover, this idiot is a worshiper of St. Martin Luther King the Divine and probably considers herself a conservative. Further, she is convinced that King had a high moral standard, was a strict follower of biblical morality because that is where King got his morality, and was faithful to his wife. Thus, she has a weird understanding of the Bible and seems to believe that the Bible does not condemn illicit sex. For someone who mentions the Bible as frequently as she does, she has a shallow understanding of the Bible. Also, she understands the Bible through the lens of wokeism.

Moreover, although she idolizes King, her comments show that she knows little about him. One would think that anyone who idolizes King as much as she does would know about his infidelity, which is common knowledge. Either she is too stupid to know or she rejects what she knows is true because it tarnishes her idol.

Originally, I thought that this person was ignorant. Later, I discovered that she was stupid. Ignorance can be fixed with knowledge; stupidity cannot be fixed. However, I did not find her stupid because she disagreed with me. I found her stupid by the way that she disagreed and what she wrote. (I have had many people disagree with me whom I do not consider stupid. An example is King.)

Furthermore, this person is not the only idiot that I have encountered. For example, one moronic person claims that he knows more about what a clause in the Constitution means than does the person who wrote it.

I have left the idiot’s comments and the other comments as they were posted. To one of my comments, I have added some clarification and have enclosed it in brackets. I have substituted “Idiot” for her pseudonym, “Me” for my pseudonym, “Original Commenter” for the person who commented on the article, and “Third Party” for the person who commented during our discussion. 

The comments are not in chronological order but are in the order that they appear in the comment section. The discussion follows.

 Original Commenter: In the Last Days what is good will be called evil and what is evil will be called good. This is a fine example of that scripture. The good man was trying to warn of the consequences of sin. We don’t make the laws, God does and still have consequences for disobedience.

Me: Martin Luther King writes, “An unjust law is one in which people are required to obey a code that they had no part in making because they were denied the right to vote.” Thus, the ten commandments and the other laws that Moses wrote in the Old Testament are unjust because no one had any part in making them. According to King, people should not obey unjust laws.  https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2023/05/the-real-king.html

Idiot: Em, the ten commandments are the laws that God gave mankind for mankind’s benefit. Which of these laws would you propose we not obey, and why? Just curious ...

Thou shall not murder perhaps? Thou shall not bear false witness? Do these seem “unjust” to you?

Me: I did not say that we should not follow the ten commandments. I am saying that the greatest conservative ever, the archconservative St. Martin Luther King the Divine said that no one is obliged to obey any law that they did not help make by voting for those who made the law.

Idiot: oh, btw, Martin Luther King said we are not obliged to follow IMMORAL laws. Big difference.

“One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” Martin Luther King Jr.

Note the “MORAL responsibility” - WHERE do you suppose REVEREND King got his “morality” from, hmmm?

Idiot: I didn’t say to not follow the ten commandments either.

YOU said any law we didn’t have a part in making, we are not obliged to follow.

We didn’t have a part in making the ten commandments, so we shouldn’t be obliged to follow them.

So I asked YOU which of these laws would you NOT follow?

Soooo?

Me: I did not say that we are not obliged to follow laws that we didn’t have a part in making. King said that. King defines an unjust law as one in which people had no part in making because they were denied the right to vote. According to King’s definition, the ten commandments are unjust because people had no part in making them and, therefore, they are not obliged to obey them.

Idiot: The quote YOU provided was about something totally different. People who are denied the right to vote shouldn’t have to follow laws they had no say in making. We actually fought an American Revolution for this very reason. Britain throwing people in jail without trial by jury and imposing tax laws on Americans when Americans had no say in parliament, where the laws were coming from.

It was a quote about people who are denied the right vote.

Me: But the principle is still applicable to OT laws since people were denied the right to vote and neither the Israelites nor anyone else beyond God had a say in making them. Throughout most of history, all laws have been unjust because people who were required to obey them had no part in making them. Even today, the same is true for minors because they have no part in making laws that apply to them.

Idiot: No, it does not apply. That was not even close to what King was referring to. For one, he definitely said we have a moral responsibility to follow just laws. Where did REVEREND King get his morality, and just laws from? THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

Me: “Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.” Then, “I don’t expect that anything I write will change the minds enclosed in concrete already...."

Third Party: You cannot use reason to debate or convince or inform someone who has rejected reason.

If reason is your argument, and he won’t hear it, you are wasting your breath and conceding any hope before you begin.

Idiot addressing Third Party: Yep, you perfectly described why Me has desperately avoided answering where Reverend King got his morality from. :-) When you avoid reasoning and facts you have rejected them. When your mind is that closed, you will never be able to learn anything new. Sad, isn't it?

Idiot: Oh Lord, I don’t want to admit where Reverend King got his morality from! Noooo! It'll make me look stupid!

Me: I don’t know where King got his morality and just laws from, but I do know that he did not get them from the Bible.

Idiot: You don’t know where REVEREND King got his morality from, but you somehow do know it wasn’t from the Bible??????

Liar. You tried to avoid the question because you DO know, and didn’t want to answer. :-)

I suspect that you know exactly where King got his morality from. Everybody else does.

You just exposed yourself, dear. Good job!

Me: Where did King get his morality? Although you seem to think that he got it from the Bible, he did not. King was an integrationist and hated segregationists. The God of the Bible is the great segregationist; therefore, King loathes him. Proof that God is a segregationist: The world’s two greatest segregationist events were the Noachian Flood (where God segregated Noah and his family from the rest of the people) and the Tower of Babel. God was the cause of both of them. Further, God told the Israelites that when they entered Canaan not to integrate with the inhabitants, i.e., segregate themselves. Also, God segregates the saved from the unsaved. Thus, while God teaches segregation, King teaches integration.

According to Acts 17:26, when God created the races, He determined the boundaries of the habitats. Did God create the races of man, or did they evolve? The Bible supports creation; you probably support evolution. King's racial policy of integrating the races leads to amalgamation and, therefore, the destruction of the races. Do you support the deliberate destruction of what God created? God so despises amalgamation that He forbids mongrels, multiracial people, to enter His assembly. https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2017/05/commentary-on-deuteronomy-232.html

King seems to have got his morality from Satan, but that is speculation on my part.

Idiot: God forbids “mongrels” and “multi-racial” people from His assembly??

Quote the Chapter and verse FROM THE BIBLE that proves this????

Good luck with that one, dear. :-)

Me: The New Jerusalem Bible reads, “No half-bred may be admitted to the assembly of the Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh.” The Hebrew word translated “half-bred” means “mongrel.” If you had consulted the link that I gave you, you would have learned this. [I did fail to cite the verse, which is Deuteronomy 23:2; however, it was cited in the link of my previous comment. Obviously, she had not read the linked article.]

Idiot: Once again you have failed. Source? Chapter and verse please.

Idiot: You also know nothing of the Bible but you are revealing yourself in very profound ways.

oh, btw. The Bible NEVER mentions anything about different "races."

Different people groups, such as the Hittites, Cushites (African tribes), Israelites, etc. But NEVER different races because there is only ONE race in the Bible. THE HUMAN RACE.

The ONLY segregationist here honey, is YOU.

God separated the people at the tower of Babel because His plan was NEVER for a “one world order.” Thank God for that!

And different races don’t “evolve.” That's a non-sensical [sic], totally UN scientific statement. DUH! What is WRONG with you???? Doesn’t even relate to “evolution or creation.” The ignorance here is astounding.

And how the hell does God “dispise amalgamation????”

So glad you posted that last post. You discredited yourself beyond repair. My dear, you are your own worst enemy.

Reverend King, and ALL Christians, get their morality from the BIBLE. The living word of God. Period. Now go back to your mummy's basement before you hurt yourself.

Me: Obviously, you suffer from intellectual hernias, racial nihilism, invincible ignorance, terminal ignorance, mental imprisonment, cognitive dissonance, arrested development, delusional psychosis, and dissociation of sensibility. People like you are causing the dying of the country, the decaying of Christianity, and the growing genocide.

Further, your knowledge of the Bible is appalling. Cush is Arabia (https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2020/03/cush-and-ethiopia.html) The Bible NEVER mentions anything about “the United States,” “Russia,” “nuclear war,” and many other things that people find in the Bible. Some translations do use the word race in the sense of ethnicities. Also, the Bible speaks of tribes and nations. Ethnicities, tribes, and nations are monoracial in the biological sense and are subdivisions of a race — thus, implying race in the biological sense.

When God separated the people at Babel, He segregated them; He certainly did not integrate them. “How the hell does God ‘dispise amalgamation”?” He told the Israelites not to integrate (amalgamate) themselves with the people of the promised land; instead, He told them to segregate from them.

I never said that the races evolved. God created them; therefore, we should promote policies that protect and preserve them (segregation and separation) and not policies that genocide them (miscegenation and amalgamation). Why do you want to destroy the races that God created? You must since you oppose policies that protect and preserve them and endorse policies that genocide them.

If King got his morality from the Bible, why was he a fornicator? Why was he, like you, a promoter of policies that resulted in the genocide of Blacks?

Idiot: What makes you think that King was a fornicator? oh, wait, are YOU judging him by BIBLICAL standards?

Whatever. What policies did King promote that resulted in the genocide of Blacks?

Name one. I dare ya.

Me: Since King’s morality comes from the Bible and since King had sex with women other than his wife, then, according to you, biblical morality approves of people having sex with women other than their wives.

King promoted integration. Integration leads to interracial marriages and mating. Interracial marriages and mating lead to the breeding of the races involved out of existence. And that is genocide. King promoted interracial marriages. You also want to genocide Blacks.

Idiot: So according to you, interracial marriage promotes genocide? wow. Just wow. How sick and pathetic.

You also need to educate yourself on the definition of “genocide.”

(Spoiler alert: the definition does not include interracial marriage)

Idiot: I don't know if King was faithful or not. Who was the other woman?

Well?

Idiot: “according to me???” Quote me where I said that the Bible supports adultery.

Waiting ....

Idiot: Em, no. The Cushites are descendants of CUSH. Grandson of Noah, and the father of Nimrod. The land of Cush in the Bible is ETHIOPIA.

The African lands south of Egypt. Please read a Bible before you post.

There is NO translation of the Bible that uses the term "race." Never. None, Nada, Zip, Zilch.

All Bibles were translated from the original Hebrew (and some Aramaic like the Book of Daniel) into the other languages DIRECTLY.

Hebrew > Greek

Hebrew > Latin

Hebrew > English

etc. etc etc.

So we know there is no reference to different “races” at all. Only different tribes. That is just a fact.

And yes you did say the races “evolved.” Try to be more clear and specific because when you pose a question about “creation vs evolution” in the same breath, that is the obvious assumption.

As for your idiotic question, “Why do you want to destroy the races that God created?”

I do not want to destroy anything. But as far as mixed marriages, I have no problem with that.

As for your “ass-umption,” it doesn’t even make sense, : “You must since you oppose policies that protect and preserve them and endorse policies that genocide them.”

What the hell does that even mean? What the hell policies would “protect and preserve races” without being blatantly racist???

And just explain to me how anyone would “genocide races??” Well?

Me: The American Standard Version, which may be the best literal translation of the Bible, uses the word “race.” If you had consulted the link that I gave you, you would have learned that Cush was Arabia and not a region south of Egypt.

Idiot: Actually, the best literal translation is The King James Bible.

And please quote chapter and verse where any Bible uses the word “race.”

Idiot: Whaaa !!! ????

Ok, so explain “intellectual hernias, racial nihilism, invincible ignorance, terminal ignorance, mental imprisonment, cognitive dissonance, arrested development, delusional psychosis, and dissociation of sensibility.”

What does any of that even mean, and how does it intellectually bolster your opinion?

Mmmmm? Waiting ...............................

Me: I thought that you were ignorant and could be educated. However, I have discovered that you are stupid and beyond hope. Therefore, I must follow Mark Twain’s advice.

Idiot: FAIL! Was Mark Twain’s advice to crawl away with your tail between your legs? LMAO!

Cya.

Me: Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. – Mark Twain

I have been arguing with an idiot and do not want to be dragged down to your level.

Idiot: LOL! Look at your posts dear. Do who see whole paragraphs of childish invectives in mine? Nope.

I did not let you drag me down to YOUR level, as evidenced by our posts for all the world to see.

Nice try, no fly. You're done here.

Idiot: Sorry kiddo. We ALL KNOW where pastors and reverends, including Rev. King, get their morality from. THE BIBLE. EVERYBODY already knows that. You cannot deny that and maintain any illusion of credibility or integrity. End of that story.

Me: You claim that pastors and reverends, including Rev. King, get their morality from the Bible. Consequently, homosexual pastors and fornicating pastors like King get their morality from the Bible — really?

Idiot: ??? We all know that Pastors and Reverends get their morality from the Bible, as do all Christians. Once again you are desperately trying to create a diversion to get out of the corner you are painted in to.

Yes, Reverend King got his morality from the Bible. It's that simple.

Idiot: OH Lord, I can’t answer the question, so let me divert with childish ad hominems [sic] so I don’t have to admit how closed my mind is! Worse than concrete! lmao!

Idiot: Actually YOU did say that. And ONLY you since you misquoted King.

Martin Luther King NEVER said we shouldn’t follow laws we didn’t vote for, except in the context of those who were DENIED the right to vote. It wasn’t a reference to the general population.

Martin Luther King said we had a duty to NOT follow *IMMORAL* laws. I provided his quote for you. And this pertained to EVERYONE.

Big difference.

And my question to you, was which laws that we did not vote for (ie; the Ten Commandments) should we not follow, since we obviously didn’t vote for these laws.

THE END

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Losing Control

Losing Control

Thomas Allen

White liberals, progressives, and conservatives are losing control of the Black mobs that they have created. Blacks are now destroying icons of White liberals, progressives, neoconservatives, and establishment conservatives: Lincoln, Grant, and abolitionists. They are attacking anything that memorializes Whites — and self-loathing Whites join them in destroying White heritage.

To most of these White albusphobes, Blacks are identical to Whites except for some external physical features. Thus, Blacks are Whites with more melanin, platyrrhine noses, and woolly hair. They are not. Blacks differ significantly from Whites and other races in many nonphysical attributes (see “Nonphysical Racial Differences” by Thomas Allen).

Unlike most Whites, most Blacks lack the ability to think abstractly. Consequently, Blacks have difficulty thinking about the future, thinking counterfactually (how would I feel if  . . . ?), and working with numbers and mathematics. Lacking the ability to think abstractly leads to moral problems. For most Whites, morality is internalized, i.e., most Whites resist stealing even if no one is around to stop them. Lacking the ability to think abstractly, most Blacks are deficient in internal morality. Their morality is enforced by external forces, such as the police or a strong authoritarian leader. (This lack of internal morality is seen in the explosion of crime by Blacks in places where the police have been significantly reduced.) (For more information about the nonphysical differences between Blacks and Whites, see Racism, Guilt, Self-hatred and Self-deceit by Gedaliah Braun [2008], who taught philosophy in Africa for many years and derived his conclusions from observation and frank discussions with Blacks. Not only is he not a Negrophobe, but he also approaches being a Negrophile. Unlike most Whites, who are racial nihilists, he is a racial realist.)

In “Curse of the Ghetto Golems” (July 26, 2022), David Cole gives two examples of left-wingers trying to use Blacks to implement their communist and progressive agendas. They are Herbert Aptheker, an atheistic Jew who was a prominent American communist, and George Soros, an atheistic Jew who considers the White race and Western traditions akin to Nazism and, therefore, have to be destroyed.

Herbert Aptheker. Aptheker was a prominent communist during the middle of the twentieth century. He and his comrades organized the civil rights movement. Urging Blacks to destroy America, he encouraged Black militancy and radicalism. Although Aptheker idealized Blacks, they were still just instruments to achieve his goal of communism. Not only were Blacks to destroy America, but they were also to build a Marxist utopia on the rubble. 

Unfortunately, for Aptheker, he lost control of his Blacks. They excelled in the violent part of the communist revolution. However, they replaced the ideological violence of communism with common thuggery.

George Soros. Soros is an unusual atheistic Jew in that he is neither a Zionist nor a communist. Yet, like a good communist, he seeks to destroy Western Civilization and the White race that founded it. To him, Western Civilization is Nazism, and Whites are Nazis.

To destroy his imaginary Nazis, Soros has spent billions of dollars to prevent the prosecution and incarceration of Black criminals. Consequently, crimes by Blacks have soared. To Soros, Blacks are merely tools used to achieve his dastard objectives.

Unlike Aptheker, Soros expected only common thuggery from Blacks. He does not seek to convert them to communism. He just wants to unleash their innate urge for violence and thuggery and to protect them from the consequence of their criminal actions.

Unfortunately, for Soros, his Black leaders have embarrassed him by using the money that Soros gave them for rioting for their own pleasures. Soros discovered that his Black leaders were using his money for their benefits and not for riots.

Moreover, Soros heavily financed Black Lives Matter (BLM). In return, he did get some riots, but BLM used much of the money to buy mansions.

Both Aptheker and Soros started off using Blacks to advance their agendas. However, Blacks ended up using Aptheker and Soros to advance their causes, which is usually enriching themselves.

The global elites are trying to create a civil war in the United States. When the war comes, what will White and antigun liberals, progressives, wokespersons, and social justice people do? Their albusphobia and Negrophilia prevent them from allying with Whites albusphiles, who have little use for these traitors, whose continuous unconditional surrendering to Blacks is a leading cause of the war. Moreover, except as a source of wealth, Blacks have no use for these wimps. Most likely, Blacks will go after the lightly-armed White albusphobes long before they will go after the heavily armed White albusphiles.

Unfortunately for Blacks, most Asians, Latinos, and other nonwhites may ally with the White albusphiles because most of them have a lower opinion of Blacks than do most White supremacists. If a real shooting war comes between Blacks and the rest of the country, Blacks will lose.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social 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.

Old Morality – New Morality

Old Morality – New Morality

Thomas Allen

Before 1861, the old morality dominated the United States. The exception was the Puritan Yankee of New England and his colonies in New York and the Upper Midwest, which the radicals who fled Europe after the failed Revolution of 1848 reenforced, whom the new morality guided. Even before the arrival of the radicals, the Puritan Yankees were preaching the new morality.
The old morality is antebellum in nature. Under the old morality, the survival of one’s gene pool, i.e., one’s race (species), is of utmost importance. Accordingly, a person has mutual honor and respect for his people, i.e., its ethnicities and race. He has pride in and honor for his ancestors and sees a person, regardless of race, as a real person with real joys and sorrows and not as an incarnated spirit. Because race is highly important under the old morality, it perceives a person, whatever his race, as a concrete being. The old morality is a natural morality. It follows naturally from the bond between a mother and child, then the family, then the clan, then the nation (ethnicity), and finally the race, where it stops. Also, according to the old morality, Aryans wrote the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution for themselves and their White posterity and for no other. In short, the old morality preserves.
The new morality is postbellum in nature. Under the new morality, the survival of humanity is of utmost importance. Accordingly, a person is much more concerned with other people (races) than his own people. Thus, he is willing to sacrifice his own race for the benefit of other races. Moreover, he lacks pride in and honor for his ancestors, Most important, he looks at a person as an incarnated spiritual being and not as a real person, where all spiritual beings look alike, think alike, and act alike. Neither races nor male and female exist; races and the sexes are merely social constructs; they are chimeras. The new morality perceives people as an abstract being, no matter their race, which is irrelevant and even nonexistent. People heavily under the influence of the new morality do not respect a person with whom they disagree because such a person is not a citizen of humanity. The new morality is an unnatural morality. Also, according to the new morality, the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are propositions to spread equality and democracy throughout the world even if it means the extension of the Aryan. In short, the new morality destroys.
The new morality grew out of the abolitionist movement, which grew out of the Puritanism of New England. (Consequently, anyone who follows the new morality is fundamentally a Puritan Yankee.) By 1865, the new morality had gained control of the US government. (President Johnson was a notable holdout, who defended the old morality and was nearly impeached because of it.)
Following the end of the First Reconstruction, the dormant old morality came back to life. Although the progressivism of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson grew out of the new morality, the old morality guided them and most other progressives from the latter part of the nineteenth century until after World War I. Unlike today’s progressives, during this era, most progressives placed the welfare of their race first. They did not consider the United States to be a multicultural, multiracial concept country.
After World War I, the new morality grew into the fascism of Franklin Roosevelt. During his administration, the new morality began to strengthen. Following World War II, it returned with vigor and ushered in the Second Reconstruction to destroy finally the Southern, who had revived around the turn of the century, and to elevate the Negro not only to equality with the White (Aryan) race, but to make him and all other nonwhites the Aryan’s superior.
By the end of Lyndon Johnson’s reign, the new morality dominated the country. (Ironically, the last major battle against the new morality was fought in Boston, the heart of the birthplace of the new morality, between 1974 and 1976. This was the last strong and violent battle fought over school integration. When the Bostonians were finally defeated, so was the old morality.)
Now, the new morality has metastasized into globalism, feminism, transgenderism, open borders and unlimited immigration, conservative nationalism, American libertarianism, the final destruction of the States as independent sovereigns, etc. While the new morality has grown to consume the country, the old morality has faded into insignificance. Rare is a White who openly preaches the old morality.
Today, only the Negro and other nonwhites practice the old morality. (Failure of Aryans to practice the old morality has doomed the American Negro, for once the Asian and Latin American Turanians reach critical mass, they will reduce the American Negro to insignificance.) Although the new morality is alien to the Negro and other nonwhites, they use it to their advantage to cower and eventually to annihilate the Aryan. Unlike the Aryan, who live by the new morality, they all place their race first.
Scarce are political, economic, social, or religious leaders or spokesmen who are not disciples of the new morality. Anyone who dares to preach the old morality is condemned, ostracized, attacked, and silenced. Thus, vocal proponents of the old morality are seldom heard.
Unfortunately, for the White race, the new morality has not stopped at the borders of the United States. It has spread to infect Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the White countries of South American, and all Aryan outposts (Muslims of the Aryan race are the exception).
South Africa shows the lethality of the new morality. Here, it has driven the Whites of South Africa to suicide, as they have given their country to the Negro, who is now genociding the Whites — by that, showing his appreciation of the Aryan’s cowardly surrender. If the Aryan does not soon abandon the new morality and reinstitute the old morality, he will become an extinct species.
The following groups, Antifa and Black Lives Matters, illustrate the difference between the old morality and the new morality. Following the new morality, Antifa, most of whose members are Aryans, seeks to destroy everything White. On the other hand, Black Lives Matters, most of whose members are Negroes and who follow the old morality, place the Negro first and seeks to elevate the Negro to supremacy.
Today, although the new morality dominates most Aryans, a spark of the old morality smolders in many of them. (If an Aryan does not openly seek to preserve, protect, and promote the White race, including prohibiting nonwhites entering the country to become residents and prohibiting interracial mating, then the new morality controls him.) The new morality has completely consumed the progressive liberal, for no spark of the old morality glows in him. Moreover, the new morality has so consumed most libertarians that they show no spark of the old morality.
Some conservative commentators demonstrate people dominated by the new morality having a spark of the old morality. They protest derogatory remarks made against Aryans by progressive liberals, especially those made by people of color, nonwhites. Also, they protest discriminatory acts against Whites. Yet, about immigration, their objection is about the procedure and not about content or consequence. Most do not object to flooding the country with nonwhites; their objection is about the procedure used. If tens of millions of nonwhites enter the country legally, they have no objections. However, a few do disagree with allowing a massive number of nonwhites to enter the country. They do this not because they favor the Aryan, but because they do not favor him. To the contrary, they want to limit the immigration of nonwhites so that they can be easily assimilated and will not be encouraged to build enclaves to protect their ethnicity. Assimilation is a euphemism for amalgamation, i.e., interracial mating. Although a few conservative commentators may advise marrying within one’s race, none oppose miscegenation. Thus, as it consumes the Puritan Yankee and his descendant, the progressive liberal, the new morality consumes these conservative commentators. Consequently, like the Puritan Yankee, progressive liberal, and many libertarians, they consider the United States to be a propositional country and not a genetic nation. Contrary to their protest, these conservatives do not really care about the preservation, protection, or promotion of the White race — the old morality. (Or, does the fear of that great smear word “racist” cower them to the point that they no longer care about their race?)
In summary, the old morality is a natural morality that preserves, protects, and promotes one’s race. The new morality is an unnatural morality that leads to the destruction of the races, especially the Aryan race, as it is the only race stupid enough to practice it.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Libertarianism and Social Issues

Libertarianism and Social Issues

Thomas Allen

Below, some flaws of libertarianism related to social issues are exposed. Discussed are libertarian views on contagious diseases, discrimination, transgenderism, the nature of man, morality, and adultery. The flaws discussed below may be more perception and image than reality. However, perception and image are often more controlling and important than reality.

Contagious Diseases
The underlying principle of libertarianism is that everyone should be allowed to do whatever he pleases that he can afford if he does not trespass against another person or his property.
If a person with a contagious disease transmits that disease to another person, has he trespassed against the person whom he infects? Can the person who is infected sue the person who infected him? Should a community be allowed to protect itself from a carrier of a contagious disease by preventing the infected person from entering their community? Since a significant number of illegal immigrants entering the United States have contagious diseases, these are important questions that libertarians need to answer.
Since libertarians seem to express no concern about letting an unknown, but significant, number of people into the country with contagious diseases, they must have a great deal of confidence that vaccines will protect them, even from diseases for which no vaccines have been developed. (This faith is not surprising when the esteem that libertarians have for multinational corporations is considered.)

Discrimination
With one exception, most libertarians object to discrimination. Although most libertarians abhor discriminating against people based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or political orientation, they oppose the government prohibiting people and companies from discriminating based on these reasons. Nevertheless, more libertarians seem to oppose discrimination based on race or sex than on religion or politics.
However, few libertarians object to discrimination based on wealth with many finding such discrimination agreeable. (This is a typical Yankee attitude.) For example, most libertarians object to “fair housing” laws that forbid private owners refusing to sell to a person because of race or putting restrictions in deeds to prohibit selling to people of specific races, although most libertarians find such practices reprehensible. However, few object of gated communities with high association fees designed to price nearly all of the undesirables out with extremely high housing cost. Thus, they find discrimination because of wealth acceptable. However, the person discriminated against is discriminated against and feels discriminated against; the reason for the discrimination is of secondary importance.
Another example is that most people discriminate in favor of family members. Most libertarians probably would not object to such discrimination if economics is not involved. For libertarians, economic trumps everything. It is the only acceptable reason for discrimination. Perhaps some libertarians find some exception to this dictum. They may object to discrimination against Blacks or homosexuals even if such discrimination is more profitable.

Transgenderism
All libertarians should oppose transgenderism because it is an act of fraud, but most do not. When a biological male (has a Y chromosome) tries to pass as a female (has no Y chromosome), that is a fraud. Likewise, the same is true when a biological female attempts to pass as a male. Nevertheless, how many libertarians really do consider transgenderism a fraud? (How long will it be before a person who dates a new person will require the date to provide a genetic test to prove his or her sex and sign a contract identifying what is accepted as conceptual sex?)

Nature of Man
In agreement with Rousseau, many libertarians, especially the anarcho-libertarians, believe that man by nature is good, unselfish (except the Randian Objectivists, who consider selfishness a great virtue), and wise. However, the government has corrupted and degraded him. How could wise, good, and unselfish people create something as corrupting and degrading as government? Is it not more reasonable and logical to consider people to be naturally sinners and that government is corrupted and degraded because sinners created and run it?
For that reason, power should be decentralized and dispersed instead of centralized and concentrated. Nevertheless, most libertarians who may believe that man is by nature sinful believe that a free market is sufficient not only to suppress that sin in the economic sphere but also in the political and social spheres.
A free market does a fairly good job of regulating sin in the economic realm because it usually disperses and decentralizes economic power. However, Marxism in all its forms, including progressivism, communism, socialism, and fascism, does a poor job because it consolidates and concentrates economic power. Nevertheless, a free market does little to regulate and suppress sin in the political sphere and especially the social sphere, where it is often in the forefront of sin.

Morality
As the old saying goes, in general, libertarians agree with conservatives on economic issues and with liberals on social issues. Thus, libertarians believe that the free market economy can exist and even thrive in a morally degraded society. Therefore, most libertarians oppose outlawing or even treating as mental disorders, homosexual acts, transgenderism, miscegenation, and other formerly sexual immoralities and such fraudulent perversions as “homosexual marriages.” (What is being referred to here are primarily public acts of sexual immorality and not private acts.) Most favor, or at least do not oppose, banning the God of the Christians and His Son and Messiah, Jesus, from public life. Yet, few seem to object to moving the god of Islam and Judaism and the gods of Hinduism and paganism to the forefront of public life, because these religions are far more compatible with secular humanism than is Christianity (although Muslim currently offers more resistance to homosexuals and transgenders than do most Christian.) Most progressives and liberals and many libertarians are secular humanists.
Strange is that libertarians, who claim to be great lovers of liberty, turn against the teaching of true Christianity, which is the only religion compatible with true liberty. Libertarianism grew out of Western Civilization, which grew out of Christianity and is or used to be a Christian society. No other religion, not even secular humanism, is compatible with libertarian ideals. Yet, most libertarians want to jettison Christianity’s teachings on morality. However, libertarians have not gone as far as Marxists, progressives, and their kindred in rejecting Christianity’s moral teaching of “thou shalt not steal.”  Nevertheless, in agreement with Marxists, progressives, and their kindred, most libertarians condone abortion, which is a violation of the moral law “thou shalt not murder.”
Libertarians fail to realize that abandoning one of God’s moral laws easily leads to abandoning the others. Marxists, progressives, and their kindred know this. That is why they eagerly push sexual immorality. (Next to lying, sexual morality is the easiest for humans to violate.) They know that abandoning sexual morality weakens and even destroys the family and makes stealing, murder, and even abandoning God, which is the ultimate goal, much easier. They know that sexual immorality makes establishing a socialist or a communist utopia much easier. So, why do so many libertarians join the Marxists in breaking down morality when the result is the death of the free market economy? The only real resistance that libertarians offer to the degradation of society is their opposition to using taxpayers’ money to do it.
Most libertarians seem not to recognize that liberties come from the God of the Christians. (Unfortunately, throughout the ages, Christians have been highly destructive of these liberties and have at times rivaled the Marxists in destroying liberties.) Secular man is the enemy of liberty, and Marxists and their kindred are secular men, who have elevated man above his Creator (just as the US government has been elevated above its creators, the States).

Adultery
Libertarians believe in the sacredness of contracts. Therefore, libertarians should be in the forefront in condemning adultery, which is a violation of the marriage contract. However, they are not. Contrariwise, they give the condemnation of adultery an extremely low priority. Some even find adultery acceptable, and almost no libertarian believes that the marriage contract should be enforced where adultery is involved. Their solution is to void the contract, i.e., divorce.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Mencken on the Democracy and Morality

Mencken on the Democracy and Morality

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 democracy and morality, pages 162-176. Below is an overview of his discussion on democracy and morality; my comments are in brackets.
    “Liberty gone, there remains the majestic phenomenon of democratic law.” A glance at the law is sufficient to reveal “the identity of democracy and Puritanism.” [Puritanism extends far beyond vice, which today is a minor part of Puritanism — drug laws, especially anti-tobacco laws, and, to a declining extent, the prohibition of prostitution being about the only aspects of this type of Puritanism remaining. Today, Puritanism appears mostly as political correctness, abortion, civil rights laws, laws controlling businesses, zoning laws, hostility toward Confederate monuments, hostility toward Christianity, and the like.] They are merely “different facets of the same gem. In the psyche they are one.” Both derive “their primal essence out of the inferior man’s fear and hatred of his betters, born of his observation that, for all his fine theories, they are stronger and of more courage then he is, and that as they go through this dreadful world they have a far better time.” [Although Mencken description of the inferior man fits many, if not, most Whites, it fits nearly all Blacks. Yet, the old Black man said that he was glad that he was Black instead of White because Blacks knew how to have a good time and Whites did not.] This fear and hatred lead to envy.
    Envy is not “a speciality of democratic man. It is the common possession of all men of the ignoble and incompetent sort, at all times and everywhere.” Nevertheless, democracy liberates it; “it is only under democracy that it is liberated; it is only under democracy that it becomes the philosophy of the state.” [Therefore, all democratic countries have evolved into a welfare-state, which is based and built on envy.]
    Although humanity owes the old autocracies a great debt, the democrat is not likely to remember that debt. About the old autocracies, Mencken writes, “Their service, perhaps, was a by-product of a purpose far afield, but it was a service none the less: they held the green fury of the mob in check, and so set free the spirit of superior man.” When Flavius Honorius collapsed, Europe fell into chaos for four hundred years. [Flavius Honorius {384 –423} was the Western Roman Emperor from 393 to 423.] Charlemagne revived the autocracy and made possible the Renaissance and the modern age. [Charlemagne {742 –814}, King of the Franks {768–814} and Emperor of the Romans {800-814} united much of Europe during the early Middle Ages.] The autocracies kept the mob “from the throat of civilization.”
    Mencken points to the French and Russian Revolutions to illustrate what happens when the autocracy collapses: “The instant such a catastrophe liberates the mob, it begins a war to the death upon superiority of every kind not only upon the kind that naturally attaches to autocracy, but even upon the kind that stands in opposition to it. The day after a successful revolution is a blue day for the late autocrat, but it is also a blue day for every other superior man.”
    Mencken continues, “Democracy, as a political scheme, may be defined as a device for releasing this hatred born of envy, and for giving it the force and dignity of law.” Moreover, “the democratic state, despite the contrary example of France, almost always shows a strong tendency to be also a Puritan state.” Especially, in the field of public law, Puritan legislation “is a thing of many grandiose pretensions and a few simple and ignoble realities. The Puritan . . . always tries to convince himself (and the rest of us) that it is grounded upon altruistic and evangelical motives — that its aim is to work the other fellow’s benefit against the other fellow’s will.” [This is true even after Puritanism abandoned the Bible, of which Mencken probably approved, and became a secular religion.]
    Mencken notes, “The Puritan’s actual motives are (a) to punish the other fellow for having a better time in the world, and (b) to bring the other fellow down to his own unhappy level. . . . Primarily, he is against every human act that he is incapable of himself.” [Mencken has just described the motives of the Yankee.] However, he notes, “The Puritan is surely no ascetic. Even in the great days of the New England theocracy it was impossible to restrain his libidinousness: his eyes rolled sideways at buxom wenches quite as often as they rolled upward to God. But he is incapable of sexual experience upon what may be called a civilized plane; it is impossible for him to manage the thing as a romantic adventure; in his hands it reduces itself to the terms of the barnyard. Hence the Mann Act.” [The Mann Act makes it a felony to engage in interstate or foreign commerce transport of people for the purpose of prostitution or illegal sexual acts.] Likewise, with an alcoholic beverage, the Puritan “can have experience of it only as a furtive transaction behind the door, with a dreadful headache to follow. Hence Prohibition.” [Every chance that Mencken gets to condemn Prohibition, he does so.] Also, “with the joys that come out of the fine arts. Looking at a picture, he sees only the model’s pudenda. Reading a book, he misses the ordeals and exaltations of the spirit, and remembers only the natural functions. Hence comstockery.” [Today, censorship appears in the form of political correctness and vulgar mobs preventing anyone with whom these low-lives disagree from speaking peacefully on college campuses. Now, books are seldom removed from libraries because of sexual content, most sexual content now being politically correct, but because of political content, i.e., the book is politically incorrect because it disagrees with democracy, liberalism, progressivism, socialism, communism, Marxism, or the ever-growing power of the government or is considered “racist.”]
    The Puritan’s “delight in his own rectitude is grounded upon a facile assumption that it is difficult to maintain that the other fellow, being deficient in God’s grace, is incapable of it. So he venerates himself, in the moral department, as an artist of unusual talents, a virtuoso of virtue.” Mencken continues, “His error consists in mistaking a weakness for a merit, an inferiority for a superiority.” Being moral in the Puritan sense “is not actually a sign of spiritual eminence; . . . it is simply a sign of docility, of lack of enterprise and originality, of cowardice.” Once the Puritan forgets “his mainly imaginary triumphs over the flesh and the devil, . . . [he] always turns out to be a poor stick of a man in brief, a natural democrat.” [Thus, Puritans and democrats are twins, and “Puritan” is merely another name for “Yankee.”]
    Mencken adds, “No Puritan has ever painted a picture worth looking at, or written a symphony worth hearing, or a poem worth reading — and I am not forgetting John Milton, who was not a Puritan at all, but a libertarian, which is the exact opposite. The whole Puritan literature is comprised in The Pilgrim’s Progress.” He continues, “Even in the department wherein the Puritan is most proud of himself, i.e., that of moral legislation, he has done only second- and third-rate work.” [Puritanism explains the low quality, meddlesome legislation flowing from Washington and most State capitals.] “His fine schemes for bringing his betters down to his own depressing level always turn out badly.”
    “Since the first uprising of the lower orders, the modern age has seen but one genuinely valuable contribution to moral legislation: . . . the Code Napoleon. It was concocted by a committee of violent anti-Puritans, and in the full tide of a bitter reaction against democracy.”
    Mencken continues, “If democracy had not lain implicit in Puritanism, Puritanism would have had to invent it. Each is necessary to the other. Democracy provides the machinery that Puritanism needs for the quick and ruthless execution of its preposterous inventions.” Puritans face great difficulty in advancing their schemes under autocracies. They can only convince the King if the King is crazy. Even then, the King’s ministers will restrain him. “But the mob is easy to convince, for what Puritanism has to say to it is mainly what it already believes: its politics is based upon the same brutal envies and quaking fears that lie under the Puritan ethic.” Continuing, Mencken notes that “the political machinery through which it [democracy] functions provides a ready means of translating such envies and fears into action. There is need only to sound the alarm and take a vote: the debate is over the moment the majority has spoken.” Thus, in democratic countries, “even the most strange and dubious legislative experiments are” enacted with ferocious haste. [Examples are Bush’s police state laws, which were mostly passed by Congress without anyone in Congress reading them and with little or no debate, and Obamacare, which Congress passed without reading or even knowing what was in it. Unfortunately, once enacted even the most egregious, intrusive, meddlesome, cumbersome, ineffective, inefficient laws are next to impossible to  repeal.]
    Mencken remarks “that this process of law-making by orgy, with fanatics supplying the motive-power and unconscionable knaves steering the machine, is bound to fill the statute-books with enactments that have no rational use or value save that of serving as instruments of psychopathological persecution and private revenge.” [And now you know why we have the laws that we do and so many of them.] Most laws “involve gross invasions of the most elementary rights of the free citizen, but they are popular with the mob because they have a virtuous smack and provide it with an endless succession of barbarous but thrilling shows.” Mostly, the victims of these laws are men whom “the mob naturally envies and hates — men of unusual intelligence and enterprise, men who regard their constitutional liberties seriously and are willing to go to some risk and expense to defend them. Such men are inevitably unpopular under democracy, for their qualities are qualities that the mob wholly lacks, and is uneasily conscious of  lacking: it thus delights in seeing them exposed to slander and oppression, and railroaded to prison.” [Although most members of the mob had never traded a stock, the mob was delighted when Martha Stewart went to prison.] Mencken notes that a district attorney is always ready to prosecute a superior man because “district attorneys are invariably men who aspire to higher office, and no more facile way to it is to be found than by assaulting and destroying a man above the general.” These are the type of district attorneys who become Congressmen. (One “is seldom promoted because he has been jealous of the liberties of the citizen.”) Furthermore, many judges reach “the bench by the same route.” [Most of the laws that Mencken uses as illustrations are petty, irritating laws. He seldom mentions the really despotic laws such as the wartime laws enacted during the Wilson administration that have been used since then to terrorize and imprison people who disagreed with the government. The laws that he mentions are nothing compared to today’s tax laws, which gather the mob’s support because they feed the mob’s envy: The mob is convinced that the tax laws are written to punish the rich and give the inferior man a free ride.]
    Mencken continues, “The whole criminal law in America thus acquires a flavour of fraud. It is constantly embellished and reinforced by fanatics who have discovered how easy it is to hurl missiles at their enemies and opponents from behind ranks of policemen. It is executed by law officers whose private prosperity runs in direct ratio to their reckless ferocity.” [If one listens to talk radio for a few days, especially on the shortwave and the Internet, he would discover the truthfulness of Mencken’s observation. He would discover that America has many political prisoners whose real crime, as opposed to the fraudulent crime of which they have been convicted with the aid of bias, prejudice judges, is that they stood for liberty.] Morons “whose chief delight lies in seeing their betters manhandled and humiliated” applaud this injustice. [Political cartoonists on the left are among the most idiotic of these morons.]
    “In the criminal courts a rich man not only enjoys none of the advantages that Liberals and other defenders of democracy constantly talk of; he is under very real and very heavy burdens.” Railroading a “better,” especially one who stands for liberty, is morally excusable. Sarcastically, Mencken asserts, “The district attorney is an altruist whose one dream is Law Enforcement; he cannot be terrified by the power of money; he is the spokesman of the virtuous masses against the godless and abominable classes.”
    Next, Mencken discusses Prohibition and the evils that it has brought instead of the paradise promised by its proponents. At the time that Mencken wrote, even the mob had turned against Prohibition, but its promoters refused to “repudiate their original nonsense.” [This sounds familiar. How many other laws are still being enforced that the mob has turned against? At least the mob got Prohibition repealed — and that required a constitutional amendment instead of a simple legislative enactment.] Prohibitionists are moved by “the psychological aberration called sadism. They lust to inflict inconvenience, discomfort, and, whenever possible, disgrace upon the persons they hate.” [We see this with other laws — probably all mala prohibita laws. {Mala prohibitum is an offense prohibited by statute, but not inherently evil or wrong, such as failure to submit a report or to have a permit or license, failure to pay taxes, and most traffic violations. They are wrong because the government declares to be wrong. Opposite of mala prohibitum is mala in se, which is an offense that is evil or wrong from its own nature, irrespective of a statute, such as murder, rape, or robbery. Basically, the difference between the two is that mala in se is what God prohibits and mala prohibitum is what man prohibits.}] Like Prohibition, such laws become a means to “badger and annoy everyone who” does not comply with the letter of the law or its spirit, whichever is the most oppressive. Such laws “fill the jails with men taken for purely artificial offences” [as the drug laws do today]. Most of all, such laws satisfy “the Puritan yearning to browbeat and injure, to torture and terrorize, to punish and humiliate all who show any sign of being happy.” Moreover, the Puritans can do this “with a safe line of policemen and judges in front of them; always they can do it without personal risk.” Freedom from personal risk is the secret of the Puritans’ continual frenzy.
    Mencken notes “the American mob, far from being lawless, is actually excessively tolerant of written laws and judicial fiats, however plainly they violate the fundamental rights of free men, and . . . this tolerance is sufficient to protect them [the Prohibitionists, Puritans, and other meddlesome busybodies] from what, in more liberal and enlightened countries, would be the natural consequences of their anti-social activity.  If they had to meet their victims face to face, there would be a different story to tell.” However, “they seldom encounter this embarrassment. Instead, they turn the officers of the law to the uses of their mania.” He continues, “Thus, under democracy, the normal, well-behaved, decent citizen — the Forgotten Man of the late William Graham Sumner — is beset from all sides, and every year sees an augmentation of his woes.” [Sumner {1840–1910} was a classical liberal, a libertarian, and an American social scientist.] “In order to satisfy the envy and hatred of his inferiors and the blood lust of a pack of irresponsible and unconscionable fanatics, few of them of any dignity as citizens or as men and many of them obviously hypocritical and corrupt, this decent citizen [the Forgotten Man] is converted into a criminal for performing acts that are natural to men of his class everywhere, and police and courts are degraded to the abhorrent office of punishing him for them.” [Although Mencken writes this about Prohibition, it is true of most mala prohibita laws.]
    [What Mencken has written about the Puritan could just as well have been written about the Yankee. Substituting “Yankee” for “Puritan” would not change the meaning of what Mencken has written. The two are synonymous.]

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Why Can’t We All Get Along?

Why Can’t We All Get Along?

Thomas Allen

    People often ask, “Why can’t we all just get along with each other?  Why can’t people just join hands and sing ‘Kumbaya’? Why is there such a great divide in the country — a divide that has not been seen since the War for Southern Independence?”
    The answer is simple. There are three groups of people: (1) the go-with-the-flow or go-along-to-get-along group, (2) the want-to-be-left-alone group, and (3) the determined-not-to-leave-them-alone group. As long as both of the last two groups exist, peace and harmony cannot exist. One or the other has to cease to exist before peace and harmony can exist.
    The go-with-the-flow group is by far the largest and is irrelevant. People in this group have taken the blue pill and remain in the Matrix. These people will march off to the concentration camps with hardly a grumble. They are the sheeple. No more needs to be said about this group.
    People in the want-to-be-left-alone group just want to live their lives and enjoy the fruits of their labor and their family and friends. People in the determined-not-to-leave-them-alone group are determined not to leave them alone or let them enjoy the fruits of their labor.
    Here is a short list, in no particular order, of what wearies people who just want to be left alone:
    –    They are tired of policies and programs being imposed on them that deliberately destroy their country (geographical territory) and nation (a people of common ancestry, origin, and heritage who have a common language, religion, and culture).
    –    They are tired of others telling them with the force of law how to use their property instead of allowing them to use their property as they see fit as long as they do not trespass against another.
    –    They are tired of the meddlers trying to disarm them so that they cannot resist the programs of the meddlers.
    –    They are tired of being forcibly medicated (water fluoridation, forced vaccination, etc.).
    –    They are tired of being denied medical treatment that the government does not approve even when these treatments have been shown to be superior to those approved by the government.
    –    They are tired of bureaucrats, who risk nothing, dictating to them how to operate their businesses, farms, etc.
    –    They are tired of being labeled “terrorists” because they love liberty.
    –    They are tired of being treated like criminals in order to fly and having their children molested so that they can board an airplane.
    –    They are tired of having the fruits of their labor taken from them via excessive taxation — especially when the revenue is used to control their lives, to impose on them agendas and dogmas to which they object, and to destroy what they value.
    –    They are tired of being forced to support programs with which they vehemently disagree — most of which they find inimical and detrimental to their welfare.
    –    They are tired of incompetent government agencies being rewarded for incompetence by increasing their budget when they fail to do their job, or, perhaps worse, agencies deliberately failing to do their job being rewarded with budget increases.
    –    They are tired of governments and big businesses spying on them.
    –    They are tired of their country and its people and resources being sacrificed for the benefit of other countries and multinational corporations.
    –    They are tired of governmental programs, policies, and agendas designed to reduce their standard of living — these programs and policies have been highly effective at doing this.
    –    They are tired of illegal aliens having more rights and privileges than they themselves have.
    –    They are tired of being forced to pay for a school system that propagandizes and indoctrinates the ruling elite’s dogmas and agendas instead of educating and teaching critical thinking.
    –    They are tired of judges, governmental agencies (usually child protection agencies), and the medical industry taking children from their homes because they disagree with the religion, politics, or medical decisions of the parents or because they merely disagree with the parents.
    –    They are tired of their language being corrupted in the name of political correctness.
    –    They are tired of being forced to take so-called tolerance-diversity courses where they are indoctrinated with the dogmas that people like them cannot be tolerated.
    –    They are tired of being indoctrinated with programs to effeminize men and destroy women with feminist dogma.
    –    They are tired of governments enforcing programs and policies against common sense and decency.
    –    They are tired of having a code of morality (immorality) forced upon them with which they not only disagree, but also find extremely noxious and destructive (a code of morality covers much more than sexual relations; it includes things like theft, murder, fraud, and lying).
    –    They are tired of being forced to participate in the delusions of mentally ill people.
    –    They are tired of being obligated for debts, especially without their consent, that because of their size can never be repaid and that will eventually destroy their country.
    –    They are tired of being laden with ever-increasing regulations and laws designed to control them.
    –    They are tired of governments and politicians lying to them.
    –    They are tired of governments siding with multinational corporations to oppress them.
    –    They are tired of governments serving shysters and special interests instead of the people in general.
    –    They are tired of the US Constitution being replaced with tyranny.
    In short, people who want to be left alone have become extremely weary of Washington bureaucrats and politicians and their owners and their toadies and lackeys in State and local governments imposing their agendas on them. They object to others, i.e., the people who are determined not to leave them alone, claiming that they (the others) know how the want-to-be-left-alone people ought to live their lives and then imposing that lifestyle on them.
    The do-not-want-to-leave-them-alone people have been coercing every item in the above list and much more. Moreover, they are determined to continue to impose these and more.
    To use the Matrix as a metaphor, people who want to be left alone are like Neo and Morpheus. People who are determined not to leave them alone are like Agent Smith; like him, they are driven to cleanse the world of the likes of Neo and Morpheus.
    Many people support Donald Trump because they see him as speaking for and defending people who just want to be left alone. They also see Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders as not wanting to leave them alone. They see these two only continuing and expanding control of their lives. Most supporters of Clinton and Sanders have the same view of Trump, Clinton, and Sanders.
    As long as these two antagonistic groups, i.e., people who want to be left alone and people who are determined not to leave them alone, exist, peace and harmony cannot exist. One of these two groups has to perish to achieve peace and harmony.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

More articles on politics.