Differences Between Real Money and Fiat Money

Differences Between Real Money and Fiat Money

Thomas Allen

    Attributes generally ascribed to monetary material are that it is portable (relatively high value per unit of weight), homogeneous or uniform, durable, divisible, recognizable, highly marketable (highly liquid, universally acceptable), and stable in value. These attributes are true for real money, such as full weighted gold and silver coins. For the most part, they are true for today’s paper fiat money, such as the US dollar, euro, and British pound. However, real money has characteristics that are lacking in fiat paper money.
    Real money has quantity, measurement, and substance. Fiat paper money has only quantity.
    An early illustration of these three attributes in real money is recorded in Genesis 23:16. Abraham bought a burial plot. He paid 400 (quantity) shekels (measurement of weight) of silver (substance). In pre-1933 money, if a person bought something with a $20 gold coin, he paid with money that had quantity (20), measurement (dollar, a unit of weight equal to 23.22 grains), and substance (gold).
    Fiat paper money lacks two of these three characteristics. For example a $20 federal reserve note has quantity: 20. The dollar appears to be its measurement. However, it is not. It is an abstraction. It measures nothing of substance. A unit of measurement has to be something concrete and definable like the meter, ounce, minute, or horsepower so that things can be compared to it. It has to be something that instruments can determine. Also, it lacks substance as its monetary value exceeds the value of the material of which it is made and it does not promise to deliver anything concrete.
    With pre-1933 gold money, a $20 gold coin weighed twice as much as $10 gold coin. Even if the disk had no inscription on it, a disk containing 464.4 grains of gold had twice the purchasing power of a disk containing 232.2 grains of gold. It was twice as large and weighed twice as much.
    Federal reserve notes, which are fiat paper money, cannot be measured. If all the inscriptions are removed from them, a $20 federal reserve note would look like a $10 federal reserve note. They would both have the same value: nothing.
    Another important distinction between real money and fiat paper money is that real money can transport value through space and time, which makes it an excellent store of value, medium of exchange, and standard of value (unit of accounts). Fiat paper money cannot, which makes it a poor store of value, medium of exchange, and standard of value. Real money retains its value when it moves from one place to another and from one time to another. Fiat paper money does not.
    In the United States since 1933, when President Roosevelt stole the people’s gold, the dollar had lost 94 percent of its purchasing power by 2010. Since its complete divorce from gold in 1971, it had lost 81 percent of its purchasing power by 2010.
    On the other hand, gold has retained its value through the millennia. The ancient Babylonian and Hebrew gold shekel contained about 252 grains of gold or about as much gold as an American $10 gold coin.[1] Those 252 grains of gold are still worth 252 grains today.
    If a time traveler carried a $10 gold coin back two thousand years, he would have the buying power equivalent to about 58 days of wages of a common laborer. A common laborer’s wage at that time was about 17¢ per day[2] (this estimate was made in the late 1930s when the federal reserve dollar was worth almost as much as a gold dollar). Moreover, because a $20 gold coin contains twice the gold of $10 gold coin, it would have twice the buying power. If he carried a $100 and a $1 federal reserve note with him, he would get only what he could trade his notes for as a curiosity. He might find the $1 note worth more than the $100 note if the person with whom he was trading liked Washington’s picture more than Franklin’s. Possibly, the person with whom he was trading found that the occult symbols on the back of a $1 note had great value whereas a picture of Independence Hall on the back a $100 note had none. Unlike real money, fiat paper money fails to maintain its value through time.
    Also, unlike real money, most fiat paper money has little value beyond the borders of the issuing country. Fiat paper money that does retain value beyond its borders does so because it is considered a reserve currency or the fiat money of a country is losing value so quickly that it makes other fiat money desirable. This limited ability of fiat paper money to transport value, albeit decreasing value, through space is short-lived.
    Thus, real money can transport value through space and time. Fiat paper money can only transport value for short distances and for a highly limited time. Real money is vastly superior to fiat paper money as a medium of exchange because of its superiority at transporting value through space. It is vastly superior as a standard of value and store of value because of its superiority at transporting value through time.
    As shown above, real money has quantity, measurement, and substance. Fiat paper money has only quantity. Real money can transport value over vast space and time. Fiat money cannot.

Endnotes

1. Madeleine Miller and J. Lane Miller, Harper’s Bible Dictionary, pp. 454-455.


2. John D. Davis, The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, p. 630.

Copyright © 2014 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

More articles on money. 

A Review of The South and Christian Ethics -- Part 2

A Review of The South and Christian Ethics -- Part 2

Thomas Allen

    Throughout Chapter 3, Sellers preaches, “We are to love our neighbor.” One of the highest forms of love, if not the highest, is integration. As integration leads to the death of the races, how can this be love? As integration destroys the uniqueness of the races and racial identity, how can this be love?
    In Chapter 4, Sellers claims that the Bible supports integration and condemns segregation. As noted above and in Integration Is Genocide, False Biblical Teachings on the Races and Interracial Marriages, and People of the Flood, the opposite is true: The Bible supports segregation and condemns integration. To support his claim, Sellers makes a few broad statements, but offers no Biblical proof.
    Based on Sellers comments about White preachers in the South at the time that he wrote (p. 118), most preachers then are like most preachers now. They were not going to oppose the Marxist Communist agenda.
    Sellers describes segregation as a system of belief (p. 118ff). If true, then integration, its opposite, also has to be a system of belief. The major difference between the two beliefs is that segregation has much more Biblical support than integration. (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation.”)
    If segregation is the theology of “the unrepentant Southern kingdom of God” as Sellers asserts (p. 119), then integration is the theology of the unrepentant Yankee kingdom of Lucifer. If segregation is a comforting temptation as Sellers purports, then integration must also be a comforting temptation.
    He states that segregationists use the same Bible verses to justify segregation as slaveholders used to justify slavery (p. 120). That may be true to a limited degree. However, one could point to a host of Biblical passages in both the Old Testament and New Testament on slavery. None condemn slavery with the possible exception of the Israelite slaves in Moses’ day. These slavery verses had little relevance for segregationists. Because the Bible is void of antislavery and antisegregation verses, integrationists, like abolitionists, have to abandon the Bible to justify their position. If they do refer to the Bible at all, it is with vague broad abstractions. Sellers is guilty of this broad vagueness when talks about “neighborliness,” “brotherhood of man,” etc.
    Sellers contends that the Bible does not support slavery and that slavery and segregation are rebellion against God (p. 120). He must not have read the Bible. If his claim is true, why does the Bible not clearly condemn slavery as a sin and forbid it? On the contrary, both the Old Testament and New Testament present slavery as an acceptable institution. Both set forth a code on how masters are to treat their slaves and how slaves are to act. The South probably came closer than any other slaveholding society in following the Scriptural rules on slavery.
    If Southerners sinned by being slave owners, then Northerners must have sinned by dealing in slaves. They bought the slaves from African chiefs and sold them to Southern slave owners. Surely, buying and selling slaves is as sinful as owning them. Sellers does not mention the sins of the Northern slavers. Nor does he mention the sins of the African chiefs, who grew rich by African standards, in capturing and selling their fellow Africans. If God punished the South because a small percentage owned slaves, why did He not also punish the North for its Northern slavers?
    According to Sellers, Southerners see segregation as the road to salvation (pp. 120-121). If true, then Yankees and quisling Southerners must see integration as the road to salvation. If Sellers believes what he writes about segregationist theology and salvation, then he should believe in integrationist theology and salvation. (As discussed below, he does equate integration to salvation.)
    Sellers maintains that the reason that White segregationists object to their daughters marrying Blacks is pride (p. 121). It never occurs to him that the basic reason could be obedience to God’s word. Numerous passages condemn interracial marriages, even to the point of not allowing mixed breeds in God’s assembly (Deuteronomy 23:2). (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation.”)
    Sellers appears to believe that God cannot be the Father of all unless the races are integrated (p. 122) and eventually produce motley mongrel man. He ignores the last part of Acts 17:26. This verse states that God created the races (“and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth”) and assigned them their habitat (“hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation”). Thus, God did not intend for the races to commingle. To the extent that he recognizes this verse, Sellers like most integrationists only recognizes the first part and ignores the second part.
    Sellers suggests that Christ has nothing to say in support of segregation (pp. 122-123). On the contrary, Christ reiterates five of the Ten Commandments that condemn the fruit of integration, miscegenation. (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation.”)
    To him, Christ teaches a love that precludes segregation and requires, if not forces, one to be an integrationist (pp. 122-124). Why he believes Christ would support, even advocate, situations that encourage men to destroy the races that God created by breeding them out of existence, he does not explain.
    In Chapter 4, Sellers questions the Christianity of segregationists. He has difficulty believing that segregationists can be Christians. To him segregation and Christianity are incompatible.
    Sellers seems to have little use for the Old Testament (p. 124, passim). Perhaps he degrades the Old Testament because it supports segregation far more than it supports integration.
    Sellers accuses segregationists of selecting passages from the Bible that support their argument (p. 124). He does the same thing. Well, not exactly. Sellers does not cite specific passages to support integration, perhaps because none exists. He just makes vague references to Jesus’ teachings on love and neighborliness.
    Sellers finds segregationists guilty of racial pride — pride in the White race (p. 116). Throughout his book, he condemns segregationists for the sin of pride. Yet Sellers is proud of being an integrationist, but he does not perceive himself guilty of the sin of pride. A proud segregationist is a sinner; a proud integrationist is never a sinner.
    An objective of integration has been to instill Blacks with pride in the Black race. Yet Sellers finds no fault with Black racial pride.
    Sellers has nothing but praise for the Communist front-man Martin Luther King (v. “Appendix: Martin Luther King” in “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement.”) and the Communist-run Southern Christian Leadership Council (v.  “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement”). He also praises the highly violent Student Non-Violent Coordination Committee and the Congress of Racial Equality, (v. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement”) both closely allied with Communists (pp. 128-129).
    He implies that all violence that has occurred during the civil rights movement is the fault of Southerners. They are guilty of not surrendering to Blacks fast enough (p. 129).
    Sellers castigates the orthodox Southern liberal and all others who did not want to surrender to the Negro unconditionally and immediately. He even chastises what he calls the unrealistic Negroes, such as middle-class businessmen (they were the ones whom the Communists wanted to destroy), for not giving complete, unhesitating, unquestionable support to Black radicals (pp. 130-132). (V. “Black Nationalism.”)
    Sellers seems to believe that once full integration is achieved, the United States would be a color-blind democracy (p. 142). The United States have had full integration for more than forty years. Yet race consciousness is greater than ever, especially among non-Whites. The predominant race consciousness that Whites have is hatred of the White race, a feeling in common with the other races. We have come a long way in race relations under integration, have not we! Sellers should be proud.
    He has no problem with sacrificing principle for appearance in the name of moderation if the principle sacrificed is one with which he disagrees.
    Sellers blames Whites, especially Southerners, for most of the problems encountered with the civil-rights-integration movement. They are the blame because they had not elevated Blacks to “full-fledged human beings” (p. 153). Most likely, Sellers would be blaming Southerners today for the race problems, although Blacks had reached godlike status by the 1980s. Today the self-esteem of Whites is far lower than the self-esteem of Blacks ever was during segregation or slavery. If Sellers is correct, Whites need to be raised to “full-fledged human beings,” and Blacks lowered to “full-fledged human beings.”
    Sellers quotes Roger Mehl: “The primary condition for communicating is respect for the otherness of the other” (p. 153). How can a self-respecting Negro respect cowardly, debasing, self-hating, self-destructive Whites?
    Sellers writes, “White men have tended to regard benevolence as their sole obligation to the Negro. But between adults, there is another obligation: neither love nor mercy nor benevolence, however well-meant, can stand in lieu of recognizing the recipient as possessing independent, mature selfhood” (p. 153). Knowingly or not, he has chastised the White liberal, who has been the primary promoter of this benevolence. The welfare state that has accompanied the civil rights movement has stripped many Blacks of their independent, mature selfhood by making them wards of the State. As he is a good liberal, I would be surprised if Sellers would or did oppose the growing welfare state.
    Sellers asserts that the Negro “is not going to accept the white man’s benevolence in preference to asserting his manhood” (p. 154). If true, why are so many Blacks on welfare of one sort or another?  If they valued manhood over benevolence, they would reject all welfare even if they qualified for it.
    Sellers writes a good deal about justice (p. 156ff). Where is the justice of taking the property of another and holding it hostage?
    He seems to place much more importance on justice than love. Justice should always trump love. According to him, justice builds manhood; love destroys it. Justice should always have priority over love. Furthermore, integration is justice. If he is correct, justice has prevailed. However, it has done nothing to improve race relations, which would surprise Sellers. If anything, race relations are just as bad today, probably worse, than in 1962. The hostility is just better concealed. (V. “The Dirty War: America’s Race War.”).
    Sellers also presents the civil rights movement, especially the part led by King, as nonviolent (p. 157). If King were nonviolent, why did he leave a trail of blood everywhere he went? Why would a nonviolent man coordinate his activities with violent men as King did? The civil rights movement has been extremely violent. What else would one expect from a movement led by Communists? (V. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement.”) Blacks have been warring against Whites since the movement began. However, this war has been concealed and is revealed in crime statistics. Whites are far more often the victims of Blacks than Blacks are of Whites. (V. “The Dirty War: America’s Race War.”)
    Sellers firmly believes that morality and ethics can be legislated (pp. 161-163).
    He presents the integration of the armed forces as good and as a good example of improving racial relations (p. 162). The primary reason for integrating the armed forces had nothing to do with justice, elevating Blacks to full manhood, or improving race relations. On the contrary, it degraded the Negro. The armed forces integrated because Black in segregated units often broke and ran instead of holding their ground when the enemy attacked them during the Korean War. (Perhaps, Blacks displayed more intelligence than Whites in this insistence. Why should they die for some foreign territory that meant nothing to them?) Dispersing them among the White troops gave them the fortitude to stand firm in the face of the enemy. (A friend of mine once told me about an experience that he had in basic training years after the armed forces were integrated. In his integrated unit was a Northerner from a place that had few Blacks. After being around Blacks for a while, the Northerner, who had had his fill of Blacks, asked my friend, who was a Southerner, “Why have you let them [Blacks] live?” Obviously, integration has not created all the neighborliness that Sellers prophesied.)
    Sellers sees himself as a witness for God pushing integration. However, he does caution against identifying legal decisions and governmental directives with the word of God (p. 165).
    To dampen his earlier discussion on justice, he brings love into his argument. He notes that justice is not enough. After justice is achieved, the races must be made to love each other (pp. 166ff). However, he maintains that no one can demand the right of fellowship (p.169). Yet the ostensible purpose of civil rights laws, which Sellers surely supports, is to force fellowship. (The real purpose of civil rights laws is to give those who really control the government more power over the people.) Then he contradicts himself with “the Church has a duty to preach the commandment of love itself as a fulfillment of all external, compulsory commandments which deal in forced togetherness” (p. 168). Thus, once the government corals with force various groups, the job of the Church is to brainwash the people forced together to love one another and their overlords who forced them together. After all, these despotic overlords are only executing God’s justice.
    Sellers condemns the concept of “voluntary association” when it results in segregation (pp. 169-170). Presumably, he has no problem with voluntary association if it results in integration. According to him, governmental coercion should trump freedom of association.
    Sellers does offers some excellent advice to Northerners: Clean up your own house before telling Southerners what to do beyond desegregation (p. 171). He has no fault with Northerners forcing integration on the South. An irony to come out of the civil rights movement has been that the worst race riots have been outside the South. I doubt that Sellers expected this. I am sure that few Northerners foresaw this outcome. (V. “The Cold War.”) Most likely, they expected integration would keep the Negro where he belonged: down South. It would even encourage Blacks in the North to migrate to the South. The civil rights law was written to desegregate areas where segregation was enforced by statute, that is in the South. It did not apply where segregation was by custom, that is in the North. However, some renegade judges soon changed that and brought integration to the North. Most likely, Sellers approved of that.
    Sellers seems to have found a new road to salvation: integration (pp. 171-172). Apparently faith in Jesus is not enough. Whites must also integrate with Blacks. Not only must they integrate, they must also love the Negro to achieve salvation.
    Sellers seems to follow the blueprint of the radicals of the French Revolution for rebuilding society. (V. “The French Revolution – Part II: The Revolution.”) First, tear it down completely, then rebuilt it anew in the radical image. He despises the love that Southerners had for Blacks during segregation because Blacks were subordinate. So, he tears the South asunder with forced integration imposed from outside. Next, he rebuilds the South on integration and elevates the Negro with special privileges above Whites. By now he has destroyed the love. Then he wants to bring back the love that has been destroyed. All he has achieved is arrogant demanding Blacks and self-hating, fearful, and cowardly Whites. The love that was may never return.
    Sellers has no use for segregated churches — at least White segregated churches. He has no use for White churches that oppose integration. The only honorable churches are those that preach the virtue and holiness of integration (p. 172ff). As God is a segregationist and an anti-integrationist, (v. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” and “Is Integration a Moral Law?”) Sellers has no use for churches that preach these biblically revealed aspects of God. People are to love and accept indiscriminately. Apparently, they are to love even those whom God hates. Seemingly, only churches that preach breeding out of existence the races that God created are preaching the love of man and the love of God. How willingly destroying what God created is love is not explained.
    Unlike many integrationists, at least Sellers realizes that fellowship cannot be imposed by force. To attempt to do so makes matters worse (p. 176).
    Throughout his book, Sellers preaches the virtues of neighborliness by the White race. However, the only neighborliness that he will tolerate is the one that he wants to be created. He despises the neighborliness that existed under segregation. He and his fellow integrationists succeeded in destroying that neighborliness in the name of what he calls “justice.” Then he complains about the lack of neighborliness!
    Sellers condemns racial pride as a great sin. It is rebellion against God — especially racial pride by Whites (p. 180). At least Whites are no longer guilty of this sin. Whatever racial pride that they may have had has been replaced by hatred of their race. If Whites have any racial pride, it is pride in the colored races.
    Sun Moon seems to have achieved the church-driven neighborliness that Sellers espouses. (V. “New Age Religions.”) Moon’s congregations are highly integrated. Many marriages in his church are interracial. What would one expect from a church led by the Messiah, as Moon claims to be?
    At least the motley mongrel man ends racial pride as he is of no race. How soon would it take the motley mongrel man to discover that some mongrels have darker skin than others and take pride in that? Thus, skin pride replaces racial pride.
    Sellers believes that churches should teach the truth (p. 180). If they did, they would oppose much of what he advocates.
    Like most integrationists, Sellers condemns prejudice. Throughout his book he condemns it. Yet he displays prejudice against Southerners, segregationists, white supremacists, Christian fundamentalists, and others throughout his book.
    Although Sellers did not believe that integration would bring about utopia, he did expect it to cause a significantly higher level of morals and ethics. Furthermore, he expected a higher level of justice. However, the opposite has happened. Since integration replaced segregation, morals and ethics have been declining. Abortion is commonplace. Homosexuals are now considered normal and acceptable, even to the point of being able to marry each other. Miscegenation (adultery) is accelerating. Divorce is rampant. With Waco, Oklahoma City, and 9-11, the United States government has declared war on the American people. Furthermore, America is no longer a Christian country. Church membership has been declining (perhaps justifiably so as many churches have abandoned the Bible). Children are no longer educated but are taught to be slaves. America is the greatest debtor country in history. Decadence, moral decay, crime, gambling, pornography, and drug abuse are growing. Self-reliance, freedom, security, and prosperity are fading. The law has ceased to protect the races and individuals, but it grants special privileges to the politically powerful at the expense of everyone else, White or Black. Scoundrels with sufficient political power are now more than ever above the law — so much for justice.
    Out of the integration-civil-rights movement has grown political correctness and the death of freedom of speech. White people, especially those in the public, have to watch every word that they say for fear of being called a racist, which is now the most feared smear word in the language, having surpassed “fascist” and “anti-Semitic.”
    Because of integration, the great bastions of free discussion, free thought, and free expressions — universities — have gone as far as to suppress discussion, thought, and expression with speech codes. Anyone found guilty of violating the speech code is expelled. University administrators, most of whom are White, condemn Whites upon the mere accusation of a Black without any proof. Even after the White person proves his innocence (the burden of proof is always on the White victim), he is still guilty as far as the university is concerned. Would Sellers be politically correct and mold himself into political correctness?
    Thus, censorship has become the norm. Only the extremely politically incorrect utters any condemnation of integration, Martin Luther King, and miscegenation. Anyone who says or writes anything that the powers-that-be considers “racist” (a seldom defined ambiguous term) becomes persona non grata until he sufficiently grovels before the proper parties — and even then he is never fully forgiven.
    One wonders what Sellers would think of America’s maturing police state. Most likely, he would approve as it grows from the same mentality that spewed forth integration and the civil rights movement.
    I don’t know if Sellers is still alive. If he is and if he retains his consistency, he would be arguing for “homosexual rights” and being neighborly with homosexuals. He would support the coming pedophile agenda, which will be the next group to be granted special privileges in the name of “equal rights.” Most likely, he would be using the same arguments of justice tempered with a little bit of love. He would contend that Jesus would have accepted both. In the eyes of Jesus and the Bible, neither homosexual sex nor pedophilia is a sin, but White racism is (racism by Blacks and other races is not a sin).
    The battle against the homosexual agenda and the pedophile agenda was lost by 1965. All the opponents of these agendas are doing now is fighting a rear-guard action. They are like the German army in 1945. They have already lost the war. The war against the homosexual and pedophile agendas cannot be won unless the communist civil rights movement is abandoned. That cannot happen unless Whites abandon their false guilt and self-hatred and once again love their race and what their forefathers gave them.
    The solution to the race problem is not what Sellers promotes and argues. It is not a return to segregation of yesteryear either. The solution is along the proposals that Marcus Garvey, Mittie Maud Gordon, Roy Innis, and a few other brave, forward-thinking Blacks have put forth: separation. That is the solution in keeping with God’s original plan: “determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” For that reason, it will be the last solution considered.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1

More articles on social issues. 

A Review of The South and Christian Ethics -- Part 1

A Review of The South and Christian Ethics -- Part 1

Thomas Allen

    This article is a review of The South and Christian Ethics (New York: Association Press, 1962) by James Sellers. His words and my paraphrases or summaries of his words, I have italicized. My commentary is in roman letters. I have provided references to pages in his book and have enclosed them in parentheses. Referenced articles in parentheses are related articles written by the author of this article.
     Sellers was the dean of the Vanderbilt Divinity School. He is a theologian on the liberal side. He is an integrationist, scalawag, and quisling, who has a low opinion of the typical Southerner (at times it approaches the stereotypical Klansman’s opinion of the Negro). Most of the country’s, if not most of the world’s, racial problems, he blames on Southerners. His book promotes integration and condemns segregation.
    Sellers quotes William Faulkner: “We will have to choose not between color nor race nor religion, but simply between being slaves and being free” (p. 21). Whites chose suicide — or at least their leaders did and the majority consented with inaction. Now Whites are losing their race and freedom. They had much more freedom then than they have today. Not only can they no longer tell the truth about Blacks and other races, they cannot tell the truth about homosexuals. If they do, they become persona non grata. The Communist-led civil rights movement is in the process of giving the United States, the Western world, and the White race the coup de grace.  (V. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement.”) Both Faulkner and Sellers have been proven to be wrong.
    Sellers writes that the problem before America and the South was, among other things, “what to do about communism” (pp. 21-22). What America and the South decided to do about communism was to join the Communists in bringing down America and the White race.
    Sellers believes that the civil rights movement is about giving Blacks freedom. It is not. Its purpose has been to enslave all. If the objective were freedom, it would have insisted on the Negro standing on his own and taking care of himself. It would not have enslaved Whites and made Blacks wards of the government. Nor would it have granted Blacks privileges way beyond what Whites were presumed to have had under segregation.
    Like most theologians, Sellers presents segregation as evil (p. 24). By inference, he presents integration as godly. On the contrary, the Bible presents segregation positively and condemns integration. (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” and “Is Integration a Moral Law?”.)
    Sellers notes that total desegregation, i.e., integration, will not cause the races suddenly to fall in love with each other and make them good neighbors. Naively, he believes that social, political, and economic equality is a “prerequisite to neighborliness” (p. 26). What he fails to realize is that the primary purpose of integration is to increase the power of those who really control the U.S. government, i.e., the ruling elite, i.e., the globalists, one-worlders, heads of major foundations, international financiers, chief executives of multinational corporations, Zionist leaders, leaders of the occult, and other elitists. Forced integration has created much more conflict between the races than forced segregation ever did. The ruling elite feeds on conflict as it increases their power over the people.
    Perhaps the reason that integration causes more conflict is that it is unnatural. Segregation is natural. People prefer being with people like themselves. Thus, conflict under segregation is less than under integration. (All the racial conflict witnessed in the United States since about 1970 has been under an integrationist regime.)
    Sellers appears to side with the Communists; at least he opposes the anti-communists. To him, Communists are just good old neighbors who seek to harm no one. Americans should find them as such (pp. 26-27). At least he ended up on the winning side. The communist agenda has been almost completely implemented. Based on the Communist Manifesto, the United States today are a thoroughly Marxist country.
    Sellers is right about one thing. Southerners failed to maintain control of their States and the South (p. 36). When the push came, they caved. Some token resistance was offered, but little more. Southerners were mostly talk and no action. Thus, they lost. That is why the country is in its death throngs and no longer resembles the federation established by the founding fathers except in form. The dressing has been retained, but the spirit is gone. (V. “The Cold War” and “The Second Reconstruction.”)
    Sellers identifies one group that is completely innocent of the Negro’s plight: the Negro himself. First, the Northern Republicans abandoned him to win the Presidency and to exploit America’s industrial resources. (Most Radical Republicans never cared much about the Negro. They saw him as a weapon to be used in their genocidal war against Southerners.) (V. “The First Reconstruction.”) Next Southerners beat him down with segregation. Ever since slavery, he has been the center of domestic conflict, oppressed, denied his rights, etc. (p. 41). Southerners, especially in the decades following the War, were oppressed as much if not more than the Negro.  (V. “The First Reconstruction.”) They have been denied their rights: Even the Fourteenth Amendment stripped them of their political rights. Much of their property was stolen or destroyed. Carpetbaggers and scalawags with the backing of the U.S. army stripped them of their economic rights. Many lived in poverty until the 1940s. Yet they overcame these disadvantages without any special grants of privileges. (They did not have the advantage of being White; they were hated then, and still are, because they are White.) (V. “The First Reconstruction,” “The Gentlemen’s,” “The Cold War,” and “The Second Reconstruction.”) Still, the Negro seems not to be able to overcome these disadvantages even with the grant of special privileges.
    Sellers focuses a good deal on the “sin of slavery” and the adverse effect that it had on Southerners (43-44, passim). As shocking as it may be, slavery is not a sin. The Bible does not condemn slavery. It sets forth a code on the treatment of slaves. Even the New Testament finds slavery acceptable and does not condemn it. (This lack of condemnation of slavery is a major reason that New Englanders deluded with abolitionist propaganda abandoned the Bible.)
    Slavery may be undesirable for political, economic, or social reasons; but it is not immoral or a sin. Although Sellers asserts that slavery is a sin, he offers no Scriptural proof that it is. The only way for Sellers’ argument to work is for the South to be God’s Israel and Judah and the North to be His Assyria and Babylon.
    Sellers does an excellent job of contrasting the Southerner with the Northerner:

        • A sense of place, which may be contrasted with the Northerner’s sense of time.
        • A high valuation on the rootedness and personalness of man, which may be contrasted with the Northerner’s high valuation on the equality of man.
        • A passion for concreteness, which may be contrasted with the Northerner’s thirst for universality in the abstract.
        •  A longing for stability, which may be contrasted with the Northerner’s hankering for progress (p. 47).

    Sellers believes that the best society is a blend of Southern and Northern attributes with more weight given to the Northern attributes (pp. 47ff). Unfortunately for Sellers, his dream society has not come to pass. Northern attributes have prevailed — perhaps because most of the ruling elite are Yankees. Southern attributes are fading into forgotten history.
    If one were to prevail over the other, Sellers would have preferred the Northern. He probably would have little objections to the way things have turned out — especially, to an incompetent Black President of questionable Constitutional qualifications controlled by power-hungry White men. He certainly would have considered today’s America with its collapse in morality and ethics vastly superior to the America of 1962. For it is much more integrated now than then. Moreover, Blacks have not only gained political, social, and economic equality, but they have also been given political, social, and economic privileges at the expense of Whites.
    Sellers does not seem to care much for the White race, especially the Anglo-Saxon part. He argues that integration is not part of the Social Gospel because many leading Social Gospelers of the nineteenth century were what today would be called “white supremacists” (pp. 71ff). Because many nineteenth-century Social Gospelers had not incorporated integration into the Social Gospel does not mean that it was not part of the Social Gospel by the middle of the twentieth century. Sellers incorporates integration into the Social Gospel. Both integration and the Social Gospel come from the same deadening Luciferin rootstock. They were destined to grow together. Ironically, both were controlled by “the money power” (the ruling elite) against whom the Social Gospelers railed.
    Sellers recognizes integration as becoming part of the Social Gospel in the late 1950s when the Negro began pressing in earnest for full manhood (p. 76). When the Negro began pressing for integration, he abandoned his push for full manhood. He admitted that he was not competent enough to stand on his own against all odds, real or perceived. Lacking competence, he had to attach himself to White Society and submerge himself into it. Roy Innis and a few other Black civil rights leaders realized this. That is why they abandoned integration and pushed for separation. Only by separation can the Negro achieve full manhood.
    Moreover, the Negro cannot achieve manhood as long as he is dependent on the government for handouts. Closely following the integration movement was an explosion in the welfare state that has kept the Negro in bondage. As long as the Negro is a ward of the government, he cannot achieve manhood.
    Sellers claims, “By 1910, the Negro was able to launch his own struggle a new through such agencies as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People” (p. 74.). Of the founders of the NAACP, (v. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement”) only one was Black, W.E.B. DuBois, who later became a Communist. Most of the rest were Jewish radicals and socialists. Behind them was “the money power” in the person of Jacob Schiff, who also financed the Bolshevik Revolution through Trotsky. (V. “Soviet Union.”)
    Sellers supports the idea that God breaks down racial barriers (pp. 74-75). Yet according to the Bible, God is the original erector of racial barriers: “hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation” (Acts 17:26). Moreover, the Bible supports racial separation much more than it supports racial integration. (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation.”)
    Sellers is correct about segregation not being the ultimate ideal (p. 75). Neither is integration. Both of them are detrimental to the races involved. For that reason, God prescribed separation. Separation preserves the races that God created. Each can develop to its highest level without being handicapped by the others. None would rule over the others. It ends racial conflict and the granting of special privileges to a particular race.
    Sellers prefers Northern industrialism to Southern agrarianism. The industrialists’ lust for money led to desegregation and integration (pp. 79-80). He places the love of money above the love of the land. Because of the love of money, the country was integrated. Thus the Black man, like the White man, has been reduced to the bottom line of corporate America’s ledger book. So much for the Black man standing on his own.
    Sellers comments on the Federal Council of Churches’ involvement in the Social Gospel movement (pp. 80ff). He fails to mention that the Federal Council of Churches was a front for the ruling elite, also called the money power, to corrupt Christian churches into adopting the ruling elites' Luciferin doctrine. (V. “Ecumenism.”)  This corruption has been highly successful.
    Sellers advocates what he calls “progressive social Christianity.” Progressives seek mandatory reform instead of relying on personal moral change. They recognize that the reform does not automatically result in utopia. Progressives reject the extremes of hard-nosed new Reconstruction and the establishment of a Black state in America. Instead they rely on Southerners being forced to give Blacks everything that they demand short of a Black state. Although he has a low opinion of Southern moderates (partial integrationists), he does not object to using them when convenient (pp. 84-85.).
    Instead of hard-nosed Reconstruction, soft-nose Reconstruction was imposed on the South. With a few invasions of federalized national guard units, the South quickly realized that if it did not unconditionally surrender to the Communist integrationist agenda, the U.S. government would impose hard-nose Reconstruction. (V. “The Gentlemen’s Agreement” and “The Second Reconstruction”)
    Blacks may not have gotten their own State. However, Latinos and other non-Whites are forcing Blacks to live in Black or White neighborhoods.
    Sellers is a proponent of the unity of man and the brotherhood of man (p. 87ff). He also promotes treating other people and by implication other races, as others, i.e., unique individuals (p. 91). Over time these two conflicted: Individuality cannot be maintained if unity succeeds. Integration achieves unity by destroying individuality. (V. “Diversity.”) Integration terminates in reducing all to motley mongrel man.
    Sellers believes in the “diversity is strength” doctrine, although he does not use that term. He does recognize each race as uniquely distinct (p. 93), which most integrationists fail to do — some even to the point of denying the existence of races. He promotes and preaches these racial distinctions (pp. 93-94).
    Contrary to popular propaganda, diversity is not strength. As recent history shows, it is highly destructive of liberty, especially freedom of speech. “Diversity is strength” results in political correctness (v.i.).
    Sellers quotes William Faulkner as saying, “He’s [the Negro] calmer, wiser, more stable than the white man” (p. 93). What drugs was Faulkner on when he said this? That may have had some truth to it in the days of segregation although that is doubtful. Most likely, segregation checked his lesser calmness, wisdom, and stability. Under the integration regime, his statement is obviously false. On average the Black man is not calmer, wiser, or more stable than the White man. (V. “The Dirty War: America’s Race War.”)
    Sellers does diverge from the typical Social Gospelers who so focused on reforming society that they forgot about saving the soul. “Man is responsible to God, not to society” (p. 94).
    Although he occasionally hints at it, reform is not necessarily good. If one were to beat another person’s face with a baseball bat, he has reformed the other’s face. However, is this reform good? More often than not, reform does more harm than good.
    Sellers has no aversion to allying with the devil to advance his (Sellers’) agenda (p. 95).
    He also seems to suffer from the delusion of believing people must live together to love each other (pp. 95-96).  He overlooks that familiarity often fosters contempt. Living around members of other groups often reinforces the stereotypical view of that group.
    Sellers objects to the false dichotomy of “separation of Church and State.” It is a ruse to keep the Church out of political affairs. The Church should support the State when it promotes the Gospel and condemn it when it does not (pp. 96-98). What happens when the Church, which is not unanimous, fails to understand the Bible? What happens when various factions of the Church disagree on important social issues? Sellers sides with the faction that agrees with him and condemns the other factions — so much for “diversity is strength.”
    On the issue of integration versus segregation, Sellers sides with the integration. Therefore, the Church should support the State when it pushes integration (pp. 97-98). Unfortunately for Sellers, as stated above, the Bible supports segregation more than it does integration, which it generally condemns. (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation.”) Sellers must twist his theology to agree with his social and political philosophy. He must overlook many passages in the Bible that disagree with his philosophy.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2 

More articles on social issues.

The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation

The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation
Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: Footnotes in the original are omitted.]
    In his book Segregation and the Bible[1] (1958), Everett Tilson, a Methodist minister, attacks several Biblical arguments that opponents of integration and interracial mating used. He picks out a few of the weakest and often absurd Biblical arguments used by segregationists to examine. Moreover, he often obfuscates his contention by confusing and confounding biology (race) with religion and race with nationality and ethnicity. Some segregationists are also guilty of this confusing and confounding.
    One is that all the races of humans descended from Noah’s sons. Aryans (also called Homo albus, the White race, and white Caucasian) descended from Japheth. Turanians (also called, Homo luridus, the Yellow race, and Mongolian) descended from Shem. Apparently, this descent made the Hebrews Turanians although proponents of this descent usually claim that the Hebrews were Aryans. Negroes (also called, Homo niger and the Black race) descended from Ham because of the curse Noah placed on Canaan, Ham’s son.
    Alternatively, some claim that the descendants of Shem were the Aryans who settled in the Middle East. The descendants of Japheth were the Aryans who settled in Europe and the Turanians of Asia. How Japheth sired two different races, or more correctly two different species[2] (in this article race is used as a synonym for species), they seldom attempt to explain. Ham is the father of the Negro.
    Ironically, young-earth Christians, Christians who believe that Earth is no more than 10,000 years old, make the same claim. They claim that all the races of humans descended from the sons of Noah. However, most omit the Negro descended from Ham because of Noah’s curse. To explain this descent, they resort to Darwinism in spite of rejecting evolution.
    Tilson correctly notes that “no reputable scientist has yet attempted to account for the origin of the three major racial groups within a single generation from a set of common parents.”[3] To get around this problem, a few segregationist creationists maintain that God created the races from Noah’s descendants. Unfortunately for them, the Bible offers no hint for this conclusion.
    At times, Tilson appears to adhere to the doctrine that races of humans do not exist. However, he appears to hedge his position enough not to deny the existence of races completely. If human races do not exist, then racial discrimination and racial segregation cannot exist. One cannot discriminate against and segregate from that which does not exist. Furthermore, one cannot integrate with something that does not exist. Without the existence of the human races, his book is meaningless. Tilson seems to want both: Races do not exist; however, racial segregation and racial separation are egregious sins.
    If God finds racial segregation, racial separation, and miscegenation abhorrent sins, why did He not include them in the Ten Commandments? He includes the sin of miscegenation with the Sixth Commandment: the prohibition against adultery (mongrelization). (To commit adultery means to mongrelize.)[4] It also violates the Fifth Commandment, which forbids killing or murder. Interracial mating results in the death of the races involved. Moreover, miscegenation is included in the Fourth Commandment: honoring one’s parents. When a Negro mates with a Turanian, both dishonor their parents. They reject the greatest gift that their parents can bestow on them: their special God-given racial traits. Miscegenation also violates the Seventh Commandment: the prohibition of stealing. For example, when a Negro mates with an Aryan, the Negro is attempting to steal for his children traits that rightfully belong to Aryans, such as, lighter skin, straighter and lighter colored hair, a narrower nose, larger ears, etc. The Aryan is attempting to steal for his children traits that rightfully belong to Negroes, such as, darker complexion, thicker lips, smaller ears, thicker skulls, longer arms and legs, etc. Interracial mating violates the Tenth Commandment, which forbids covetousness. People covet another race’s particular traits so much that they mate with the race that possesses the coveted traits to destroy its God-given traits. If they cannot possess these traits, no one else will.[5]
    What Tilson and especially the segregationists whom he criticizes fail to realize is that the descendants of Noah’s sons are Aryans. The other races have different origins and different parentage and ancestry.[6]
    Either God created the races of humans or they evolved. Although Tilson offers no explanation of their origins, he seems to be in the evolutionist camp. (Ironically, most Christians who believe that the Noachian Flood covered the whole planet and who are creationists typically resort to Darwinism to explain the origins of human races.) If God created the races of humans, should Christians support and promote conditions, laws, and policies that lead to their demise? Tilson does; he supports and promotes conditions, laws, and policies that result in their destruction. Perhaps he does so because he does not credit God with their creation.
    To justify miscegenation, Tilson cites several verses that he claims support interracial marriages. They are Genesis 16:3, 38:2, 41:50, Exodus 2:21, 12:38 Leviticus 24:10, Numbers 11:4, 12:1, and Deuteronomy 21:10-13. He also cites Rachab in Jesus’ ancestry (Matt 1:5) and Ruth, another ancestor of Jesus.
    Genesis 16:3: “And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.” When Abram married an Egyptian, he did not marry outside his race. He did not violate the Scriptural prohibition against interracial marriages and mating. He married an Aryan of a different nationality.
    “Egyptian” in this verse is the translation of Mizraim. For much of its ancient history, two racially distinct people inhabited Egypt. They were the Mizraim, who were Aryans, and the Pathrusim, who were Melanochroi (also called Homo brunus and brown Caucasians). The Mizraim lived mainly in Lower Egypt and were the Egyptians encountered most often by the Israelites. The Pathrusim lived mainly in Upper Egypt although they were not uncommon in Lower Egypt. These Pathrusim are the ancestors of today’s Fellahins.[7]
    Moreover, according to Deuteronomy 23:7-8, a marriage to an Egyptian was an acceptable marriage. The only restriction placed on these marriages was that the descendants of these marriages could not enter God’s assembly until the third generation.
    Genesis 38:2: “And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah; and he took her, and went in unto her.” Judah did marry a Canaanite. According to Deuteronomy 7:1-4, marriage with Canaanites was prohibited. Unfortunately for Tilson, nowhere does the text hint that this marriage was acceptable. On the contrary, it was a sin, and it led Judah to another sin: incest. This verse does not prove that mixed-racial marriages are acceptable. It just proves that humans, even Aryans, are sinners. If this verse proves that interracial marriages are acceptable, then Chapter 38 of Genesis also proves that incest and prostitution are acceptable.
    Genesis 41:50: “And unto Joseph were born two sons before the years of famine came, which Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him.” In Genesis 41:45 Joseph married Asenath, an Egyptian. As noted above, Egyptians at this time were of the same race as the Israelites, or at least the upper echelon of Egyptian society was although the peasants may have been of a different race.  Being the daughter of an Egyptian priest, Asenath was almost certainly the worshiper of Egyptian gods and not of Jehovah. Her name means “worshiper of Neith.” She may have converted later, but no evidence is given of such conversion. These verses are evidence that the Scriptural prohibition against mixed marriages is racial and not religious. A footnote in The Berkeley Version of the Bible to Genesis 46:20 affirms this: “Her training of Manasseh and Ephraim would hardly be in the Hebrew faith.” Therefore, Joseph married someone of his race who most likely was not of his religion.[8]
    Exodus 2:21: “And Moses was content to dwell with the man: and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter.” Numbers 12:1: “And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.”
    In Numbers 12:1 Moses had married an Ethiopian or a Cushite. (“Ethiopian” is the translation of Kûwshîy, which is literally “Cushite.”) Cush refers to Arabia in general, and Cushite refers to the people of Arabia in general.[9] Moses’s wife was a Midianite and a Kenite as well as a Cushite. Cush was a region, Arabia. Midian was an area within this region. The Kenites were a tribe or people inhabiting this area. An example of an English colonist who came to the United States helps illustrate this phenomenon. An Englishman living in Virginia could correctly be called an American (Cushite), a Virginian (Midianite), or an Englishman (Kenite). So closely related to the Israelites were the Kenites that they were later considered a part of Judah (1 Chronicles 2:55; 1 Samuel 27:10). The woman referred to in Exodus 2:21 is the same woman referred to in Numbers 12:1. The Bible gives no indication of Moses ever having more than one wife. Therefore, Moses’ wife was of the same race as he, so miscegenation did not occur.
    Exodus 12:38: “Many other people went up with them, and also large droves of livestock, both flocks and herds.” Since the Israelites were fleeing Egypt, assuming that these other people were Egyptians, Mizraim, is logical. As discussed above marriages with Egyptians were acceptable as they were racially identical to the Israelites.
    Numbers 11:4: “And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?” The explanation for this verse is the same as Exodus 12:38. The mixed multitude were Egyptians. (Perhaps, some of these Egyptians created most of the turmoil, complaints, and rebellion that the Israelites experienced in their journey to the Promised Land.)
    Leviticus 24:10: “And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp.” As shown above, marriages with Egyptians (Mizraim) were not prohibited because Mizraim were Aryans.
    Deuteronomy 21:10-13: “(10) When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, (11) And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; (12) Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; (13) And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.”
    These verses need to be read in the context of Deuteronomy 7:1-3. Deuteronomy 7:1, 3 reads, “(1) When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; (3) Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.”
    The only logical conclusion is that God did not reverse Himself in Deuteronomy 21:10-13. The prohibition in Deuteronomy 7:1-3 remained in effect. (The people identified in Deuteronomy 7:1 were most likely Aryan-Melanochroi hybrids.) However, He was clarifying that the Israelites could marry Aryans, such as the Philistines, who resided in the region of their present and future conquests. (What is not mentioned either way are the Rephaim, Anakim, Nephilim, and related people who lived in that area. They were remnants of the human species of giants that lived on the Earth before the Flood. [The Nephilim are mentioned as living before the Flood in Genesis 6:4 and after the Flood in Numbers 13:33.][10] God must have known the females of these people were so repugnant in the eyes of the Israelites that they would not consider marrying them. This species of human seems to have become extinct by the time that the Israelites split into Israel and Judah.)
    However, Tilson ignores Deuteronomy 23:2: “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 New Jerusalem Bible). If God approves of interracial mating, why does He forbid the mix breed offspring of such relations from entering His assembly? On the contrary, God values racial purity so much that He does not want a racially mixed person to be part of His congregation or church.[11]
    That the Rachab of Matthew 1:5 is the same as the Rahab of Jericho is highly unlikely. In Matthew, Rachab is identified as David’s great-great-grandmother. David was born about 1049 B.C. Jericho fell about 1450 B.C. Thus, 400 years elapsed between the fall of Jericho and the birth of David. Therefore, the average age of David’s father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and great-great-grandmother would be 100 years when they bore David or his ancestor. Too much time elapsed between the fall of Jericho and the birth of David for Rachab of Jericho to be David’s great-great-grandmother. The conclusion is that the Rachab who married Salmon was an Israelite.
    As for Ruth, true, she was a Moabite. However, she was a Moabite by residence — not by race. Ruth lived in the country of Moab and was, therefore, a Moabite. However, she was not racially a Moabite. Moab had absorbed much of Reuben, so she may have been a Reubenite. Mexico can be used to illustrate this phenomenon. Both Aryans and Turanian Indians live in Mexico. Both are called Mexicans, but they differ racially. Ruth was racially the same as Boaz, so miscegenation did not occur.
    Except for Ezra 9 and 10, Tilson fails to discuss any of the many verses that support those who oppose miscegenation and interracial mating. These verses include: Genesis 6:1-7, Genesis 24:1-4, Genesis 26:34-35, Genesis 28:1-2, 6-7, Genesis chap. 34, Exodus 11:7, Exodus 33:16, Exodus 34:10-16, Leviticus 19:19, Leviticus 20:26, Leviticus 21:14, Numbers chap. 23, 24, and 25, Deuteronomy 7:1-4, Deuteronomy 23:2, Joshua 23:12-13, Judges 3:5-8, 1 King 8:53, 1 King 11:1-8, 1 King 16: 30, 31, 1 King 21:25, Nehemiah 8:1-18, 9:1-3, Nehemiah 10:28-31, Nehemiah 13:1-3, 23-31, Psalm 106:28-35, Isaiah 2:1-9 (esp. v. 6), Jeremiah 2:19-25, 29, Ezekiel 16:15-39, Ezekiel 44:6-23, Hosea 5:3-7, Hosea 6:7-10, Hosea 10:1-10, 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 6:18, 1 Corinthians 10:1-11 (esp. v. 8), Hebrews 12:12-17, Hebrews 13:4, 2 Peter 2:9-16, Jude 3-11, Revelations 2:12-14, Revelations 2:18-23, Revelations 5:9, 7:9, 11:9, 13:7, 14:6, 17:15, 21:24, 22:2.[12]
    Tilson does discuss Ezra 9 and 10, one of the strongest arguments in the Bible for racial segregation. He attacks that argument by making a host of assumptions that are not in the text. Thus, he is guilty of what he accuses the segregationists of doing, that is, making assumptions that are poorly supported by the text.
    Tilson discusses the importance of God as the Creator. He notes that there are two types of ways that people view God as Creator: “self-renouncing individuals standing on the threshold of despair, and self-centered individuals reminding the world and the Lord of their magnificent gifts and glorious achievements.”[13] Tilson probably considers himself the former, yet he gives God no credit for creating the races. Then he asks, “How can you possibly justify the attachment of so much importance to differences in the color of human skin?”[14] The answer is that God created them. This answer Tilson rejects. Since God created the races, people of all races need to work to prevent their demise. The surest action that will preserve them is racial separation, as that great civil rights leader Roy Innis declares.
    Tilson believes that people who want to separate from people of other races want God to give their race favorable treatment. There may be some truth to this. However, separate or different treatment does not necessarily mean better or worse treatment. What he claims about race is equally true of intelligence, talent, and ability. Ultimately, all these come from God. If one needs his appendix removed, his prejudice will lead him to discriminate against barbers in favor of a surgeon.
    Like most integrationists, Tilson equates the desire for racial separation and segregation with racial hatred. While some segregationists advocate racial separation or segregation because they hate Blacks, many do not. Where is hatred implied in the desire for segregation? Does one hate people with a level four or five contagious diseases because they do not want to be around them? Does someone hate people who speak a foreign language because he prefers not being around such people? Most people prefer segregating their children from pedophiles. Do they express this preference because they hate pedophiles? Catholic nunneries discriminate against men and refuse to integrate with men. Does this mean that nuns hate men? If he is consistent, Tilson would answer all these questions yes; they discriminate and segregate because of hate. Actually, these acts of discrimination and segregation are important to protect the health, morals, and welfare of the people involved. Likewise, racial segregation and separation are important in the protection of the lives of the races. Racial prejudice is not a sin; it is a love of one’s race. 
    Tilson asks, “Do you ground your plea for integration in the equality of men among men or in the equal dependence of all creatures on their Creator?”[15] According to Acts 17:26, God determined the boundaries of the habitats for the various races. As the Creator assigned each race its habitat, the integrationists must base their plea on the equality of men among men.
    Tilson believes that the Bible presents God as treating humans equally, i.e., God is an egalitarian. It does not, and God is no egalitarian. For example, according to Revelation 17:8, not everyone’s name is “written in the book of life.” Those “not found written in the book of life . . . [are] cast into the lake of fire” (Revelation 20:15). Some people receive eternal life. Some people receive eternal death. What greater inequality is there than this?
    Moreover, Daniel 12:2 shows a three-tier treatment of man. First “many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake.” Not everyone will be awakened — an inequality of treatment and condition. Second, of those awakened, some awaken “to everlasting life” and “some to shame and everlasting contempt” — again inequality of treatment and condition. If all men were equal, would they not all receive the same treatment?
    Other examples illustrating that God is not an egalitarian are found in Malachi 11:2, 3, Exodus 33:19, Deuteronomy 7:1-6, Matthew 15:26, 22:14, 25: 14-30, 25:31-34, 41, John 9:1-6, Romans 9:20-23, and 2 Peter 2:12.[16]
    In expressing his affinity for Negroes, Tilson argues for conditions, laws, and policies that result in the death of the Negro. He has a terminal case of Negrophilia-Albuphobia.[17] As much as he loves the Negro, he seems to hate the Aryan even more. The conditions, laws, and policies that he supports and advocates result in the death of both. Yet he would claim that what he promotes would not result in their death because neither really exists. He seems to believe or wants to believe that neither race exists in spite of writing a book condemning racial segregation, which cannot exist without races.
    Tilson presents integration as divinely ordained by God. If integration is good and holy as Tilson maintains, why would God let atheist Communists and their camp followers lead the charge for integration?[18] He does not say. Moreover, he seems oblivious to the involvement and importance of Communists in the integration and civil rights movement. The answer is that integration is not good and holy. In Old Testament times God often used pagan nations to punish Israel and Judah for straying from Him. Likewise, today God is using integration and related actions, such as open borders, to punish the Aryan people of the West for straying from Him.

Endnotes

1. Everett Tilson, Segregation and the Bible (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press), 1958.

2. Thomas Coley Allen, Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co.), 1999.

3. Tilson, p. 20.

4. Thomas Coley Allen, False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of the Races and Interracial Marriages (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co.), 2001, pp. 18-19. V. S. Herrell, The Six Law of God Ού μοιχεύσεις, 3rd ed.  (Kodak: Herrell Brothers Publishing House), 1999.

5. Thomas Coley Allen, Integration Is Genocide (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co.), 1997, pp. 10-13.

6. Thomas Coley Allen, Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co.), 1998, pp. 51ff.

7. Allen, False Biblical Teachings, p. 12.

8. Allen, False Biblical Teachings, p. 12. Allen, Adam to Abraham, p. 71.

9. Allen, Integration Is Genocide, pp. 73-77.

10. Allen, Adam to Abraham, pp. 185-189.

11. Allen, False Biblical Teachings, pp. 19-21.

12. Allen, Integration Is Genocide, pp. 13-17.

13. Tilson, pp. 100-101.

14. Tilson, p. 102.

15. Tilson, p. 103.

16. Allen, Integration Is Genocide, pp. 77-79.

17. Allen, Integration is Genocide, pp. 64-65.

18. Thomas Allen, “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement,” 2015.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on religion.

Miscegenation Is Not a Personal Matter

Miscegenation Is Not a Personal Matter

Thomas Allen

    Every person has an obligation to ensure the welfare of his country, which, by the way, is not its government, which is often his country’s greatest enemy. He has a legitimate interest and right to protect his country from those within and without who would destroy his country. Whatever a person might do to endanger the welfare of his country is the concern of every one of that country. Therefore, the endangerment of a country is not a personal matter.
    So it is with the races, or more correctly species,[1] of humans. Every person has an obligation to ensure the welfare of his race. Thus, he has a legitimate interest and right to protect his race from those who would destroy his race. Whatever a person might do to endanger the welfare of his race is the concern of everybody of that race as a whole. Therefore, the endangerment of a race is not a personal matter.
    As miscegenation destroys both races involved, members of both races involved have a legitimate interest, even an obligation, to prevent interracial mating. Interracial marriages are not a personal matter. They lead to breeding the races out of existence. Therefore, they are detrimental to the races involved.
    Anyone who believes that miscegenation should take precedence over his race is a traitor to his race. As such, he should be treated as a traitor to his country is treated — even more so.
    Ira Calvin observes that betrayal of one’s race is worse than treason to one’s country:

If it be treason to advocate the overthrow of the government of a people, it follows, as truly as the fact that the whole is greater than any of its parts, that to advocate the destruction of the people themselves is the highest kind of treason.[2]

Thus, anyone who contrives in any way to integrate a person of one race into another race is guilty of the highest form of treason. Not only does he advocate the destruction of this race in a particular country, but he also advocates the destruction of that entire race globally.
    Each race has a duty to undertake actions to preserve itself. Geographical separation is the most effective way. When that is not practical, segregation becomes the most effective. Segregation is nothing more than each race building a fence around itself to protect itself from the other races.
    Few people would deny a farmer the right to erect a fence between his dairy cattle and beef cattle to prevent their interbreeding. Are not the races of men more valuable than breeds of cattle? If they are, should not people undertake erecting barriers between the races of men to prevent their interbreeding? Only a traitor would answer the last questions in the negative.
    People who want to allow interracial mating need to explain their hatred. Why do they hate the races involved so much that they willingly allow them to breed each other out of existence? Only hate could be behind such desire.
    Prohibition of miscegenation and the erection of barriers, segregation, that preserve each race do not deprive anyone of his rights. If they do, then erecting barriers to prevent treason also denies everyone his rights.
    On the contrary, segregation and the prohibition of miscegenation are based on one of the soundest principles known. That principle is that no one has the right to do things that destroy the property of another. Each race has its own unique set of physical, physiological, and psychological traits. Each has its own unique set of biological, anatomical, and morphological traits. Interracial marriage results in people of one race trying to steal or destroy the unique traits of another race. Therefore, each race has a duty to prevent this thief and destruction.
    Equal rights only exist where all have an equal legitimate interest. No person has equal rights in a house owned entirely by another. A person of one country does not have equal rights with the people of another country. He cannot vote, hold elective office, etc. Likewise, people of one race do not have equal rights with people of another race because each race has its own unique racial characteristics. They have no legitimate interest in any race other than their own. To claim that people of one race have a right to mix and mingle with another race is tantamount to giving people the right to enter and use the house of another without the owner’s permission.
    The sum of racial traits of a race belongs to that race and to no other race. They are the property of that race by birth and of that race only. Being born with these racial traits gives that person a legitimate interest and right in his race and in all matters that might affect his race. Where no legitimate interest exists, no rights exist.
    No person has equal rights in things where he does not have an equal legitimate interest. No person can be given rights in things where he has no legitimate interest. He can be given the privilege, but not the right, in things where he has no legitimate interest. Therefore, miscegenation is a privilege and not a right.
    Moreover, privileges usually violate liberty. Liberty exists where all men have equal rights in things where they have a legitimate interest and where no man has a right (privilege) in things where he has no legitimate interest.  (For example, liberty exists where every homeowner has the right to use his house, but does not have the right to use someone else’s house.) Thus, miscegenation violates liberty.
    The open-borders policy is the result of the U.S. government forcing, instead of preventing, the mixing and mingling of the races. Thus, the open-borders policy is a violation of equal rights. It gives people a right (privileges) in what is not legitimately theirs, i.e., it gives them rights in the country of another.
    People who oppose prohibiting miscegenation should also support an open-border-unlimited immigration policy. At least liberals most libertarians, and even some “conservatives” are consistent in supporting both miscegenation and open borders. However, when their own house is being violated, nearly all of them act inconsistently. They oppose people who have no legitimate interest in their houses acting as though they do. This is proof that they care nothing about their country or their race, or any other race for that matter. A consistent, rational person would favor policies that protect his race, country, and home and oppose policies that destroy them.
    Integration is a violation of equal rights. It gives people of one race a right in what is not legitimately theirs, i.e., it gives them the rights to the property of another race.
    About rights, O.R. Williams writes:

The right to racial segregation is based upon the RIGHTS OF MAN.  And the RIGHTS OF MAN must be  grounded  in  this principle: That no man should have any rights where he does not have a legitimate interest; and based upon this principle, no man, or any group of men, will have any rights to things that belong, only, to an individual — an individual person, or an individual group of persons.[3]

    One of the greatest lies since the serpent deceived Eve is that if two people of different races marry, that marriage is no one else’s business. Such a marriage is not an individual matter between the two individual members. It is a matter of everyone in each race involved.
    When someone does something that affects only himself, it is an individual matter. When someone does something that affects himself and others, it becomes a matter of the others affected. Interracial mating affects more than the two people involved. It affects their races. Each race is like an individual; thus, when two people of the same race marry, that marriage is an individual matter — both personally and racially. Such marriage does not lead to the destruction of that or any other race. However, when people of different races marry, it is more than an individual matter. It is even more than individual racial matter. A racially mixed marriage is a concern of every one of the two races involved because it leads to the destruction of both races. Interracial mating is a concern of every one of the races involved because it results in the amalgamation and mongrelization of the races involved. It destroys the common property of each race; that is, it destroys the unique racial traits of each race.
    To argue otherwise is to claim that traitors have the right to aid in the destruction of their country. Moreover, treason is a personal matter and should not be prohibited or punished. The only difference between race and country is that one is biological and the other is geographical.
    Writing at a time when some States cared enough about the races to prevent their self-destruction, Archibald Coody writes:

The law forbids the marriage of negroes and white persons, and provides that such marriages are void, which is certainly not discrimination. If either race feels humiliated or offended at this separation, it thereby confesses its sense of inferiority.[4]

Unfortunately, these laws have been stricken and removed.
    Not only does interracial mating lead to the destruction of the races, but it is also detrimental to the offspring. Coody summaries this detrimental effect of striving for social equality and the resulting miscegenation:

In a marriage of black and white, upon whose past, do we build? Sleswick or the Congo?  Of what history would the child be proud? To whom would homage be paid? To what ideals would its allegiance be given? A marriage between white persons, one an American and one, say a German, poses a problem of loyalty. The child has two great traditions of culture and achievement, but it must and will believe in one more than in the other. But it is a problem only of present and surface emotions and psychology. The problem of the mulatto is infinitely greater because he combines two diverse and irreconcilable traditions. Loyalty to one means repudiation of the other. He is at home with neither the white nor the black. Unable to be true to either parent, he cannot be true to self. These and other conditions needless to mention, are sufficient to show the utter futility of any plan of social equality. For social equality is worse than a farce if we draw the line at marriage — it ceases to have meaning.[5]

Most of these mulattoes end up being what the great civil rights leader Roy Innis calls “house niggers”:

In America today there are two kinds of black people — the field-hand blacks and the ‘house niggers.’ We of CORE — the nationalists — are the field-hand blacks. The integrationists of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People are ‘house niggers.’[6]

    Each race needs to respect the rights and property of all other races. Each race needs to support and undertake actions to protect and preserve the rights and the unique properties of all races. The most effective policies known to achieve this goal are separation and prohibition of miscegenation.
    All need to remember the words of wisdom given by Innis:

Under segregation, black people live together but their institutions are controlled by whites. Under integration, black people are dispersed and the institutions, goods and services are still controlled by whites. In effect, the two are the same. But under separatism, black people will control their own turf.[7]

Miscegenation is the highest form of integration.

Endnotes

1. Thomas Coley Allen, Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis (Franklinton, N.C.: TC Allen Co.), 1999.

2. Ira Calvin, The Lost White Race (Brookline, Mass.: Countway-White Publications), [1945], p. 111.

3. O.R. Williams, Sr., Segregation and Common Sense (Boston, Mass.: Forum Publishing Co.), 1961, pp. 206-207.

4. Archibald Coody IV, Capter Number Six: The Race Question from the White Chief: A Story of the Life and Times of James K. Vardaman (Jackson, Miss.: Archibald Coody IV). 1944, p. 70.

5. Coody, p. 85.

6. Francis X. Gannon, Biographical Dictionary of the Left, III (1972), p. 464.

7. Gannon, p. 462.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on social issues.

Species of Men

Species of Men

Thomas Allen

Either we must admit different species in the genus Homo, or we must entirely reform zoological classification. – George Pouchet

    The following tables show the major branches, racial types, and representative nationalities or people of the several extant species of men.

For a detailed description of these species and racial types, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen and "The American Indian" and "Indo-Australian."

 More articles on anthropolgy.

Analysis of Money No Mystery

Analysis of Money No Mystery

Thomas Allen

    The following is an analysis of Money No Mystery: Mastery by Monopoly by Arnold Leese [1938] (Hollywood, California: Sons of Liberty). Leese  (1878–1956) was a British fascist politician. What is proposed in his book is a fascist monetary system. He discusses some Jewish issues that are not addressed since they are beyond the scope and objective of this article. His words and my paraphrases or summaries of his words, I have italicized. My commentary is in roman letters. I have provided references to pages in his book and have enclosed them in parentheses.
    Mr. Leese comments on gold’s suitability for money. One property that makes gold suitable for money is its rarity (p. 3.). Rarity is an important characteristic for money if it is not too rare. What makes gold the most suitable metal for money is its flow-to-stock ratio. Annually, newly mined gold accounts for about 2 percent of the above ground stock of gold available for monetary use. Thus, newly mined gold does not have much effect on the value of gold.
    Mr. Leese remarks that irredeemable paper money had reached “a stage of general stability” (p. 3.). That may have been true during the late 1930s when he wrote. However, that stability was lost during World War II and the decades that followed.
    Like all fiat money advocates, Mr. Leese believes that governmental fiat gives money its value. Government can give otherwise worthless pieces of paper great value by declaring them legal tender and by that eliminate any need for gold backing (p. 3.). If governmental fiat can give money value, bimetallism would have worked. Gold and silver would have exchanged at the same value at the ratio decreed by the government. (Presumably, they would exchange at the same value even if various countries had radically different ratios.) If government fiat and legal-tender laws gave money its value, a $10 U.S. note would have had the same purchasing power as a $10 gold coin in the United States between 1862 and 1879. Instead U.S. notes traded at a discount to gold until they became redeemable on demand in gold.
    Mr. Leese claims, “No one inside this country [Great Britain] cared a scrap whether the legalised paper money was convertible or not into gold; he didn’t want gold; he wanted goods, and got them, through the scraps of paper legalised by the State as National Money” (p. 3.). That may be true. Only a miser wants money because it is money regardless of form. Most people want money so that they can trade it or invest it now or some time in the future. Convertibility into gold serves as a regulator of credit, paper money, and keeps it within proper bounds. If the government or banks are issuing too much paper money or other types of credit money, people will redeem the excess and halt the expansion. Gold keeps the monetary system honest and thwarts the expansionist programs of statists, which is why fascists and other statists hate it.
    Mr. Leese has a better understanding of the gold standard than most post-World-War-II writers, including proponents of the gold standard. He knew that the British pound was the value of 113 grains of gold (p. 4).
    Like most opponents of the gold standard, Mr. Leese declares, “Few people wanted to do this [exchange bank note for gold], because gold has limited functions in general utility; you can’t eat it, drink it, make clothes of it or even flirt with it; before you can make use of it, you have to exchange it for something you want” (p. 4). Thus, he presents one of the most absurd arguments that opponents of gold give. One can eat and wear gold. However, such an argument against gold is stupid and is intended to deceive. The same thing can be said about paper fiat money and even more so about its electronic equivalent. How does one eat, drink, and wear electrons, which make up the bulk of today’s money, flowing through some unknown computer at some unknown location?
    Mr. Leese makes an error common to most opponents and proponents of the gold standard. He asserts that if all paper money is not fully backed by gold, a true gold standard does not exist (p. 4.). The true gold standard does not require all paper money and other forms of market-generated credit money to be backed by gold. Bank credit money (bank notes and checkbook money) can also be backed by commercial money, real bills of exchange, which are themselves a form of market-generated credit money — the real bills doctrine.
    According to Mr. Leese, the international gold standard leads to people and countries attempting to corner gold to “become masters of the International Industrial situation.” Jews were the primary people who cornered gold. By cornering gold, Jews gain control of fixing the rate of interest (p. 4-5). Where the real bills doctrine operates, many financial transactions are with commercial money — not with gold. The propensity of consumers to buy fixes the discount rate of bills of exchange, which is not really interest — not the hoarders of gold. Hoarders of gold have much less power than their opponents give them. (A more detail discussion on hoarding gold is given in “Is Gold Too Easy to Manipulate?”)  As Jews control most of the paper money issued today through central bank operations, abandoning the gold standard for fiat paper money does not eliminate this issue. It does not assuage Leese’s problem of Jewish control of the monetary system. (Perhaps this is why the Protocols of Zion advocates abandoning the gold standard in favor of fiat paper money [v.i.].)
    Mr. Leese writes, “The Financier can, by using his control of Gold to expand or contract the volume of Money (currency or credit) in circulation, create boom or slump in Britain” (p. 5.). As post World-War-II history shows, the financier can more easily expand and contract the volume of paper money. He can expand the money supply far greater under today’s monetary system than he could under the gold standard. Thus, when the inevitable slump comes, it is more severe or last much longer than it would have under the gold standard.
    Like most opponents of the gold standard, Mr. Leese asserts that gold cannot “supply the industrial need for National Money” (p. 5). As I show in “There Is Enough Gold,” enough gold exists to accommodate world commerce several times over when accompanied by the proper credit system, the real bills doctrine. Enough gold was available in 2004 to accommodate 3.8 times the gross world product of 2007 without fractionalization of gold.
    Mr. Leese discusses Britain’s return to the gold standard following World War I (pp. 6-7).
    Mr. Leese writes, “OUR National Money must be divorced from its association with Gold” (p. 8). This part of his proposal has been achieved. In 1971 when President Nixon ended the gold exchange standard, Bretton Wood system, gold ceased any formal role in the world’s monetary systems.
    Mr. Leese states that countries (Great Britain) should pay for imports with domestic paper money that can only be exchanged for goods and services in the importing country (p. 8). To some degree, bills of exchange serve this purpose. The world is in the process of achieving the intent of his proposal by abandoning the U.S. dollar standard that has been in place since World War II. However, his proposal seems to require country A to buy from country B the value of products that it sells to country B. Such an arrangement would greatly hamper foreign trade.
    Mr. Leese recognizes the need to control the amount of money issued (p. 8). He does not offer any mechanism for doing this other than trusting politicians and bureaucrats. Thus, politicians and bureaucrats would have to act contrary to their nature by not seeking to increase their prestige, power, and wealth.
    Mr. Leese discusses how the practices of lending for interest came to Great Britain and the adverse effects of interest (pp. 9-12). Under fascism, interest on foreign loans belong to the people of the country as a whole and not to the individuals who lend the money abroad (p. 11). By “people as a whole” he probably means the government — at least that is what most statists mean. However, the government is not the people as a whole. It has never been and never will be. It is the small group of people controlling it. If the people as a whole are to receive the interest paid on foreign loans, some mechanism needs to be in place to divide that interest among the individuals of the country without the government getting part of it.
    Mr. Leese opposes the Social Credit scheme (p. 12). I discuss the flaws of Social “Credits in Analysis of Richard Cook’s Monetary Reforms.”
    Mr. Leese presents the monetary reforms of the Imperial Fascist League (pp. 12-15). A “Department of Issue is established to control absolutely the issue of currency and credit” (p. 13). Its objectives are:
    (1) Gradually inflate money and credit until the price level of commodities are raised to the level reached at the end of World War I (p. 13).
    (2) After achieving item 1 and in accordance with item 3, stabilize the purchasing power of money so that it becomes as fixed as the yard (meter), pint (liter), and pound (gram) and no longer varies; expand and contract the money supply to maintain a stable level of a general-price index (p. 13).
    (3) Adjust currency and credit until production is sufficient to satisfy the needs of the country and its exportation overseas (p. 13).
    (4) Retire gradually all external and internal interest-bearing government securities with non-interest bearing currency (pp. 13-14), i.e., with non-interest bearing government notes or central bank notes that function like government notes.
    (5) Adjust gradually “to the new values by limiting currency inflation, in the early stages, to State disbursements” (p. 14), i.e., the government gets the new money first before it loses value.
    (6) Distribute equitably credit inflation to agriculture and industry (p. 14).
    (7) Balance imports and exports by tariffs, embargoes, and trade packs that enforce equality in exchange value (p. 14). The trade issue is discussed above.
    Mr. Leese does not propose governmental ownership of banking. However, banks are stripped of their ability to create money via lending. That is, he advocates 100‒percent reserve banking. The government introduces new money by buying government securities and cancelling them and with low-interest loans. Only the government can lend money for mortgages, which are lent through deposit banks. The government fixes all bank interest rates (pp. 14-15).
    His proposal has so many flaws, one knows hardly where to begin. His system depends on the wisdom and integrity of politicians and bureaucrats. If that were not enough, his proposal also depends on them be omniscient. Governments have attempted items 1, 2, and 3. So far they have all failed.
    Moreover, all price indexes are flawed. They always over count some items and under count others. As people’s tastes constantly change, price indexes need to be revised often to account for changing tastes. Also, changes in technology affect quality and cost as well as offering new items not in the index. These changes need to be considered. An ever-changing price index makes comparing the cost of living over an extended time questionable. Furthermore, governmentally generated price indexes are subjected to political consideration. Politicians like to conceal inflation, so they adjust price indexes to hide the real cost of living.
    Most countries can achieve item 4, if so desired, by having their central banks buy all their securities. To keep such action from resulting in massive inflation,  if not hyperinflation, would require large-scale restraint of the monetary and banking system.
    When governments fix interest rates, they drive high-risk borrowers to the black market (loan sharks) for loans. To propose involving the government in the mortgage and lending markets is fuel for corruption and disaster. Governmental intervention in the mortgage and lending markets was a major contributor to the crash of 2008. When governments become involved in economic activities, politics usually trump economics.
    A great irony of Mr. Leese’s fascist proposal of replacing the gold standard with fiat paper money is that the Jewish Protocols of Zion has the same proposal. The Jewish proposal is set out in Protocol 20:

        The present issue of money in general does not correspond with the requirements per head, and cannot therefore satisfy all the needs of the workers. The issue of money ought to correspond with the growth of population and thereby children also must absolutely be reckoned as consumers of currency from the day of their birth. The revision of issue is a material question for the whole world.
        You are aware that the gold standard has been the ruin of the States which adopted it, for it has not been able to satisfy the demands for money, the more so that we [Jews] have removed gold from circulation as far as possible.
        With us [Jews] the standard that must be introduced is the cost of working-man power, whether it be reckoned in paper or in wood. We shall make the issue of money in accordance with the normal requirements of each subject, adding to the quantity with every birth and subtracting with every death.[1]

The two proposals merely disagree in the criteria to use in deciding how much money the government needs to inject into the economy. Was Mr. Leese an agent of the Jews?
    Mr. Leese’s proposal fails to achieve his purported goal. It does not make the monetary system or economy better — at least not in the long run. However, it greatly increases the power of the government, i.e., those who actually control the government, over the economy and the people. As such control is a goal of fascism, Mr. Leese’s proposal does successfully achieve that fascist goal.

Endnote
1. Protocol of the Learned Elders of Zion, ed. Sergyel Nilus, trans. Victor E. Marsden (1905, 1922), p. 16.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on money.