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.

The Woke Religion

The Woke Religion

Thomas Allen

In “The woke religion: Worshiping postmodernism, Luciferianism and chaos,” Brandon Smith describes the woke religion. This religion is the religion of wokesters and most of the global elite.

According to Smith, the woke religion is a fusion of three evils: postmodernism, futurism, and Luciferianism. “Postmodernism is the war on objective truth, especially as it applies to human beings. Futurism is the war on the past, cultural heritage and the conservation of traditional values and structures. Luciferianism is the war on God, the denial of natural law and the refusal to accept that there are limits to human understanding and control.” Thus, the woke religion is highly destructive. It seeks to destroy God, traditions, and truths. Typically, adherents of the woke religion are psychopathic, sadistic, narcissistic, reprobate miscreants.

Although it is not an organized religion or church, the woke religion is hierarchical. At the top are the elites, who know the real objectives of the woke religion and work to achieve them. They are akin to cardinals in the Roman Catholic Church or general officers in the military. These elites are true illuminists (See the “Illuminists Series” at https://tcallenco.weebly.com/history.html). 

Next are the elites’ agents and lieutenants, who are the intermediaries between the elite and the useful idiots. They are the equivalent of archbishops and bishops or field officers and company officers. Seldom do the elites give them direct instructions. These intermediaries have a good idea of the elites’ ultimate goals, but most do not know the full extent or details of those goals. They receive most of their instructions indirectly or by osmosis. Mostly, they are so in harmony with the mission of the elites that they need no instructions. This tier provides most of the provocateurs. Primarily, in hopes of gaining wealth and power, they have devoted themselves to the elites. However, if the elites achieve their goals, the elites will liquidate most of them because they know too much and are too much of a threat.

At the bottom of the pyramid are the useful idiots. They are akin to priests and masses or noncommissioned officers and privates. They believe the elites’ propaganda, and most do not have a clue about the elites’ ultimate objectives. Many just enjoy the destruction. Moreover, most do not know that the elites are using them. At this level are the true wokesters and most participants of Antifa. If the elites win, many in this tier will perish because they are no longer useful. Except as tools to achieve their goals, the elites have no use for anyone in this tier.

Unfortunately for humanity, the satanic elites of the woke religion have many useful idiots who are not adherents of the woke religion but who willingly work to achieve the malevolent ends of the woke religion, which is the utter destruction of God’s creation. Some of these useful idiots agree with some of the destructive doctrines of the woke religion. Others ally themselves in hopes of gaining wealth and power. Still, others join because they enjoy destroying, or they merely hate. These useful idiots include politicians and others who have an insatiable lust for power and wealth and many welfare recipients and other members of the parasite classes. Progressives, neoconservatives, technocrats, socialists, communists, fascists, globalists, feminists, egalitarians, Puritan Yankees, Dixiephobes, and relativists are often found among these useful idiots. These useful idiots revealed themselves during the George Floyd riots and demonstrations. Like the useful idiots who follow the woke religion, most of these useful idiots do not know that they are only tools that the illuminist elites are using to achieve their nefarious goals.

Appendix. Wokester

The Urban Dictionary defines “wokester” as (1) “an easily offended 20-something idiot who believes the word ‘woke’ legitimizes their self-centered view of the world. These individuals often lack skills in civil discourse, or an educated background in any subject they rant in,” (2) “a person that lacks basic common sense and decision making skills. This person typically has a below average IQ. . . .” and (3) “a self-righteous person who prefers form over substance. Often a moron and always a pussy.” 

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Natural Rights

Natural Rights

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Cussons on the Hypocrisy of the Puritan Yankee

Cussons on the Hypocrisy 

of the Puritan Yankee

Thomas Allen

In  United States “History” as the Yankee Makes and Takes It (1900, third edition) pages 68–69,  John Cussons describes the hypocrisy of the Puritan Yankee. His description fits today’s neoconservatives and especially progressives and wokesters. His description follows.

These new rulers [Puritan Yankees of the 1850s] had chiefly distinguished themselves as the enemies of existing institutions — their political and social creed being, in effect, “Whatever is, is wrong.” They were fond of execrating the Union as “a league with hell,” and denouncing the Constitution as “a covenant with death.” They derided the highest courts of the land as “crimping houses of iniquity,” and vilified the old flag as “a flaunting lie!”

But on coming into power they threw off all disguise, and shamelessly started a war of conquest in pretended defence [sic] of the very principles and symbols which they had so bitterly reviled.

With paralyzing logic they mutilated the States on the plea that the States were “indestructible”; they debarred them from the Union while declaring the Union to be “indissoluble,” and they tore the Constitution to tatters while pretending that they were the only class who reverenced its “inviolability.” Having thus approved themselves the only true champions of “the sacred principle of government by consent,” they rounded out their perfect work by converting the States into satrapies, and holding them under bayonet rule until the conquered peoples consented to ratify the whole of their rump performances.

Puritan Yankees favored secession and nullification until the Southern States used them. For most of the Jefferson and Madison administrations, the New England States, the home base of the Puritan Yankee, threatened secession. Massachusetts threatened to secede because of the Louisiana Purchase and argued that it had the right to secede. When Jefferson attempted to embargo trade with Europe during the Napoleonic War, the New England States threatened to secede. Several New England States discussed secession during the War of 1812. Connecticut and Massachusetts nullified Congress’ call for State militias.

Moreover, Puritan Yankees did not oppose slavery until the importation of slaves became illegal after 1808. Yankees had been the primary importers of slaves. Later, many Yankees became ardent abolitionists. As a result, like many other Northern States, the New England States nullified fugitive slave laws.

However, when the Southern States seceded and ended the “league with hell,” these abolitionists did not want to let them go. By then, the Puritan Yankees had gained control of the federal government. Now, they were going to use their newfound power to force their utopia on the world, starting with the South. They were going to save Southerners from their evil, heathen ways and convert them into the image of the Puritan Yankee. They started their conversion in the South and have metastasized across the world. America’s attempt to create American hegemony across the world is nothing more than the Puritan Yankee trying to remake the world in his own image.

One thing that Cussons seemed not to have anticipated was that most Southern leaders would lose their moral fortitude. Most Southern political, business, academic, and religious leaders would become scalawags. They would sell their souls to the Puritan Yankee and then genocide the Southerner, their own people. What the scalawags have not done, the carpetbaggers have. The genocide of the Southerner is mostly completed. (This genocide has been mostly cultural instead of physical. However, the United Nations considers the deliberate destruction of a people’s culture to be genocide. Destroying an ethnicity’s culture destroys the ethnicity.)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Progressives

Progressives

Thomas Allen

In “A Tale of Two Americas," Chronicles Magazine of American Culture (July 2021), pages 10–11, Bruce Frohnen describes progressives and compares them with traditionalists. These two represent a fundamental divide in character that has led to a political divide in America. Nevertheless, only one of these two “is capable of self-government in a free constitutional republic”: the traditionalist.

Americans fall into two major groups. One group is the traditionalist, who is “centered on family, faith, and freedom.” The other group is the progressive, who is “dominated by abstract ideals of the administrative state.” “The first is a constitutional order of limited, decentralized, separated powers that protect the more fundamental institutions of local life. The second centers on ‘diversity, inclusion, and equity’ implemented by a centralized government that protects people against disease with lockdowns, crime (and ‘domestic terrorism’) with a surveillance state, poverty with a welfare state, and against all kinds of dangers to life, limb, and self-esteem through a seamless web of administrative agencies and rules.”

This progressive new world order began during the Progressive Era, gained a foothold during Wilson’s New Freedom, and accelerated during Roosevelt’s New Deal and especially Johnson’s Great Society. Progressives have indoctrinated people into believing that America is “irredeemably racists, sexist, and homophobic.”

Under progressivism, order, safety, prosperity, and justice depend on a bureaucratic elite of “experts” telling everyone how to live their lives.  Consequently, these “petty commissars have replaced independence and public service with fear and loathing as our necessary virtues, rendering roughly half our people unfit for and even hostile to our inherited constitutional order.”

Frohnen writes, “Progressives feel justified punishing supposedly disloyal Americans who try to defend electoral integrity, personal responsibility, and institutions such as the family.” Progressives are convinced that traditionalists are not suited for the new world order that they (the progressives) have built —and rightly so.

Progressives believe in training (forcing) people to trust and depend on technocrats to control their lives. Thus, technocrats decide what school children attend, what businesses stay open, what is said on social media, and just about everything else.

By contrast, traditionalists believe in a constitutional order that rests on independent people who are left to live their lives within their families, churches, local associations, and communities. Generally, they love and fear God and are mostly churchgoers. They marry, spend time with their families, work hard to support their families, and participate in their communities. Furthermore, they value integrity over advancement.

In contrast, progressives have ceased living and valuing the lifestyle of the traditionalists. If they go to church, it is one that teaches the prosperity gospel, the social gospel, or some similar nonscriptural gospel. “They value comfort and status, but see manual labor as a burden.” Also, progressives focus on self-improvement and support the “currently approved opinions on race, gender, climate changes, and public safety.” Even if they are married and have children, their family is secondary.

Although many progressives are decent people, they “have no real attachment to America’s constitutional order even denying that to has a right to exist.” They promote a “living constitution,” which politicians, bureaucrats, and especially judges can twist and mold to fit their personal prejudices and biases. Consequently, they reject the rule of law and free government. Instead, progressives advocate the unlimited power of the government — a government powerful enough to enforce any program that the progressive elite desires, such as, disarming the people, establishing socialized medicine, and silencing anyone who opposes the progressive agenda.

Moreover, progressives seek to transform the country by destroying what is left of free and self-governing people. To accomplish this goal, they use massive immigration of nonwhites (most of whom are unskilled laborers who are dependent on governmental support) and no-work welfare. Further, progressives use public health policies to destroy people’s independence by destroying their livelihoods. Antiwhite programs are also used to transform America into a technocratic state ruled by an elite of “experts.”

Traditionalists are found mostly outside New England, the Mid-Atlantic States, the Upper Midwest, and the West Coasts. Progressives predominately inhibit these regions . While traditionalists are more common in the Red States, progressives are more common in the Blue States.

Frohnen writes that American has three options to choose from:

1) restore traditional values and, with them, America's constitutional order; 2) accept continued political dominance by a new culture, a new, unconstitutional order, and a new, unfree people; or 3) split these United States into two separate political entities, with some remaining political ties, such that each culture and people can go its separate way in peace.

His preference is option one followed distantly by option three.

One option that he does not mention is a civil war where the traditionalists and progressives battle each other with arms for control of the country and the federal government. If the traditionalists prevail, this option is less destructive than option two. If the progressives prevail, fewer people will be around to enjoy their enslavement.

Appendix.

The following compares the progressive approach to COVID-19 with the traditionalist approach:

Progressive: Force everyone to be vaccinated with an experimental drug and with no exemptions.

Traditionalist: Freedom of choice whether to be vaccinated or not.

Progressive: Favors vaccine passports.

Traditional: Opposes vaccine passports.

Progressive: Force everyone to wear a mask.

Traditionalist: Allow each person to decide whether to wear a mask.

Progressive: Make vaccination a requirement for a job.

Traditionalist: Opposes discriminating against the unvaccinated.

Progressive: Require vaccination to enter a restaurant, theater, sports arena, school, etc.

Traditionalist: Opposes discriminating against the unvaccinated.

Progressive: Favors lockdowns.

Traditionalist: Opposes lockdowns.

Progressive: Favors closing down churches.

Traditionalist: Favors leaving churches open.

Progressive: Favors imprisoning people in their houses and not letting them leave without governmental permission.

Traditionalist: Favors allowing people to leave their houses as they desire and without governmental permission.

Progressive: Only allow vaccinated people to travel.

Traditionalist: Favors freedom of travel for all.

Progressive: Favor denying medical treatment to the unvaccinated.

Traditionalist: Opposes discrimination against the unvaccinated.

Progressive: Charge the unvaccinated more for medical treatment and insurance.

Traditionalist: Opposes discrimination against the unvaccinated.

Progressive: Favors censoring information that contradicts the official story.

Traditionalist: Favors allowing open, rational, civil discussion of pros and cons.

Thus, the progressive approach to COVID-19 is highly controlled and highly restricted. Politicians and bureaucrats (self-appointed “experts”) should boss the people and force them to do whatever the politicians and bureaucrats want them to do. Contrariwise, the traditionalist approach is one of freedom and nondiscrimination. Traditionalists trust the people to do the right thing. Unlike the traditionalists, progressives do not trust the people especially themselves; instead, they trust politicians and bureaucrats.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Traditional American Conservatism

Traditional American Conservatism

Thomas Allen

What are the underlying principles of traditional American conservatism? They are the protection and promotion of traditions, heritage, religious values, traditional sexual roles, strong nuclear families, native fertility above replacement levels, racial integrity, strong borders, immigration restricted to the native race, and a common national identity. That is the preservation of the nation in the true senses and its culture, civilization, and way of life. (A nation or nationality is a people who have a common genetic ancestry, culture, language, and history; who have common traditions and customs; and who are capable of forming or constituting an independent country.) Upon this foundation can be built such values as freedom of speech, a free-market economy, and private ownership of weapons sufficient for the people to defend themselves from a tyrannical government.

Conservatism is not a dedication to abstract propositions, such as “democracy” or “all men are created equal.” Such conservatism is a pseudo-conservatism. Pseudo-conservatism includes neoconservatism, establishment conservatism, progressive conservatism, compassionate conservatism, national conservatism, and other types of conservatism that accept big government managerial liberalism (the welfare state, warfare state, governmental oversight and management of the economy, and homogenization including integration and amalgamation), i.e., the managerial liberal state — all these types of conservatism fit under the umbrella of big government conservatism. (Further discussion of big government conservatism is below.)

Unlike wokesters, progressives, liberals, libertarians, and most big government conservatives, traditional American conservatives do not condone the depravity of the reprobate mind. Thus, they do not accept the public display and promotion of homosexual activity, transgenderism, and other sexual perversions including interracial sexual activity, which the Bible condemns. Transgenders are mentally ill and should be treated as such. Homosexuals and transgenders should receive no special privileges as they do today in the Western World.

Furthermore, feminism and the effemination of men are detrimental to strong nuclear families and, therefore, should be opposed. (Today, most conservatives find sexual perversion, transgenderism, feminism, and the effemination of men acceptable or at least not worthy of opposition.) Traditional American conservatives promote masculinity and strength.

Moreover, traditional American conservatives are racial preservationists and abhor racial supremacy (the desire to rule other races) and especially racial nihilism. On the other hand, nearly all big government conservatives are racial nihilists.

Also, traditional American conservatives reject the notion of equality including equality of opportunity (equality of opportunity can only be proven by equality of outcome). They know that equality is a lie, and to strive for it leads to despotism. People differ in build, strength, beauty, health, intelligence, character, personality, disposition, temperament, etc. — all of which genetics causes to some degree. Since men and women differ significantly, they cannot be equal. Moreover, people who are born into wealthy families have advantages and, therefore, opportunities that people who are born into poor families do not have. Consequently, these differences prevent equality including equality of opportunity. Differences mean inequality. Consequently, equality is a chimera. 

Thus, what passes for conservatism today in the United States is not traditional American conservatism. It is big government conservatism, which is as destructive as progressivism and liberalism.

Big Government Conservatism

Big government conservatives do not seek to roll back the managerial liberal state; they seek to make it more efficient. Now, conservatism is little more than an accounting department for the managerial state. These conservatives prefer to make government more efficient and, by that, a greater threat to liberty, than to reduce the size and reach of government.

For the most part, big government conservatives are the progressives from a decade ago. That is, they have adopted the policies and philosophy that progressives had about a decade ago. The acceptances of homosexuals and homosexual marriages are good examples of this phenomenon. Moreover, within ten years, big government conservatives will accept drag queens performing before school children. Thus, big government conservatives do not stand for any moral principles or any principles that they consider worth fighting for. They definitely disagree with John C. Calhoun, who said “I hold concession or compromise to be fatal.” Big government conservatives are always ready to compromise and concede; for them, that is a success.

Like progressives, liberals, and libertarians,  big government conservatives deny the importance of genetics. Consequently, the environment causes all differences, and the government is responsible for leveling or equalizing the environment to make all people equal whether equal in opportunity or equal in outcome. 

Moreover, big government conservatives strive to appease the leaders of the left. Consequently, they accept liberal pluralism of diversity, inclusiveness, multiculturalism, multiracialism, etc., or at least they do not aggressively oppose liberal pluralism. On the contrary, they vigorously accept and promote multiracialism and often brag about accepting the other aspects of liberal pluralism.

Unlike traditional American conservatives, big government conservatives do not want to dismantle the managerial liberal state. Instead, they want to capture it and use it for their own purposes.

References

Henderson, Ian. “Why Russia and China Are More Conservative Than the West.”  Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. July 2022. Pages 14-17.

Francis, Samuel. “The Managerial Revolution: A Reformation.” “The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.” December 1992.

The Z Man. “Conservatism: The Total Failure of Conservatives.”  February 7, 2022. Accessed February 9, 2022. <https://www.takimag.com/article/the-total-failure-of-conservatism/>

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Four Comments on Political Issues

Four Comments on Political Issues

Thomas Allen

Blow four items are discussed. They are two ways of addressing secession, saving “our Democracy,” the difference between progressives and conservatives, and inalienable versus unalienable.

Two Ways of Addressing Secession

There are two ways of addressing secession: the Wilsonian and the Lincolnian.

  According to the Wilsonian principle, all nations capable of maintaining their own country should have their own country. (A nation or nationality is a people who have a common genetic ancestry, culture, language, and history; who have common traditions and customs; and who are capable of forming or constituting an independent country.) Since the people of the Donbass region are capable of maintaining their own country, they should have their own independent country, which they have done with the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic. (Through a plebiscite, the people of these two countries voted to join Russia, and Russia accepted them.)

According to the Lincolnian principle, once a region is part of a country, it can never secede and form an independent country unless it wins that right with war. Thus, being part of Ukraine, the two oblasts of Donbass can never be independent countries unless they defeat Ukraine in war. Furthermore, under the Lincolnian principle, Russia has the right to annex Ukraine because Ukraine seceded from Russia and did so without defeating Russia in war. 

Under the Wilsonian principle, the Ukrainian people deserve their own countries. However, under the Lincolnian participle, they do not unless they defeat Russia in war. 

Likewise, under the Lincoln principle, China has the right to annex Taiwan. Under the Wilsonian principle, China has no right to annex Taiwan; the Taiwanese deserve their own country, or perhaps several countries since several ethnicities inhabit Taiwan.

“Saving our Democracy”

According to the Democrats, the purpose of the January 6 select committee, the violation of due process in arresting and detaining the January 6 protestors, the censoring of people who claim that the Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election, and the lynching of Donald Trump is to protect “our Democracy.” The reason that Trump supporters were rallying in Washington on January 6 was to protect “our Democracy.” They were protesting the Democrats stealing the 2020 presidential election — and plenty of evidence supports the conclusion that the Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election.

Furthermore, Democrats are notorious for doing what they accuse others of doing. Thus, Democrats accuse Trump and his followers of destroying “our Democracy” while Democrats destroyed “our Democracy” by stealing the presidential election. Democrats stole the election, so they blame Trump and his followers for trying to steal the election.

Difference Between Progressives and Conservatives

G.K. Chesterton explains the difference between progressives and conservatives. About progressives, he writes, “The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes.” About conservatives, he writes, “The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.” Thus, progressives begin idiotic programs, and conservatives preserve them. Worse, Conservatives make the progressive programs operate more efficiently and effectively.

Seldom do conservatives eliminate progressive mistakes. Prohibition is an example of a progressive program that has been eliminated — and that was because progressives abandoned it. 

Another progressive program that has been abolished is eugenics. Conservatives did not end eugenics; progressives did. Progressives replaced eugenics with the genocide of the White race, which racial nihilistic conservatives only weakly oppose. (Paradoxically, the genocide of the hated White race leads to the genocide of the beloved American Negro.)

Inalienable vs. Unalienable

Some people stress a great difference between inalienable and unalienable. For them, the two words mean entirely different things — even opposite meanings. They maintain that unalienable rights cannot be transferred whereas inalienable rights can be. Following are some dictionary definitions of the two words.

These definitions are from Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition: 

– "inalienable," adj. Not transferable or assignable (inalienable property interests). — also termed unalienable.

– "unalienable," adj. See INALIENABLE.

Thus, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, the two words mean the same thing. It makes no distinction between the two.

Webster’s 1828 dictionary gives the following definitions:

– INALIENABLE, a. Unalienable; that cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another. The dominions of a king are inalienable. All men have certain natural rights which are inalienable. The estate of a minor is inalienable, without a reservation of the right of redemption, or the authority of the legislature.

– UNALIENABLE, a. Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights.

According to Webster, the two words seem to mean the same thing — especially, since he defines “inalienable” to mean “unalienable.”

The following are definitions of "unalienable" from other dictionaries:

– “Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable” – American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.

– “law a variant of inalienable” – Collins English Dictionary.

– “not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.” – Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary.

– “inalienable” – Merriam Webster.

The following are the definitions of "inalienable" given in these four dictionaries:

– “That cannot be transferred to another or others: inalienable rights” – American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.

– “not able to be transferred to another; not alienable” – Collins English Dictionary.

– “not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights” – Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary.

– “incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred” – Merriam Webster

“Unalienable” and “inalienable” look like they mean the same thing. Merriam Webster even defines “unalienable” to mean “inalienable.” What is the difference?

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political 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.

More Social Issues Related to Blacks

More Social Issues Related to Blacks

Thomas Allen

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

White Supremacy

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

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

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

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

Preservation of the American Negro

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

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

Segregation at Universities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Social Justice Reform

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

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Gottfried and Equality

Gottfried and Equality

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

More Political Thoughts

More Political Thoughts

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are official papers, socialism and democracy, the wrong question, and a credibility test.

Official Papers

Our ancestors who fought the National Socialists (Nazis) and the Fascists in World War II would be proud of what has happened to the United States. They fought the National Socialists and Fascists to rid the world of their despotism and tyranny. Thus, they would be overwhelmed with the joy of knowing that people need officially governmentally issued papers called Read ID to travel within the United States — as the National Socialists and Fascists required official papers to travel. So, why did our ancestors fight the National Socialists and Fascists?

In other words, propagandists inculcate us with the notion that their ancestors fought the National Socialists and Fascists to keep us free. They did such a great job of keeping us free that we are now free to be required to have governmentally issued papers, Real Id, to travel — just as the people in National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy needed official papers to travel. So much for freedom.

President Bush said that the terrorists attacked the United States because they hated our freedom. Then, he proceeded to suppress the few remaining freedoms that Americans had. President Obama extended Bush’s police state of suppressing freedom, and President Trump did nothing to end and reverse this police state. Since Americans have lost their freedoms, the terrorists have won. So, why are the United States still fighting a war that has been lost? Why not admit defeat and bring the troops home and repeal all the police state and antiterrorist laws?

Socialism and Democracy

Socialism is economic democracy. Democracy is political socialism. Under democracy, each person, in theory, has an equal say in society’s political affairs.  Under socialism, each person, in theory, has an equal say in society’s economic affairs. In both socialism and democracy, each person has an equal say.

Wrong Question

Paul Harvey said, “They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here?” This is a good question, but it is the wrong question.

The question should be: Why are not progressives, liberals, and socialists moving to Cuba? Cuba is already offering what they want: gun control, universal healthcare, and much more. Certainly, Cuba would welcome them with open arms — especially if they bring their wealth with them.

The reason that progressives, liberals, and socialists do not move to Cuba is that they are Puritans. They have seen the light and are compelled to force their utopia on everyone — especially on those who know that their utopia is really a dystopia.

Credibility Test

A three-step test can be given to find out if a person has credibility. (1) Does he believe or claim to believe the official governmental conspiracy theory of 9-11? (2) Does he believe or claim to believe that the Democrats and their supporters, promoters, and owners did not steal the 2020-presidential election? (3) Does he believe or claim to believe the official explanation of the Kennedy assassination? If he answers one or more of these questions “yes,” then he has no credibility.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

More Thoughts on Social Issues

More Thoughts on Social Issues

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are dysgenics and the welfare state, debt to society, abortion and vaccination, and how major corporations react to Black communities.

Dysgenics
From the late nineteenth century to after World War I, most Progressives were eugenists and pushed their eugenic programs through governments. With the rise of Hitler, eugenics began to fade in popularity. By World War II, most Progressives, who by now were becoming Liberal Democrats, had become dysgenicists. Now, dysgenics dominates the United States, and eugenics is vigorously condemned — from one end of the political spectrum to the other. Dysgenics is a leading cause of the deterioration of the United States, Europe, and many other parts of the world.

Since the days of President Franklin Roosevelt, Progressives have been promoting dysgenics by their promotion of the welfare state. Under dysgenics, low-quality people, nonproducers, are rewarded for breeding, and high-quality people, producers, are penalized. High-quality people are taxed, i.e., forced, to support low-quality people through various welfare programs. Thus, high-quality people must not only support their own families with what the taxman leaves them, but they must also support the families of low-quality people. The more money that low-quality people receive through various welfare programs, the less money high-quality people have. Because high-quality people must support low-quality people and their children, they have less money to support their own families. Therefore, they have fewer children. While the population of low-quality people, nonproductive people, is rising, the population of high-quality people, productive people, is declining. A larger percentage of Blacks are on welfare than any other race. Therefore, dysgenics is working for the survival of their species, while it is leading to the extinction of the White species. (The only thing that has served to check the growth of low-quality people is another progressive program — abortion.)

Debt to Society
One often hears about a criminal paying his debt to society. A criminal’s debt is to the victim of his crime, that is, to an individual or group of individuals. It is not to an amorphous abstraction called “society.” (Society is the aggregate of the people who cooperate to improve their individual and collective circumstances through production and exchange.) Society has not suffered from his crime; individuals have. Consequently, his debt is to individuals and not to society.

Moreover, the way the system has been set up, the victim helps pay for the punishment of the criminal. Taxpayers, which include victims of crime, pay for the punishment (or rehabilitation for the more progressive) via tax-supported incarceration. Punishment should focus on requiring the criminal to pay the victims of his crime with penalties. Instead, currently, the victim pays for the punishment of the criminal. Unless the court orders the criminal to pay restitution at the time of sentencing, the victim can only recover his loss through a civil suit against the criminal.  Even then, the victim ends up paying for the punishment (prison time, supervision while on parole or suspended sentence, etc.) of the criminal via taxation.

Abortion and Vaccination
Progressives and their kindred declare that the government should not tell a woman what she can do with her body. Therefore, abortion should be legal: A woman has the right to an abortion. (Pro-life adherents are not objecting to what a woman does with her body. They object to what she and the abortionist do to the body of another person: her baby.)

However, when vaccination is the issue, most of the pro-abortion people favor the government telling women what they must do with their bodies. That is, they favor forced vaccination. Thus, a woman should not have the right to control her body by refusing a vaccination. Further, denial of the right to refuse a vaccination extends to young females. Parents should not be allowed to refuse vaccinations for their daughters. Consequently, the government has the right, or even the obligation, to tell a woman what she must do with her body with respect to vaccinations.

Another argument used by the pro-abortionists in favor of abortion is that the government does not tell men what to do with their bodies. Yet, this claim is not true. The government forces males to be vaccinated to attend public schools and often even private schools. Moreover, the government forces men to be vaccinated when it forces them to war and die for the politically powerful.

A major difference exists between antivaccine people and pro-vaccine people. With rare exception, antivaccine people do not want to forcibly prevent people from being vaccinated. They want people to be informed about vaccination, its pros and cons, and to decide for themselves whether they and their children are to be vaccinated. They favor freedom of choice. On the other hand, most pro-vaccine people want to force people, especially children, to be vaccinated. Preferring coercion, they do not favor people making an informed decision. Accordingly, they oppose freedom of choice. In this respect, they are like Marxists and Puritans. Thus, antivaccine people favor freedom while pro-vaccine people oppose freedom.

Racial Actions of Major Corporations
Companies are falling all over themselves to fund radical Black racist groups in the name of fighting White racism, which is systemic, in the name of helping Black communities. If these companies really wanted to help Black communities, they would build their plants and offices in these communities and give the inhabitants of these communities priority in working in these plants and offices. Moreover, they would use the inhabitants of these communities to build the plants and offices. To show their commitment to these Black communities, they would require the managers and supervisors of the plants and offices to live in that community — and not live in a gated segment of the community.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen

More social issues articles.

Some Comments on Blacks

Some Comments on Blacks

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whereas Jim Crow laws gave Whites advantages over Blacks, Civil Rights laws give Blacks advantages over Whites. Further, Civil Rights laws give Blacks more advantages than Jim Crow laws ever gave Whites. Jim Crow laws never sought to destroy the Black society, culture, and race; they even protected them. However, an objective of the Civil Rights laws has been to destroy White society, culture, and race — especially Southerners and their society and culture.

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

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

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

A Propositional or Genetic Country

A Propositional or Genetic Country

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.