Cush and Ethiopia

Cush and Ethiopia

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: Footnotes in the original are omitted. The footnotes contain the King James Version of the scripture being discussed.]

    There is good evidence that “Cush” or Kûwsh, son of Ham, is not synonymous with the region south of Egypt, biblical African Ethiopia. In the Scriptures, it is seldom, if ever, used as a synonym for biblical African Ethiopia. This is especially true for Genesis 2:13, 10:6ff; Numbers 12:1; 2 Samuel 18:21; 2 Chronicles 14:8ff, 21:16; Psalm 87:4; Isaiah 11:11, 20:3, 43:3, 45:14; Ezekiel 28:10; and Habakkuk 3:7.
    Most, if not all, biblical dictionaries identify Cush with Ethiopia, a region south of Egypt. However, most mention the existence of an Arabian Cush. The biblical African Ethiopia stretched from Aswan in present-day Egypt through northern and eastern present-day Sudan into northern present-day Ethiopia. It was the region between the junction of the Blue and White Nile to the First Cataract, the location of present-day Aswan and biblical Syene.
    In the Septuagint and Vulgate, “Cush” is usually translated “Ethiopia.” In the King James Version, Kûwsh is translated “Cush” eight times and “Ethiopia” nineteen times. Kûwshîy (“Cushite”) is translated “Ethiopian” eight times and “Ethiopians” twelve times. Many other translation follow the King James Version. The Hebrew words should have been consistently and correctly translated “Cush” or “Cushite.” Such translation would have avoided the confusion of identifying Cush with modern-day Ethiopia, Nubia, or biblical African Ethiopia.
    Most often, Cush refers to a people or region in Arabia instead of the region in Africa south of Egypt. As noted above, a number of Scriptural passages support this conclusion. Some of them are reviewed below.
    First, Moses married a Cushite woman (Numbers 12:1) of Midian (Exodus 2:16,21; 3:1). Midian is in northwest Arabia and eastern Sinai. Zipporah is the only wife of Moses mentioned in the Pentateuch. Did Moses travel to the Upper Nile to Nubia or Abyssinia to find his wife or did he take a wife in eastern Sinai or northwest Arabia? The latter. (Some commentators claim that Zipporah is not the Cushite woman. Their argument is based on rejecting Midian as part of Cush. However, if Cush was Arabia, as most Scriptures referring to Cush imply, instead of Abyssinia or Nubia, then this claim loses its weight.) Cushites include Midianites and other Arabic people. In Habakkuk 3:7 Cushan is mentioned in parallel with Midian identifying two names for the same region. (In Hebrew “cushan” (kûwshân) is believe to be derived from “cush”(kûwsh).  Hence, “cushan” is another name for “cush.”) In Judges 1:16, Moses’ father-in-law is called a Kenite. The Midianites, Kenites, and Cushites referred to in these passages are all the same people.
    Second, in Ezekiel 29:10, God says that He will make Mizraim (or Egypt) a land of desolation from the tower of Syene (Seveneh) to the borders of Cush. Syene was Aswan near the Nile’s first cataract on the border of Egypt and Nubia (Ethiopia). If Cush is synonymous with Ethiopia, then the passage reads, “from Ethiopia to Ethiopia,” which is nonsensical. However, from Syene to Cush beyond the Isthmus of Suez gives the passage sense. Cush refers to Egypt’s eastern border, not its southern border. Hence, Cush refers to Arabia or a region of Arabia.
    Third, in Genesis 10:7-8, lists the descendants of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, Sabtechah, Sheba, Dedan, and Nimrod. Nimrod is associated with Mesopotamia. The remainder are associated with the Arabian Peninsula. However, Seba appears to have crossed over to Africa and settled along the coast of present-day Ethiopia and Djibouti.
    Fourth, in Genesis 2:13, before the Noachian Flood, Cush was identified with Mesopotamia. This identification assumes that Eden was in or near Mesopotamia. However, because “Cush” is translated “Ethiopia,” some place Eden in present-day Ethiopia. Thus, the four rivers flowing from Eden are the White Nile, The Blue Nile, the Atbara, and the Tekezé (Takkaze). More likely, Eden was where the Pamir Plateau of Central Asia is now with the four rivers being the Indus, the Jaxartes (Syr Darya), the Oxus (Amu Darya), and the Tarim (see Allen’s Adam to Abraham for a more detailed discussion). This would place the original Cush in Central Asia. In any event, it is not in Africa where the King James version places it. However, if the Noachian Flood was global, trying to locate Eden based on post-Flood geography is ridiculous. After the Flood washed away all land and covered much of the planet with sedimentary deposits, which in some place is more than a mile thick, the geography before the Flood bears no resemblance to the geography after it.
    Fifth, the description given in Isaiah 11:11 indicates that Cush is Arabia. This verse names countries to which the Jews were dispersed during the Exile. Pathros was part of Egypt (Ezekiel 29:4). Hamath was north of Phoenicia. Elam and Shinar bordered the Persian Gulf. Islands of the sea were the islands of Greece and the Mediterranean. Cush must have represented Arabia and not some country 1500 miles away. If Cush is Arabia, then the countries named circumscribe Judea. That Jews were dispersed to nearby Arabia, part of which was under the rule of Babylon, is highly probable and likely. That Jews were dispersed to a far away country beyond the southern border of Egypt and beyond Babylon’s rule is highly improbable and unlikely. Furthermore, if Cush here is not equivalent to Arabia, then this immense peninsula, which was very familiar — much more so than Ethiopia — to the Judeans, would be omitted from the list of countries around Judea. (The King James Version got this one right.) Moreover, the Jews were recalled from the regions in which the remnant remained. However, at that time, the Jews had never colonized Ethiopia and were never carried there in their captivity.
    Sixth, according to 2 Chronicles 14:13, the Cushites (or Ethiopians) fled to Gerar, which is located in southern Palestine in the foothills of Judean mountains in southern Philistia; it was between the Kingdom of Judea and the wilderness of Shur and Paran. Hence, it is the extreme northwest of Cush (Arabia) to which Zerah fled. Thus, the battle was in northwest Arabia. Zerah was probably a powerful chieftain coming out of Arabia instead of a Nubian from south of Egypt.
    Seventh, in 2 Chronicles 21:16, the Arabs are described as being near, living near, or located by the Cushites (or Ethiopians in most translations). In this verse, Cushites must be in Arabia instead of Africa. Arabs at this time were much nearer Arabia than Africa.
    Eighth, in Psalm 87:4, the Psalmist names Rahab (or Egypt), Babylon, Philistia, Tyre, and Ethiopia (Cush). This verse describes the countries encompassing Zion or Judea: Rahab to the south and southwest, Philistia to the west, Tyre to the northwest and north, Babylon to the north and east, Cush to the southeast and south. Here Cush must refer to Arabia, not Africa, to complete the encompassing.
    Several verses are occasionally cited to prove that Ethiopia (Cush) was south of Egypt and, therefore, Ethiopians were Negroes. These verses include 2 Kings 19:9; 2 Chronicles 14:9-14; Isaiah 20:3-5, 43:3, 45:14; Jeremiah 13:23, 46:9; and Ezekiel 30:5, 38:2-6. A few of these are discussed below.
    First, Jeremiah 13:23 is used to prove that Ethiopians were Negroes; thus, Ethiopia would then be in Africa south of Egypt. This verse does not identify the race of the Ethiopians and, therefore, does not prove that Ethiopians were Negroes (they were Melanochroi regardless of their location in Nubia and Abyssinia or Arabia). However, this verse does imply the immutability of the races, species, of humans.
    Second, in 2 Kings 19:9, Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia (Cush) was more likely an Arab than an African. The king of Assyria observed Tirhakah advancing toward Hezekiah. The Assyrian king’s ambassador advised Hezekiah that Tirhakah would not save Judea from the Assyrians. Was it more likely that the Assyrians learned of an African army before Hezekiah, whose kingdom was contiguous Africa? Or, was it more likely that the Assyrians would have notice an army coming out of Arabia before Hezekiah did? One point in favor of Tirhakah coming from Africa instead of Arabia is that African Ethiopians had recently gained control of Egypt.
    Third, excluding Magog, which is unidentifiable, although some believe it is Russia, the nations described in Ezekiel 38:2-6 are in or around Assyria if Cush is understood to mean Arabia instead of the region south of Egypt and Libya is not the region west of Egypt. The King James Version translates bow as Libya. Most other translations translates bow as “Put” (In Genesis 10:6 and 1 Chronicles 1:8, the King James Version translates bow as Phut, and elsewhere it translates it as “Libya” or “Libyans.”) Although the location of Put or Phut is disputed, most place it in Africa. It is most commonly identified with Libya. It is also identified as east Africa bordering the Red Sea, i.e., from Upper Egypt to Somaliland. Based on the assumption that Cush is the region south of Egypt, Put has been identified with Punt, present-day Somaliland. If Cush is in Arabia and Lud refers to the Lydians in northeast Egypt (see the discussion on Lud below), then Put would be to the east of Egypt. “According to Glaser the name [Put] first referred to E. Arabia, was then transferred to the S. Arabian incense coast, and was eventually applied to the African coast of Somaliland” (Davis p, 504).
    Fourth, Ezekiel 30:5 mentions Cush (Ethiopia, KJV) together with Put (Libya, KJV), Lud (Lydia, KJV), and Chub. Chub or Cub is probably Lub or Lubim. Like Lub, Cub is generally identified as Lybia. Likewise, Lud or Ludim is often identified as Libya. However, some identify Lud with the Lydians who came from Lydia in Asia Minor and settled in northeast Egypt. Others identify Lud with a Berber tribe, a tribe in Cyrenaica, or Ionian and Carian mercenaries. Another possibility is mercenaries from Lydia in Asia Minor. In any event, Lubim were mercenaries, who were famous as archers. Nevertheless, the connection of the countries mentioned in Ezekiel 30:5 implies a geographical proximity. However, the proximity may be to the east of Egypt as well as to the south of Egypt. Arabia is a better choice because the Cushites are known to have settle in Arabia. However, that the Cushites or any other Hamites settle south of Egypt is doubtful.
    When the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek, the Septuagint translation, the translators translated “Cush” as “Ethiopia.” It is this maltranslation that has led to confusion of the Arabs with Nubians and the Arabian Peninsula with the Upper Nile.
    In Greek “Ethiopian” means “scorched-face” or “burned-face.” Hence, “Ethiopian” is a dark-complexioned person, such as a suntanned Arab. It was applied to the inhabitants of Arabia and northwest India. Herodotus described Asiatic Ethiopians in the army of Xerxes, who were different from the African Ethiopians. Only later, after 525 B. C., did the Greeks become aware of the Nubians, who were Melanochroi, and true Negroes south of Egypt. Over time “Ethiopian” became reserved only for these people.
    In summary “Cush” refers to Arabia in its widest sense and Arabian tribes, who are mostly a dark-complexion, Melanochroi, in chapter ten of Genesis. With perhaps the exception of a few passages in the later books of the Bible where geographical precision is sacrificed for poetry, “Cush” means Arabia not Abyssinia or Nubia. Where it may refer to an African people, it refers to Nubians and true Ethiopians, neither of whom are Negroes, but who are Melanochroi. It never includes any of the Negro races.

References
Allen, Thomas Coley. Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 1998.

Allen, Thomas Coley. Integration Is Genocide. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 1997.

Davis, John D. The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible. Revised by Henry Snyder Gehman. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1944.

Douglas, J.D. et al., editors. The New Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids: Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Fausset, A.R. Fausset’s Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1949.

Jacobus, Melanchthon W., Edward E. Norse, and Andrew C. Zenos, editors. A New Standard Bible Dictionary. New York, New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1926.

Miller, Madeleine S. and J. Lane Miller. Harper’s Bible Dictionary. 6th ed. New York, New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1959.

Unger, Merrill F. Unger’s Bible Dictionary. 3rd edition. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1960.

Winchell, Alexander. Preadamites or a Demonstration of the Existence of Men Before Adam; Together with a Study of Their Condition, Antiquity, Racial Affinities, and Progressive Dispersion over the Earth. Fourth Edition. Chicago, Illinois: S.C. Griggs and Company, 1888.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Rebuttals to Some Unlimited Immigration Arguments

Rebuttals to Some Unlimited Immigration Arguments

Thomas Allen

Below are rebuttals to arguments that immigration helps the economy and does not destroy languages or genocide people.

Destructiveness of Uncontrolled Immigration
Ask the Tasmanians how much immigrants helped their economy. Oh, I forgot, immigrants drove the Tasmanians to extinction. One would need a seance to ask them.

Ask the Indians of Hispaniola how much immigrants helped their economy. Again, I forgot that immigrants, mostly from Africa, drove them out of existence; what was not killed off were bred out of existence.

How well are the Chinese immigrants, who are genociding the Tibetans, helping the Tibetans economically? It may help the Chinese, but it is driving the Tibetans to extinction.

Then there are the Palestinians. Jewish immigrants have taken much of the land of the Palestinians and drove most Palestinians into large-scale concentration camps into which the Israelis fire missiles. Immigration may have helped the immigrant Jews economically, but it has done little for the native Palestinians.

Immigration was a great benefit to the Roman Empire. It so utterly destroyed the Roman Empire that nearly a thousand years were needed before the economy of the area covered by the old Empire returned to where it was before immigration destroyed it.

Mexico lost Texas to Anglo-American settlers primarily because they came as colonists and not as immigrants. They were of a different culture and language than Mexico and came in such numbers that they did not have to assimilate.

Immigration and Language
Some opponents of open-borders-unrestricted immigration claim that unrestricted immigration can change, corrupt, and even obliterate the language of a country. Some supporters of unrestricted immigration claim that such a notion is nonsense.

As evidence to support their assertion that unrestricted immigration does not destroy language, they point to the French-speaking Canadians. French-speaking Canadians have preserved their language for centuries in a sea of English speakers.

The proponents overlook the North American Indians. The North American Indians drowned in a flood of unrestricted immigration from Europe. As a result, many Indian languages are now extinct. Furthermore, many tribes became extinct — having been genocided by disease, war, and miscegenation. Moreover, not only do many remaining tribes no longer speak the language of their ancestors, none know how to speak it.

The Romans offer another example that supports those who oppose unrestricted immigration. Failing to control immigration, the Romans lost their Empire. If it were not for the Catholic Church adopting Latin as its official language, Latin would have died with the Empire. It would have gone the way of Gothic, Doric, Hittite, Babylonian, Assyrian, Punic, Egyptian, Coptic, and many other dead ancient languages.

Both the opponents and proponents of unrestricted immigration can find examples to support their argument. Nevertheless, the weight of the evidence supports the opponents.

North American Indians
As discussed above, many Indian languages and even Indian tribes have perished under the weight of uncontrolled immigration. Moreover, as a result of uncontrolled immigration, some Indian tribes have deteriorated so much that they no longer use genetics to decide who is a member of the tribe. Instead, they use cultural identity: Anyone who identifies with the culture of the tribe is a member. (In this respect, they are like many Southerners, Paul Gottfried [a Northerner], and some writers of Abbeville Institute. They identify Southerners, a term that they use to cover not only Whites, but also Blacks and presumably other races, by culture instead of genetics. Thus, they err. Correctly speaking, “Southerner” is an ethnic group, i.e., a genetic and cultural group, and identifies Whites born and reared in the South and Whites who have lived in the South so long that they are indistinguishable from native Southern Whites. Moreover, Blacks in the South differ culturally from Southerners and, also, from Whites.)

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Review of Brennan’s Swamp-Draining Proposals

Review of Brennan’s Swamp-Draining Proposals

Thomas Allen

In his article “Five Modest Swamp-Draining Proposals,” Chronicles (August 2019), Mark Brennan sets forth a five-point plan to reduce the size of the federal government by requiring federal employees to live like the rest of America.  Most of his suggestions appear to be limited to Washington, D.C. and perhaps the surrounding suburbs. His proposals should be extended to cover all federal facilities, whether owned or leased by the federal government.
Frequently, he refers to “federal employees.” By federal employees, he seems to imply civil service employees and perhaps presidentially appointed bureaucrats. The term should be extended to cover not only civil service employees, but also to cover the president, members of the cabinet, all other presidential appointees, all federal judges, all members of Congress and their staff, all military and naval personnel, and everyone else who receives a paycheck from the federal government. (“Federal employees” used in the following discussion is used in this broad sense.)
1. Brennan’s first proposal is to remove all air conditioners and fans from the geographic limits of Washington, D.C. This proposal should be extended to all federal facilities, wherever they are located. Moreover, it should be extended to heating. No thermostat should be set above 50ºF. Hospitals are the only exception to this cooling and heating proposal.
One of the great benefits of this proposal is that it shows that the federal government is serious about climate change. The federal government would be leading by example instead of by coercion. By reducing its fuel consumption, it reduces its carbon footprint. Certainly, federal employees are willing to make such a small sacrifice to save the planet.
2. Brennan’s second proposal is to require all federal employees to prepare and file their own taxes without assistance from anyone — including spouses, accountants, tax preparers, and tax preparation software. Further, he recommends that if a federal employee miscalculates his taxes due, he pays a penalty of 100 times the error. Moreover, if the person fails to pay the penalty within 30 days, he spends one day in jail for each $100 owed. (Presumably, if he fails to pay his taxes when due, he suffers the same penalty.)
Although nearly all taxpayers can find more valuable things to do with their time and money than compiling the information needed to file a tax return, completing and filing the forms, and paying the taxes due, Congress and the IRS cannot think of anything more valuable for taxpayers to do. Within a year after preparing their own tax forms, Congress would make significant changes in the income tax code and greatly simplify it. If Americans are really fortunate, Congress would abolish the income tax.
3. Brennan’s third proposal requires the two senators and the house representative to serve as casualty notification officers for the deaths of all military personnel in their district. Thus, they would see firsthand the anguish that their undeclared wars cause spouses, children, and parents. Currently, members of Congress bear no responsibility for endangering the lives of American soldiers for no reason other than transferring ever more wealth and power to the rich and powerful.
4. Brennan’s fourth proposal caps the annual pay of all federal employees at the current median household income, which was $61,372 for 2017. Thus, half the American households live on an income less than this amount.
Many politicians platitudinously claim to “feel our pain.” This reduction in their pay would offer them an opportunity to feel some of it.
Brennan’s proposal needs to be extended to cover benefits like paid vacation days, paid sick leave, health insurance, payments into retirement plans, etc.
5. Brennan’s fifth proposal requires all federal employees to send their children to the public schools in Washington, D.C. Presumably, he covers not only those employees who live in Washington but also the surrounding suburban cities. This proposal should be extended to all federal employees throughout the country.
Such an action would greatly increase the diversity of the public schools in Washington. And, what politician can resist more diversity? Moreover, this proposal is an egalitarian approach to education, and politicians are notorious for spouting their love of equality. This proposal provides the poor with the same quality of education that the rich receive.
Implementation of these proposals would remind the president, high-ranking bureaucrats, congressmen, senators, and judges how the average American lives and to keep them in touch with reality.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Economic Advantage

Economic Advantage

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2019, by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on economics.

Review of Boudreaux’s “Questions for Immigration Skeptics”

Review of Boudreaux’s “Questions for Immigration Skeptics”

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Allen.

More political articles.

The Difference Between Government and State

The Difference Between Government and State

Thomas Allen

In Fugitive Essays: Selected Writings of Frank Chodorov (Charles H. Hamilton, editor; Indianapolis, Indiana: Liberty Fund, Inc., 1980). Chodorov gives an excellent, concise explanation of the difference between government and state. (Here, state means a political entity and not a territorial entity as commonly used in the United States.) Referenced page numbers to quotations from this book are enclosed in parentheses.
Chodorov defines government as:

a specialized service arising out of community life. It owes its existence to the individual’s interest in himself. Its specific job is to maintain the peace necessary to productive enterprise. Its related job is that of providing such services as may enable each of the specialists in the community to carry on more efficiently. And that’s all (p. 95).

Among the services that government provides are police, courts, and other services that prevent trespass against or endangerment of a person and his property. Government may also provide some services that are beneficial to all members of a community such as a uniform system of weights and measures, road maintenance, and sanitation. Much beyond these, it becomes a state.
He adds:

The distinctive characteristic of government is that in performing its functions it may have recourse to the use of coercive authority. Its particular attribute is power, vested in it by the producing specialists for the specific purpose of maintaining a condition necessary to their production (p. 95).

(Producing specialists are farmers, workers, businessmen, and others who are involved in producing real wealth.)
  Unfortunately, these protective measures can be used against producing specialists. Protectors can use their power to plunder the producing specialists. (For this reason, the producing specialists should always outgun the protectors.) When the protectors use their power to plunder instead of protect, as happens in a welfare state, which is built on plunder, the government “ceases to be a service and becomes a state” (p. 96).
“[T]he the moral basis of political authority is the right of life and the related right of property. But when that political authority is so exercised as to deny these basic rights, it divests itself of all ethical validity; and that is so even if those who so exercise the political authority surround themselves with law, custom, and a desire to do good. . . . [W]hen the exercise of political authority deprives the individual of his rights it ceases to be a service and becomes a disservice” (p. 96).
Chodorov defines the state as “those in whom the political authority is vested and who use it for other than protective purposes — [justifying] its action by invoking a ‘higher law’ (p. 96).” Thus, it replaces the rights of the individual with the rights of the community, nation, humanity, etc. The justification of the state rests on the chimera of a group of people acting together having rights that supersede the rights of the individual.
When the people in power use government to “engage in projects which jeopardize the life or property of the individual, or utilize that power so that either they or a favored group benefits at the expense of the producing public, that government is transformed into state” (p. 295).
Chodorov writes:

The state by virtue of the power of government which it acquires, perpetuates the purpose of conquest; by legal methods it regularizes the exploitation of the producer, in favor of the nonproducer, and by an elaborate system of education it obfuscates the immoral relationship and even covers the exploiters with an aura of respectability (p. 97).

Continuing, he explains:

The state is a person or a number of persons who exercise force, or the threat of it, to cause others to do what they otherwise would not do, or to refrain from satisfying a desire. That is, the state is political power, and political power is force exerted by persons on persons. The superhuman character given it is intended to induce subservience” (pp. 388-384).

Thus, the state is a group of morally responsible people combining together to plunder the wealth of producing specialists and to create and grant special privileges to themselves and their allies.
He notes that government is a social instrument and the state is an unsocial perversion of government. Government is healthy, and the state is pathological. Consequently, the state is the enemy of the individual.
He concludes:

The distinction between government and state, then, is in the use to which political coercion is put. When it is used negatively, for the protection of life and property, with which must be included the adjudicating of disputes among citizens, it is a service; when it is used positively, in the interests of one group of citizens, including politicians, against the interests of other groups, it is a disservice. In the one case it makes for harmony, in the other it is the cause of discord (p. 98).

  Thus, government is used to protect life and property. When government is used to plunder property and to grant special privileges, it becomes a state.
Although the Bible supports civil governments, it does not support the state. When a government degenerates into a state, it ceases having biblical support because the state is a form of idolatry.

An Illustration
Ancient Israel illustrates the difference between a government and a state. During the era of the judges (1441–1065?), Israel had a government, but it did not have a state. Judges, who were usually men of wisdom and integrity, ran their government. Judges ruled by natural selection and common consent. Custom and tradition restricted the judges to applying the laws that Moses had delivered from God and that had become traditional customs (common law). Violations of these laws carried their own penalties. Thus, the judges normally considered only crimes that were mala in se; that is, acts that are inherently immoral, such as, murder, thief, perjury, and adultery (miscegenation) — for God had declared such acts immoral. However, the judges did not execute their rulings; the people executed them usually by public opinion. (Judges also led the Israelites in war against invaders.)

In ancient Israel, the state arises with the kings. Samuel warned the Israelite against establishing a state (having a king). He warned:

11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: he will take your sons, and appoint them unto him, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and they shall run before his chariots; 12 and he will appoint them unto him for captains of thousands, and captains of fifties; and he will set some to plow his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and the instruments of his chariots. 13 And he will take your daughters to be perfumers, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. 14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. 15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. 16 And he will take your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your flocks: and ye shall be his servants. 18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king whom ye shall have chosen you; and Jehovah will not answer you in that day (1 Samuel 8:11–18). (If only the tax level today was just 10 percent.)  

However, the Israelites rejected his advice, and Samuel gave them a king.
What Samuel had prophesied happened. With the rise of the state, enforcement of mala prohibitum became more important than mala in se. Mala prohibitum acts are acts that are illegal because the government declares them illegal. Examples of mala prohibita are failure to file the proper paperwork, failure to pay taxes, failure to obtain the government’s permission (licenses, permits, etc.) before undertaking certain actions, failure to follow regulations, and traffic laws.
Unlike malum in se, which is an act that is wrong in and of itself, malum prohibita is an act that is wrong only because the government prohibits it. (If a country today had a government without a state, which none do, most likely, some mala prohibita, such traffic laws, would exist.)

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Review of “Resurrecting the Old Right”

Review of “Resurrecting the Old Right”

Thomas Allen

In his article, “Resurrecting the Old Right” in Chronicles (September 2019), Paul Gottfried presents himself as a paleoconservative and a disciple of the Old Right. In his article, he stresses the need to resurrect the Old Right.
He may be a paleoconservative, but his racial views are indistinguishable from neoconservatives, libertarians, progressives, liberals, and communists, and a majority of Americans. Like them, he is a racial nihilist and, therefore, cares nothing about the White race or any other race as unique species that God created, and, consequently, none is worthy of preservation. (Gottfried’s attitude toward Whites is based solely on this article.) Moreover, like all neoconservatives, libertarians, progressives, liberals, and communists and most Americans, he believes that the United States are a propositional country. He definitely does not believe that they are a genetic country as the founding father established.
He strongly condemns the establishment conservatives, the neoconservatives. They avoid discussing homosexual marriages, feminism, and other divisive social issues (and especially the sin of miscegenation, which Gottfried seems not to consider a sin). They often defend progressive and liberal social positions. On immigration, distinguishing between establishment conservatives and liberals is often difficult. Typically, liberals want to flood the country with an unlimited number of third-world immigrants, most of whom they expect to vote for Democrats. On the other hand, most conservatives want to flood the country with large numbers of third-world immigrants albeit via streamlined legal means. Other conservatives prefer restricting the number of third-world immigration to a level low enough to amalgamate them into the population. Gottfried seems to support the amalgamators. Almost no one favors prohibiting nonwhites entering the country.
At least, he rightly condemns conservatives, such as Rich Lowery, editor-in-chief of National Review, for supporting and promoting the destruction of Southern monuments and history.
Also, Gottfried denounces neoconservatives for kowtowing to the liberal controlled old media. They also fail to mention all the Zionist funding that conservative organizations receive — and that these Zionists support the left-wing social agenda.
Neoconservatives condemn anti-intervention Southern conservatives and all who are labeled “racist” or “antisemitic.” Gottfried identifies a few prominent conservatives whom the establishment conservatives have condemned, such as, M.E. Bradford. For its opposition to the Vietnam War, the establishment conservative William Buckley chastised the John Birch society. (Buckley was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and, perhaps more important, Skull and Bones. He also worked for the CIA and participated in the Bohemian Grove. Thus, Buckley was an establishment insider whose job was to control conservatives.)
Another group whom the establishment conservatives condemn is the White nationalist. (Does any White nationalist organization exist that does not have some federal agency or left-wing organization behind it?) Gottfried also denounces White nationalism and considers it an “obstacle to a credible, authentic right.” About White nationalism, he writes, “Its adherents represent a moribund ideology that offers an imaginary antidote to a misdiagnosed pathology.”
For Gottfried, the war is cultural and not racial — as though culture can exist independently of race. Thus, he thinks one-dimensionally. He thinks solely in terms of culture and ignores race. He refuses to recognize that culture depends on race. As race preceded culture, it created culture. Therefore, culture is racial. Consequently, each race has a different culture with each ethnicity of that race having its own subculture. To use some trite analogies, race and culture go together like hand and glove, love and marriage, and horse and carriage.
Contrary to what Gottfried may believe, most White nationalists are not as one dimensional as he is. Most recognize the connection between race and culture.
However, Gottfried is correct in that the leaders of the war to destroy the culture that he wants to save are White. Nevertheless, that does not mean that the war is not racial. Luciferians, self-hating White, and White racial nihilists are using nonwhites to bring down America and the civilization that Whites created and to genocide White race (species) — and, by that, annihilate everything that Gottfried values. Gottfried seems to be acting like the typical libertarian by condoning, if not outright promoting, policies that result in the death of his goal.
Unlike Gottfried, White nationalists at least dimly see that the war is racial. Unfortunately, they mostly ignore the primary leaders of this war to genocide the White race because these leaders are White. Thus, they focus on the nonwhite pawns instead of the White kings and queens.
Why would Whites seek to destroy the White race? All the top leaders are Luciferians. Lucifer, Satan, seeks to destroy the race (species) created in God’s image. They are merely doing their master’s bidding. Another group is the self-hating Whites like members of Antifa. However, like Gottfried, most are racial nihilists, who see no need to preserve the White race, the Black race, or any other race.
Gottfried reproves White nationalists for being too willing to accept the agenda of the left on nonracial issues, such as sexual immorality. (Gottfried does not seem to recognize that miscegenation is a sin; at least White nationalist acknowledge this sin and denounce it.) For White nationalists, the issue is Whites against everyone else. Correctly, Gottfried condemns White nationalists for having too narrow of a focus. They ignore the cultural aspects of the war just as Gottfried ignores the racial aspects.
Furthermore, Gottfried condemns White nationalists who seek to become acceptable in the national debate. These White nationalists typically hold left-of-center views except they are staunch Zionists and advocates of an aggressive, missionary foreign policy. Unfortunately, to receive positive support from the establishment, they have to compromise significantly their racial views. At least, he credits them with attempting to raise the self-esteem of Whites about their race. Nevertheless, for a racial nihilist like Gottfried, why should self-esteem about one’s race matter?
According to Gottfried, for anyone on the right who wants to be “acceptable to large numbers of people on the right,” he has to free himself from being seen as a White nationalist. Thus, Gottfried shows that most people on the right are racial nihilists who loathe racial identitarians. In this respect, they are indistinguishable progressives, liberals, and libertarians, and even self-hating Whites of Antifa and Luciferian Whites. Therefore, the White race (species) is doomed to extinction.
Moreover, Gottfried is “especially bothered by the reductionist argument about racial IQ.” He recognizes the importance of IQ to society and civilization and the possibility of some parts of the world (he avoids “race”) having a cognitive advantage over others.  However, he questions general intelligence being the only precondition for managing human development.
Gottfried is correct about highly intelligent people leading the destruction of America and Western Civilization. Again, he fails to recognize that the annihilation of the White race is part, the most important part, of this destruction.
Furthermore, Gottfried is proof that being White and highly intelligent does not automatically make one an albusphile. He is White and highly intelligent, yet he is completely indifferent to the fate of the White race. He does not care whether the White race lives or dies if the culture that it created survives.
Gottfried claims that he never stopped believing in the Old Right. However, from my reading of the works of the Old Right, none gave me the impression that he believed in the new morality of sacrificing the races, especially the White race, on the altar of humanity. To the contrary, they all seemed to believe in the old morality of racial preservation. Unlike Gottfried, who seems to have no concerns about the sin of miscegenation, they seem adamant in opposing interracial mating. (Gottfried claims to want to restore social morality. Yet, he ignores the sin of miscegenation, the amalgamation of the species of men.)
In conclusion, Gottfried is a racial nihilist and abhors racial identitarians. He is a disciple of the new morality. His revival of conservatism would be void of any race consciousness.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political issues articles.