States’ Right and Society

States’ Right and Society

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are States’ right and society. In this article, “state” is used in two different senses. In the first two sections on States’ rights, “state” refers to a territory and its body politic. In the section on society, “state” refers to an abstract, suprapersonal entity that is above all and is in all and exercises the supreme power.

States’ Rights
States’ rights mean that each State retains all political sovereignty individually and independently of all other States. Consequently, under the United States Constitution, each State retains for itself all political powers except the few powers delegated to their agent, the general government (also called the federal government and the US government) by the Constitution and the powers that they denied themselves by the Constitution. Moreover, the Constitution is merely a compact or treaty among equal sovereigns.

In Lane County vs. Oregon, the US Supreme Court declared in 1868:

The people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence. The States disunited might continue to exist. Without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.

Unfortunately, Lincoln and his war and the resulting fourteenth amendment destroyed the original constitution and subverted States into mere administrative provinces.

The Tenth Amendment
The tenth amendment is the States’ rights amendment. It affirms that each State and the people thereof have all sovereign powers not explicitly and particularly delegated to the US government by the Constitution or that it does not specifically deny the States. It reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

In “Conservatism and the South,” The Lasting South (1957, page 200), James Kilpatrick explains the tenth amendment as follows:

This amendment consists of a single sentence, only twenty-eight words long; it is in no way obscure. The powers (not rights, as in the Ninth Amendment, but powers) not delegated to the United States (the verb is delegated, not "surrendered," or "granted," or "vested in," but merely delegated) by the Constitution (not by inference, or by any notions of inherent powers, but by the Constitution alone), nor prohibited by it to the States (prohibited by the Constitution, that is, by its specific limitations, and not by mandate of any court or Congress or executive, but only by the Constitution itself), are reserved to the States respectively (not to the States jointly, but to the States individually and respectively), or to the people (because there may be some powers the people will not wish to entrust even to their States).

Chodorov on States’ Rights
In One Is Crowd: Reflections of an Individualist (New York: The Devin-Adair Company,  1952, page 158), Frank Chodorov gives a good description of States’ rights. About States’ rights he writes:

[States' rights] proceed from a philosophical axiom, that the individual is the only reality. He alone exists. Without him there cannot be a society, and without society there is no need of government. Society, in fact, is nothing but a convenient abstraction, a word describing an agglomeration of individuals cooperating for their mutual advantage. The character of society is but a composite of the characters of its components; it has no other. In short, society is nothing of itself.

A “society” is a convenient abstraction that describes “an aggregate of individual cooperating for their mutual advantage” (p. 158).

Society
In Rise and Fall of Society (New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1959, page 29), Frank Chodorov gives this definition of society: “Society is a collective concept and nothing else; it is a convenience for designating a number of people. . . . Society is different from these other collective nouns [family, crowd, gang, etc.] in that it conveys the idea of a purpose or point of contact in which each individual, while retaining his identity and pursuing his private concerns, has an interest. . . . Society . . .  embraces a host of people following all sorts of vocations and avocations, pursuing a variety of goals, each in his own way, and yet held together by a purpose which is in each of them.”

Thus, individuals come together to form a society to advance their mutual interest and to further their purposes and aspirations. To protect the lives, property, and liberties of the people forming a society, the people instituted a government. Unfortunately, governments degenerate into states, which proceeds to deprive the people of their property and liberty and at times their lives. (See “The Difference Between Government and State” by Thomas Allen.)

In other words, a state cannot exist without a government. A government cannot exist without a society, and a society cannot exist without individuals. None of these abstractions — society, government, and state — have a life independent of the individuals comprising them. None are greater than the sum of its parts. They are merely metaphysical persons with no life of their own. They are not suprapersonal.

God created man, and man established societies, governments, and states. None of these institutions can exist independently of man — just as man cannot exist independently of God. Philosophers, political scientists, economists, and others who treat society, government, and state as entities that are independent of or superior to the individuals comprising them deceive themselves. Moreover, they err when they give society, government, and state characteristics of an individual. Giving them such attributes led to the horrors of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Mao’s China.

In closing, an additional explanation of state and society is needed. The concept of the relationship between society and state has changed over time. In times past, the state was an entity that was completely outside society and existed independent of it. People had to reckon with this entity called a state and either feared it or admired it. They saw the state as advancing their agenda or taking their property and liberty. However, they never thought of the state as an integral part of society: It was apart from and above society.

Now, people conceive the State and society such that they are indistinguishable, either conceptually or institutionally. That is, the state is society and the social order has become an appendage of the state. Thus, society, i.e., the people, is dependent on the state as represented by the government for its health, education, communications, transportation, charity, and just about everything else. The people look to the state, the government, to solve their problems; consequently, the people are no longer self-reliant and have enslaved themselves to those who control the state. As a result, the state has become the society. Additionally, since people look to the state to save and deliver them instead of God and themselves, they have made an idol out of the state — therefore, they are idolaters.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Lincoln on the Negro Race

Lincoln on the Negro Race

Thomas Allen

Below are some quotations where Abraham Lincoln expressed his opinion of the Negro, Black, race. If the reader is a worshiper of Father Abraham, the Great Emancipator, he may not want to go any further because his sensibility may be offended.
In the fourth debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln said:

Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from me an answer to the question whether I am in favor of negro citizenship. So far as I know, the Judge never asked me the question before. He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship.

From the same speech, Lincoln said:

While I was at the hotel to-day an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,  — That I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Also, in this debate, Lincoln said, “I give him (Douglas) the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.”
As can be seen from the above, Lincoln opposed giving the Negro citizenship and the right to vote and hold public office. Moreover, he objected to making the Negro the White man’s equal and opposed interracial marriages.
In the fifth debate with Douglas at Galesburg, Illinois, on October 7, 1858, Lincoln said:

I have all the while maintained, that in so far as it should be insisted that there was an equality between the White and black races that should produce a perfect social and political equality, it is an impossibility.

Further in the same speech reiterating his position on Negro equality that he had made in the fourth debate, Lincoln said, “In which extract I expressly declared that my own feelings would not admit a social and political equality between the white and black races.”
Later in the same speech, Lincoln declared:

Now gentlemen, I don’t want to read at any great length, but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery or the black race, and this is the whole of it; and anything that argues me into his (Douglas’s) idea of perfect social and political equality with the negroes is but a specious and fantastical arrangement of words by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse.

Further on in the same speech, Lincoln said:

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which. in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together on the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I as well as Judge Douglas am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.

Later in the same speech, Lincoln remarks:

We have due regard to the actual presence of it (slavery) amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and all the constitutional obligations thrown about it.

During the fifth debate, Lincoln states again his belief in the inequality of the races. Blacks are inferior to Whites.
In the seventh and last debate with Douglas at Alton, Illinois, on October 15, 1858, Lincoln said:

I never have complained especially of the Dred Scott decision because it held that the negro could not be a citizen, and the Judge (Douglas) is always wrong when he says I ever did so complain of it. I have the speech here, and I will thank him or any of his friends to show where I said that a negro should be a citizen, and complained especially of the Dred Scott decision because it declared he could not be one. I have done no such thing, and Judge Douglas’ persistently insisting that I have done so, has strongly impressed me with the belief of a pre-determination on his part to misrepresent me. He could not get his foundation for insisting that I was in favor of this negro equality anywhere else as well as he could by assuming that untrue proposition.

In the same speech, Lincoln said. “I wish every slave in the United States was in the country of his ancestors.”
Later in the same speech, Lincoln stated:

What I insist upon is, that the new Territories shall be kept free from it (slavery) while in the Territorial condition. Judge Douglas assumes that we have no interest in them — that we have no right whatever to interfere. I think we have some interest. I think as white men we have. Do we not wish for an outlet for our surplus population, if I may so express myself?

Further, in that debate, Lincoln commented:

Now irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home — may find some spot where they can better their condition — where they can settle upon new soil and better their condition in life. I am in favor of this not merely, (I must say it here as I have elsewhere,) for our own people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over in which Hans and Baptiste and Patrick, and all other men from all the world, may find new homes and better their condition in life.

In the same debate, Lincoln said:

So, too, when he [Douglass] assumes that I am in favor of introducing a perfect social and political equality between the white and black races. These are false issues, upon which Judge Douglas has tried to force the controversy. There is no foundation in truth for the charge that I maintain either of these propositions.

As this debate shows, Lincoln agreed with the Dred Scott decision that Negroes were not citizens. He restated his opposition to Negro equality with Whites. Moreover, he expressed his desire to repatriate Blacks back to Africa. Also, he wanted to keep Blacks out of the territories and make the territories homelands for Whites only.
In a private letter written October 18, 1858, Lincoln writes:

But it does not follow that social and political equality between whites and blacks, must be incorporated, because slavery must not. The declaration (of Independence) does not so require.

      Thus, Lincoln states that freeing the slaves did not mean or require that Blacks be made equal to Whites. The equality phrase in the Declaration of Independence did not require such equality.
In a speech at Carlinville, Illinois on August 31, 1858, the newspaper reported Lincoln as saying:

He (Lincoln) said the question is often asked, why this fuss about niggers? . . . Sustain these men and negro equality will be abundant, as every white laborer will have occasion to regret when he is elbowed from his plow or his anvil by slave niggers.

Not only did Lincoln use the forbidden “N” word, he also expressed his opposition to making the Negro the White man’s equal.
In a private letter written January 29, 1859, Lincoln commented on a speech of one of his supporters who objected to the Oregon constitution because it excluded free Negroes: “His objection to the Oregon Constitution because it excludes free negroes, is the only thing I wish he had omitted.” Thus, Lincoln favored Oregon’s exclusion of free Negroes.
In a speech at Dayton, Ohio, on September 17, 1859 Lincoln said, as reported in the newspaper:

The free white men had a right to claim that the new territories into which they and their children might go to seek a livelihood should be preserved free and clear from the incumbrance of slavery, and that no laboring white man should be placed in a position where, by the introduction of slavery into the territories, he would be compelled to toil by the side of a slave. . . .
If there was a necessary conflict between the white man and the negro, I should be for the white man as much as Judge Douglas. . . .
That you made it a Free State, not with the embarrassment upon you of already having among you many slaves, which if they had been here, and you had sought to make a Free State, you would not know what to do with. If they had been among you, embarrassing difficulties, most probably, would have induced you to tolerate a slave constitution instead of a free one, as indeed these very difficulties have constrained every people on this continent who have adopted slavery. . . .
The people of these United States are the rightful masters of both congresses and courts not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert that constitution. . . .

In this speech, Lincoln declares that the territories belong to Whites free from slavery, which meant free from Blacks. Moreover, slavery may be the best means of control Blacks in a White society.

In a speech at Leavenworth, Kansas, December 3, 1859, Lincoln declares:

You would not know what to do with the slaves after you have made them free. You would not wish to keep them as underlings; nor yet to elevate them to social and political equality. You could not send them away. The slave States would not let you send them there and the free States would not let you send them there.

In this speech, Lincoln comments on the problem of freeing the slaves. No one really wanted the freed Negroes. The jest of his comments were that to oppose slavery did not mean that one was a negrophile and wanted make him the White man’s equal.
In a speech at the Cooper Institute, New York City, on February 27, 1860, Lincoln quoted:

In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, “It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and in their place be, pari passu, filled up by free white Laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up."

In a speech at Hartford, Connecticut on March 5, 1860, Lincoln said:

As the learned Judge of a certain Court is said to have decided – “When a ship is wrecked at sea, and two men seize upon one plank which is capable of sustaining but one of them, either of them can rightfully push the other off."

Thus, Whites could morally deport Blacks so that the White race would survive.
In a speech at New Haven, Connecticut on March 6, 1860, Lincoln remarked:

We think that respect for ourselves, a regard for future generations and for the God that made us, require that we put down this wrong where our votes will properly reach it. We think that species of labor an injury to free white men.

Black labor injures White labor.
In a letter to the Secretary of the Navy, Gideon Welles, on March 16, 1861, Lincoln explained that he had discharged a servant because of a race: “The difference of color between him [a Negro] and the other servants is the cause of our separation.”
In an official letter to the Secretary of the Interior, Caleb Smith, on October 23, 1861, Lincoln wrote:

It is therefore referred to you with authority to act, and you are hereby authorized to carry the contract into effect, should the result of your examination be satisfactory and establish that it will prove of sufficient value to the government. The War, Navy, Post Office and Interior Departments may all derive benefits from this proposed contract. The latter under the law of 3d March 1819 requires heavy appropriations for the transport and support of captured Africans. It is possible that a modification of that law may make it a measure of great economy to direct there negroes to some of the unoccupied lands of Central America, and the present contract, may if well considered and arranged, be the introduction to this, and an equally desirable measure to secure the removal of negroes from this country. I therefore recommend that all these points be considered and that the contract be so drawn as to secure such advantages as may in your judgement seem desirable for the United States to hold.

Thus, Lincoln as President of the United States expressed his desire to deport Blacks and directed members of his cabinet to pursue that goal.
In a speech in Springfield, Illinois June 26, 1857, Lincoln said, “I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation.” Continuing in the same speech, he said:

Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization; and no political party, as such, is now doing anything directly for colonization. Party operations at present only favor or retard colonization incidentally. The enterprise is a difficult one; but “When there is a will there is a way;” and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from two elements of moral sense and self interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.

Again, Lincoln express his desire to deport the Blacks. Not only is such deportation necessary to protect White labor, it is also necessary to prevent amalgamation of the races.
In a speech at Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854 Lincoln remarked, “In the course of his reply, Senator Douglas remarked, in substance, that he had always considered this government was made for white people and not for negroes. Why, in point of fact, I think so too.” Thus, the US Constitution and the government that it established was for Whites and not for Blacks.
In a speech at Chicago, Illinois July 10, 1858, Lincoln said:

I protest, now and forever, against that counterfeit logic which presumes that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave, I do necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I need not have her for either, But as God made us separate, we can leave one another alone and do one another much good thereby. There are white men enough to marry all the white women, and enough black men to marry all the black women and in God's name let them be so married.

God made the races separate; therefore, they should leave each other alone and not intermarry.
In a speech at Springfield, Illinois, on July 17, 1858, Lincoln remarked, “What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races.”
In his Annual Message to Congress on December 3, 1861,  President Lincoln said:

To carry out the plan of colonization may involve the acquiring of territory, and also the appropriation of money beyond that to be expended in the territorial acquisition. Having practiced the acquisition of territory for nearly sixty years, the question of constitutional power to do so is no longer an open one with us. The power was questioned at first by Mr. Jefferson, who, however, in the purchase of Louisiana, yielded his scruples on the plea of great expediency. If it be said that the only legitimate object of acquiring territory is to furnish homes for white men, this measure effects that object; for the emigration of colored men leaves additional room for white men remaining or coming here. . . .
On this whole proposition — including the appropriation of money with the acquisition of territory, does not expediency amount to absolute necessity — that, without which the government itself cannot be perpetuated?

In his Annual Message to Congress, Lincoln promoted his plan to deport Blacks and asked for appropriations to carry out the plan. Also, he expected the vacancies left by the deported Negroes would be filled by European, White, immigrants. Moreover, deportation of the Negro was necessary for the government to perpetuate itself.
In his Annual Message to Congress on December 1, 1862, President Lincoln said:

With deportation, even to a limited extent, enhanced wages to white labor is mathematically certain. Labor is like any other commodity in the market — increase the demand for it, and you increase the price of it. Reduce the supply of black labor, by colonizing the black laborer out of the country, and, by precisely so much, you increase the demand for, and wages of, white labor.

Lincoln promotes the deportation of Blacks as a means to raise the wages of White workers.
As the words of Lincoln show, not only did he not believe in racial equality, he did not believe that the Negro should be a citizen. Moreover, he strongly opposed miscegenation and wanted to deport all the Blacks. If Lincoln’s policies on racial issues had been carried out and maintained, the country would have no racial problems today: Monoracial countries have no racial problems. Lincoln was a terrible president, but he had more wisdom about race relations than most people today have and far more than any of his admirers today have.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issue articles.

Review of “‘Systemic Racism’ Theory is the New Political Tribalism”

Review of “‘Systemic Racism’ Theory is the New Political Tribalism”

Thomas Allen

The following is a review of “‘Systemic Racism’ Theory is the New Political Tribalism” (July 21, 2020) by Richard M. Ebeling of the American Institute for Economic Research. He is a Jew, a libertarian, a Dixiephobe, and a racial nihilist who adheres to the new morality. Like nearly all libertarians and most Yankees, he is a proponent of the atomistic autonomous individual devoid of any relationship with race, ethnicity (nation), or country. They are deplorable collectives.  In his article, he condemns systemic racism, which is used to cover all the world’s evil in a collective matter. Although he would staunchly deny it, Ebeling is a racist on multiple accounts (see “Are You a Racist?”).

Ebeling discusses what he considers progress out of American racist past. When the veneer is removed, what is considered progress is the replacement of White supremacy with Black supremacy. Progress is Whites hating their race or at least disliking it enough to consider it not worthy of preservation.

Next, Ebeling discusses how attitudes have changed for the better. For him, the growing acceptance of interracial marriages is a great leap forward. Why he hates the American Negro so much that he condones breeding him out of existence, he does not explain.

Perhaps, his ignorance or self-denial is so great that he does not recognize this genocide. However, Maurice Lindsay, a Negro and a student of religion and Black history and development does realize this genocide. He knows that interracial marriages will genocide the American Negro. Moreover, he is convinced that miscegenation is a plot by Whites like Ebeling to rid the country and then the world of Blacks. Thus, this Black man has a much greater understanding of the consequences of miscegenation than does Ebeling and, therefore, shows more intelligence than Ebeling. While Whites like Ebeling condemn White supremacy and the notion that Blacks are naturally inferior to Whites, they support the notion, most likely subconsciously, that Blacks need a strong infusion of White genes to raise them. By his approval of miscegenation and the growing number of mongrels, Ebeling reveals his hatred of the races and, by that, his hatred of humanity.

Like most libertarians, Ebeling believes that the government is the root of all evil. He blames the government for most racial differences in performance and outcome. That is, governmental policies are the cause of Blacks lagging behind Whites by most economic and social measures. He is convinced that such differences are definitely not genetic.

Governmental policies and even corporate policies discriminate against Whites, especially White males, by hiring and promoting less qualified Blacks over more qualified Whites. Many universities have procedures in place to admit less qualified Blacks over more qualified Whites. Whatever is holding Blacks back, it is not governmental policies because they are skewed heavily in favor of Blacks and against Whites.

Ebeling blames minimum wage laws as the primary cause of unemployment of young Blacks. Minimum wage laws are a significant contribution to Black unemployment. Attitude, character, temperament, and intelligence, which genetics highly influences, are other important contributors that he does not discuss — probably because he believes that genetics have little or no influence on these attributes. (Initially, the primary purpose of minimum wage laws was to price Blacks out of the Northern labor markets and keep them in their place, i.e., to keep them in the South.)

According to Ebeling, the difference between the unemployment rate of young Blacks and young Whites results from public schools. Public schools often pass Blacks to the next grade when they lack the skills to enter the next grade. (For fear of being accused of being a “racist” and, thus, losing their jobs, teachers have a strong incentive to pass unqualified Blacks to the next grade.) Thus, they graduate without the skills to qualify for starting employment. (However, quotas and affirmative action are designed to overcome this problem by requiring hiring less qualified Blacks over more qualified Whites. Ebeling fails to discuss quotas and affirmative action, which are highly invasive actions of the government.) Whatever the cause of the lower education of Blacks is, Ebeling seems convinced that it has nothing to do with Blacks having a lower IQ on average than Whites. He blames the difference on what is being taught and how it is being taught — although Whites are taught the same material in the same way.

Two laws that Ebeling ignores are the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. He should have focused his arguments against these two laws, the court rulings that have interpreted and misinterpreted them, the governmental agencies that enforced them, and the unethical Supreme Court ruling in the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, which was based on sociology instead of the Constitution and law. They are the cause of the problems about which he complains. Perhaps, he overlooks them because these two civil rights acts ended White supremacy, privilege, and power, with which he agrees. However, they replaced White supremacy, privilege, and power with Black supremacy, privilege, and power, with which he disagrees.

(Under Jim Crow, the segregationist had to accept equality before the law as the operative de jure principle. Under civil rights, Whites, especially White males, can be legally discriminated against with no recourse to the courts. In the civil rights era, Black privilege, i.e., Blacks have privileges denied to Whites, has replaced the concept of “all citizens are equal before the law.”)

Next, Ebeling blames the social environment in which many Blacks are reared as the cause of Blacks lagging economically. Many Blacks fail to emphasize education and making sacrifices in the present for benefits in the future. Again, he does not identify genetics as a possible cause of such an environment. (Since race precedes environment, race makes the environment.)

Ebeling writes that he was taught that the world did not owe him a living and that he needed to be a responsible individual. (He fails to mention the welfare state that has taught a disproportional number of Black women that they can make a good living merely by producing children — which is a highly rational act. Most people prefer being paid not to work to being paid about the same or less to work. [This is more proof of Black supremacy and privilege: Blacks, who are net tax recipients, have enslaved Whites, who are net taxpayers, to support them.])

Ebeling believes that education, planning for the future, and self-control are universal truths that apply to all human beings regardless of race. (Proponents of systemic racism would argue that these truths are the White man’s truths since a White man, Ebeling, declared them truths, and, therefore, they do not apply to Blacks.) He is correct in that people who follow these truths do better than people who do not.

Finally, he gets to the discussion of “systemic racism.” He defined systemic racism: “It is the claim that it does not matter what individual human beings think, believe, or try to do; they are all perpetrators or victims of racial injustices and oppressions due to the nature of the socio-economic and political system in which they live. In other words, white racism is embedded into society, and the implication is that it has always been so and will remain so unless and until the very structural design of the social order is radically transformed.”

Thus, the system is rotten, and most people do not realize that they are part of the system and are using it to benefit at the expense of others. (This is true although today it is opposite to what the proponents of systemic racism claim to be true. The proponents claim that the system benefits Whites at the expense of Blacks. On the contrary, Blacks benefit at the expense of Whites through affirmative action, quotas, preferments, and a host of other policies and by receiving more money from the government than they pay in taxes.)

According to the proponents of systemic racism, the differences in incomes between Whites and Blacks result from systemic racism. Moreover, the difference in the quality of schools results from systemic racism. (School integration and forced busing were designed to eliminate this difference. Thus, the difference results from the quality of the student, genetics, and not from the quality of the schools.) Systemic racism also causes differential treatment within the legal system. (Such as a Black criminal is less likely to be arrested for the same crime than is a White criminal and is more likely to be found not guilty by a jury even when obviously guilty than is a White criminal. However, proponents of systemic racism do not have these Black privileges in mind.)

Likewise, systemic racism is the cause of poorer quality food offered in local stores in Black neighborhoods. (If the food quality does differ could the cause be that the shopkeeper wants to risk losing less property when Blacks go on one of their periodic rampages of rioting, looting, and burning?)

Ebeling asks why the “poor, white trash” are not also victims of the system since they are often treated as badly, if not worse, than Blacks claim to be treated. After all, poor, white trash are in the lower income brackets, live in poor neighborhoods, and are ostracized from the better social networks. (The answer is obvious to a proponent of systemic racism: Poor, white trash are White.)

Proponents of systemic racism believe that success depends solely on being White. (Perhaps, their notion, at least in part, explains the rise in interracial marriages. Blacks believe that their children will advance socially and economically with an infusion of White genes. Albusphobic Whites who are also Negrophobes are willing to whiten the Negro race. Is not such sacrificial attitude evidence of racism?)

Ebeling adheres to the proposition of the “melting pot” philosophy, the amalgamation of all into one. He uses the classic example of European immigrants from various European countries. After a generation or two, the descendants of these European immigrants had mostly merged into American (White) society and culture.

Although these various ethnicities may have fought each other in Europe, they ceased doing so when they came to America. Why? Could it be that their similarities outweighed their differences? They were Whites coming to a White country where Negroes and Indians were like outcasts and only participated peripherally. Like White Americans, these White Europeans had the same basic religion (Christianity) and culture (Western Civilization). In this respect, they differed significantly from Blacks and Indians, both of whom were of a different race, a primitive culture, and a pagan-type religion.

Ebeling credits this merger on the lack of a legal foundation for group privileges and a lack of social prejudice. Moreover, the philosophy of individualism, personal freedom, and economic liberty was promoted. These are important reasons. However, he ignores racial, cultural, and religious similarities, which allowed the conditions that he cites to thrive.

Ebeling argues that slavery and Jim Crow needed the government to survive. He fails to note that the Jim Crow laws in the South were modeled after the Black labor codes in the North. As Booker T. Washington remarked, much of the segregation in the South, especially in the workplace, resulted from Northern workers who had migrated to the South. Moreover, even as the Northern Black codes faded away, Northerners still discriminated against Blacks as much as, and in some instances more than, Southerners until the government intervened to end such discrimination.

Ebeling condemns proponents of systemic racism for insisting that people have to think about themselves as part of a collective ethnic or racial group. In his arguments against them, he promotes amalgamating all ethnic and racial collectives of humanity — or at the other extreme, everyone becomes an atomistic, autonomous, isolated, independent individual.

Next, Ebeling compares systemic racism with Nazism. Both insist on identifying people by race. One’s race fixes one’s position and status in society. Then, he proceeds to condemn the eugenists, who claim that a person is his genes. Thus, he asserts that genetics are irrelevant. (Ignoring genetics is one of the main reasons that we have the racial problems that we have today.)

Further, he condemns the eugenists for promoting increasing the population of higher quality people and discouraging the growth of lower quality people. (Ebeling should be rejoicing. Dysgenics has supplanted eugenics. Now, lower quality people are encouraged to reproduce while the reproduction of higher quality people is discouraged.)

According to Ebeling, the new eugenists claim that people cannot help being racists. It is part of their social DNA. Only by bringing down the system can White racism end. (Presumably, this includes genociding Whites.) No common humanity or shared humanness exists — so claim the new eugenists. In contrast to the new eugenists, who believe that races think differently, Ebeling asserts that all races think the same way. (If Blacks think the same way as Whites do, then sub-Sahara Africa should have been at about the same level as Europe in culture, science, technology, etc. in the sixteenth century when Europeans began exploring sub-Sahara Africa. Likewise, the sixteenth-century American Indians should have been at about the same levels as the Europeans.)

Rightfully, Ebeling condemns people (Whites) who “verbally [and some physically]  grovel and beg forgiveness for the presumption, the hubris, the insensitivity, to think that they could ever know and feel what a black person has or ever can feel.” However, he condemns them for the wrong reason. He condemns them for declaring that “we live in racially different universes, with no common humanity, understanding, empathy or sympathy.” They deserve to be condemned for cowardice and for trying to placate people, both White and Black, who will never be satisfied. Even the complete extermination of Whites will not satisfy them. (With the extermination of the White race, Blacks will soon perish. They will no longer have a race to which to feel superior. More importantly, they will no longer have a race to plunder. Further, they will lose their protection from the Asian and Latin American Turanians.)

Correctly, Ebeling remarks that White guilt has lead to Whites giving their “privilege” to the other races by allowing the government to take wealth from Whites, who do not deserve it and should not have it, and give it to the other races. Thus, “social justice” depends on which race controls the government. (Currently, Blacks control the government although most of the figureheads are Whites.)

Ebeling concludes that if the ideology and policies of systemic racism, identity politics, and cancel culture prevails, America dies. Unfortunately, he believes that the United States are a propositional country and not a genetic country as the Constitution declares it to be. Its proposition is dedicated to the destruction of races and ethnicities and the replacement of them with the atomistic, autonomous individual, who will be a nondescript narcissist motley mongrel man.

Ebeling favors discrimination based on merit instead of race, ethnicity, or any other criteria. Yet, discrimination is discrimination. For the person discriminated against, the reason is of little importance. He still fails to get what he seeks. Since Ebeling rejects genetics, he must believe that sufficient education and training can overcome the discrimination of merit. Thus, anyone can become a multimillionaire athlete or a world-renowned musician with the proper training or a physician or engineer with the proper education. Therefore, everyone can become whatever he wants to be with the proper training and education. Failure to receive such education and training must result from racial discrimination — as the proponents of systematic racism would argue. Like Ebeling, they reject the notion that genetics has any connection with intelligence, talents, or abilities. Nevertheless, unlike Ebeling, they know that any system that relies solely or mostly on merit will leave most Blacks behind. Eventually, the differences between Blacks and Whites will be as great as it was during the Jim Crow era. Economically, Blacks will fare no better than they did under Jim Crow unless they genocide themselves with a large infusion of White and East Asian genes. To prevent the genocide of Blacks and to keep them from lagging economically, the proponents of systemic racism use the government to give Blacks special privileges and to suppress Whites. Apparently, Ebeling fails to recognize this because he refuses to recognize the importance of genetics.

The major flaw in Ebeling’s analysis of systemic racism is that he ignores the importance of genetics. To the extent that he touches on genetics, he condemns the notion that genetics determines or influences anything beyond some physical features that none can deny.

Libertarians like Ebeling are like good Marxists and communists. They believe that the environment makes the person; genetics are irrelevant. A person is born as a blank slate upon which someone writes the person’s personality, temperament, character, abilities, talents, and intelligence.

Because of racial nihilists like Ebeling, albusphobes will achieve their goal: the extermination of the White race. Then, systemic racism will be no more.

Appendix: A Libertarian Quandary 
When hiring and promoting, most corporations place more emphasis on race and sex than on merit and ability. Thus, many White males are often past over for a less qualified Black or woman. This action must confound libertarians since they believe that profit is the primary driving force of a company. How can the profit motive explain replacing a superior workforce with an inferior one? Such action results in less profit or even a loss. Such action also proves that if systemic racism exists, it is Black racism and not White racism. Libertarians cannot blame the government for causing these companies to behave this way because these companies control the government.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Meaning of “We the People”

Meaning of “We the People”

Thomas Allen

[Note: This article is a more in-depth discussion of “We the People” in the preamble of the US Constitution as presented in “Some Thoughts Related to the US Constitution” by Thomas Allen.]

The preamble of the US Constitution begins with “We the People of the United States.” In The War Between the States or Was Secession a Constitutional Right Previous to the War of 1861-65? (1915), Albert Bledsoe explains the meaning of this phrase (pages 51ff).

According to Abraham Lincoln, Justice Joseph Story, and Daniel Webster and through them most Northerners, this phrase means that “‘the whole people of the United States in the aggregate’” (p. 51) ratified the Constitution. According to John Taylor of Caroline, Judge Abel Upshur, and John Calhoun and through them most Southerners, this phrase means that the people of each State through a representative convention in their State ratified the Constitution. Thus, each State acting as an independent sovereign ratified the Constitution.

The Southern explanation is correct. Supporting the Southern explanation is the historical record. During the drafting of the Constitution, the preamble listed each State by name. Throughout the debate, the list of States remained in the draft preamble.

After the Constitution had been drafted, it was submitted to the committee on style. This committee substituted “We the People of the United States” for the list of the States. It made the change because no one knew how many States would ratify the Constitution.

Since the Convention approved the draft Constitution as revised by the committee on style without debate, no one conceived this revision replaced the sovereign States with one consolidated sovereign federal government.

Bledsoe remarks, “The Constitution neither declares that it was established by the people of the United States in the aggregate, nor by the people of the United States in the segregate” (p. 54). However, the history of its ratification shows that the people of each State, acting independently of the other States, ratified the Constitution. No State was bound to the Constitution without its own individual consent and ratification.

Early in the Convention, Gouverneur Morris, a proponent of a strong national government, proposed that the Constitution be ratified by the people of the United States in the aggregate as one nation. His proposal would “have made it a government emanating from the people of America in one General Convention assembled, and not from the States” (p. 55). Not only was his proposal rejected, but it did not even find a second. Consequently, the Convention rejected what became the Northern explanation of the Constitution and accepted what became the Southern explanation.

As a member of the committee on style, Morris replaced the list of States in the preamble with “We the People of the United States.” Did he trick all the members of the Convention into adopting his plan to replace thirteen bodies politic with one body politic? Later, he confused that as a member of the committee on style, he made changes in the Constitution to advance his agenda. However, he never confessed to replacing the list of States with “We the People of the United States” to advance his agenda of creating one sovereign body politic. Thus, he did not understand his own words as Story and Webster would later interpret them. With his change in wording, Morris did not intend to change the Constitution from a compact among States to one established by the people of America in the aggregate. About the Constitution, Morris said, “The Constitution was a compact, not between individuals, but between political societies, the people, not of America, but of the United States, each enjoying sovereign power and of course equal rights” (p. 57). Accordingly, Morris’ explanation of the Constitution supports the Southern explanation and not the Northern explanation.

More proof that the Southern explanation of the Constitution is correct and the Northern explanation is wrong is the method of ratification. “[T]he authors of the Constitution designed it to be ratified, as in fact[,] it was, by ‘the people of the United States,’ not as individuals, but as ‘political societies, each enjoying sovereign power, and of course equal rights.’ Or, in other words, without seeing that ‘the Constitution was a compact,’ not between individuals, ‘but between political societies,’ between sovereign States” (p. 57).

With the philosophy of “might makes right,” Lincoln and the Radical Republicans subverted the Constitution and changed it from a compact of sovereign States to a highly elastic constitution of the American people in the aggregate.  In other words, it became a constitution for an empire. They did this mostly through the unlawful and illegally ratified fourteenth amendment (subordinated the States and even the Constitution to the federal government by overriding the ninth and tenth amendments and Section 4 of Article 4 [v.i.]), and the sixteenth amendment (income taxes) and seventeenth amendment (direct election of senators). The Radical Republicans pushed through the fourteenth amendment, and their descendants, the Progressives, pushed through the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments. Consequently, today, the Northern explanation of “We the People of the United States” prevails, and the Southern explanation is lost in the memory hole of history. Thus, liberty dies.

Also, another important change resulting from the destruction of the original Constitution has been changing it from the Constitution for the United States as stated in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States as it is commonly called today. The phrase “Constitution for the United States” supports the Southern explanation of the Constitution while the phrase “Constitution of the United States” supports the Northern explanation.

Another important change has been referring to the United States in the singular (the United States is) instead of referring to them in the plural (the United States are). Before the Lincoln administration and the Radical Republicans, the United States were referred to in the plural as they are in Section 3 of Article III of the Constitution. Using the plural means that the United States are a union of several sovereign bodies politic. With the singular, the meaning is one consolidated body politic.

Moreover, when Lincoln and the Radical Republicans destroyed the sovereignty of the States, they subverted Section 4, Article IV of the Constitution. This Section reads, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” That is, the federal government is supposed to guarantee each State its sovereignty by guaranteeing each of them a republic form of government. Instead, the government that Lincoln and the Radical Republicans controlled destroyed the sovereignty of the States. (A sovereign body politic is necessary for a republican form of government.)

Worst of all, Lincoln, the Republicans, and the Progressives changed the Constitution from limiting the power of the federal government to limiting the powers of the States. Now, the federal government has unlimited powers while the States have only the powers that the federal government allows them. Originally, the States had unlimited powers, except those they denied themselves in Article 1, Section 10, while the federal government had only those powers that the Constitution expressly granted.

Lincoln's War changed the Constitution. States were sovereign before Lincoln’s War to destroy the Constitution. After Lincoln’s War, the federal government usurped the sovereignty of the States — especially with the fourteenth, sixteenth, and seventh amendments. Before Lincoln’s war, the United States were a union of sovereign States, and the Constitution was a compact between those States. After Lincoln’s War, the United States became a nation, and the Constitution became an agreement of the people as a whole. The skeleton of the original Constitution remained the same, but Lincoln and the Radical Republicans and later the Progressives change the muscle and skin by usurping the sovereignty of the States. They change the political structure of the country from one where all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government or denied the States belonged to the States to one were all power belongs to the federal government and the States have only those powers that the federal government allows them.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Biblical Inerrancy

Biblical Inerrancy

Thomas Allen

While some people claim that the Bible contains errors, others claim that it is error-free. Although “liberal” clergymen argue that the Bible contains errors, “conservative” clergymen argue that it does not contain any errors. This article discusses the inerrancy view of the conservative clergymen, who range from extreme literalists to adherents of broad inerrancy.

The original autographs, original manuscripts of each book of the Bible, are without error. Nevertheless, copies of the autographs have errors. However, textual critics have mostly eliminated these errors and have reconstructed the text such that it approximates the original with a high degree of accuracy.

Many proponents of the inerrancy of the Bible tend to be extreme literalists. They believe that wherever the Bible mentions history, science, geography, mathematics, etc., it is absolutely correct and without error. However, most do not go as far as considering Jesus running around heaven as a lamb as he is described in Revelation. They consider such a description as a figure of speech, a metaphor.

Yet, most extreme literalists condemn adherents of broad inerrancy for resorting to figures of speech to explain away confusing, apparently contradictory, or apparently illogical passages. (A figure of speech is an expression in which words are used in a nonliteral sense, such as simile, metaphor, personification, allegory, and  hyperbole. Figures of speech fill poetry and apocalypse.) They tend to pooh-pooh figure-of-speech arguments. Nevertheless, most of the extreme literalists resort to the figure-of-speech argument to explain away Biblical conflicts with current science — although a literal understanding of the Bible does not conflict with the science of the day that the original autograph was written. For example, in 1 Kings 7:23, the Bible states that the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is three instead of 3.14 . . . . (Here, the Bible uses round numbers instead of exact numbers.) Another example is that the Bible describes the earth as geocentric, flat, immovable, and supported by columns. (Here, the Bible is using poetic language to describe the earth from the viewpoint of a person standing on the earth.) However, these explanations are in the realm of broad inerrancy and not in the realm of extreme literalist inerrancy.

Another disagreement that extreme literalists have with adherents of broad inerrancy is the writing-style explanation that adherents of broad inerrancy use. Extreme literalists claim that the writers of the Bible used the same writing style that today’s great nonfiction writers use. They wrote with exactness, precision, and accuracy instead of the way that good novelists often write — who at times sacrifice accuracy and precision with poignancy to better express a truth. According to the extreme literalists, none were like the great novelists who mix fiction with facts to express a truth clearer and better than facts alone would have expressed it. Instead, they were all like good reporters who only reported the facts with no hyperbole, no interpretation, no opinions, and minimum figures of speech.

Nevertheless, most extreme literalists do recognize parables as nonfactual stories used to express a truth. However, if a parable uses a person's name, it ceases being a nonfactual story and becomes a statement of fact — as though Jesus was incapable of varying his parables.

Also, extreme literalists object to placing words in the mouths of people who did not actually say those words, as ancient writers often did. Moreover, they seem to believe that when several writers are writing about the same event, all of them saw that event from the same perspective, which was seldom the case.

Although the original autographs are without errors, copies and translations are not. Translators have to choose among various texts, such as Textus Receptus, Westcott & Hort, Majority Text, Masoretic text, and Septuagint.

For example, some translators use the Greek text for John 6:47 that contains “on me”: “. . .  He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” Others use the Greek text that lacks “on me”: “. . . He that believeth hath eternal life.” (The former is from the King James Version, and the latter is from the American Standard Version.) Thus, the first identifies where one’s faith has to be applied to have everlasting life. According to the second, any faith guarantees everlasting life.

Another example that the choice of the Greek text affects meaning is Acts 17:26. Most translations like the King James use the Greek text that contains the word “blood”: “And hath made of one blood all nations of men. . . .” However, a few translations like the American Standard use the Greek text that omits the word “blood”: “and he made of one every nation of men. . . .” While the first supports the doctrine of the unity of man and therefore evolution, the latter does not. (For another example how a choice text can give a different impression, see “Did Jesus Lie?" by Thomas Allen.)

Moreover, when translating from Hebrew or Greek to English, translators often have a choice of words. For example, in Chapter 1 of Genesis, the Hebrew word that is commonly translated as “day” may also be translated as “age,” as Ferrar Fenton translates it. Having Genesis 1 referring to seven days gives a completely different impression than referring to seven ages.

Another example is Genesis 7:19-24. Since the King James Version describes the Noachian Flood covering the earth, most people interpret this to mean that the Flood covered the entire planet. However, the Hebrew word that the King James and other versions translate as “earth” other translations translate as “land,” “country,” or “ground.” The latter translations give the impression that the Flood was not global.

Matthew 24:3 is another example. The Greek word that the King James translates as “world” most modern translations translate as “age”: Instead of the world ending, the age ends.

In Matthew 2:11, the Greek word that the King James and other translations translate as “worshiped” some translators translate as “paid homage,” which gives a different impression. (For another example how the choice of a word can change the meaning of a text, see “Commentary on John 3:36" by Thomas Allen.)

Ferrar Fenton’s Trinitarian bias shows itself in his translation of John 1:14: “And the WORD became incarnate, and encamped among us — and we gazed upon His majesty, such majesty as that of a Father's only Son — full of beneficence and truth.” As far as I know, he is the only translator that uses “incarnate.” All other translations are similar to the King James: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

An example of deliberate mistranslation is the New King James Version’s translation of Chapter 10 of Ezra. It mistranslates this chapter to thwart its use as a proof text that God prohibits miscegenation. In Chapter 10 of Ezra, the Hebrew word that nearly all other versions translate as “foreign” (the King James uses “stranger”), the New King James translates as “pagan.” According to the New King James, the men sent their wives away because of religion: The woman worshiped false gods instead of or in addition to Yahweh. However, the man stayed even if they worshiped false gods. According to the other versions, the men sent the women away because of their race and regardless of their religion. Their race was the issue and not their religion. (In Chapter 10, the Hebrew word translated as “foreigner” refers to people of another race — see “Stranger in the Old Testament” by Thomas Allen). Consequently, the New King James creates a hypocritical double standard. Female idolists are sent away, but male idolists are not. Many of the men were practicing a false religion or else they would not have married women of a different race, because Yahweh prohibits interracial marriages (see “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen). Thus, the two different translations give entirely different impressions. For one, the separation is because of religion; for the other, it is because of race.

The Bible is error-free. However, people’s understanding is flawed, and the biases of the translators have only added to this problem. Besides, God must receive a good deal of joy watching people argue and even kill each other about what His word means, or else He would have had it written and translated with much greater clarity.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck

Thomas Allen

[Note: This article is based on observations obtained from listening to Beck’s radio program.]

Like most conservatives, Glenn Beck, a talk-show host, is a racial nihilist. He has adopted the new morality of sanctifying the races on the alter of humanity. Also, he is a Zionist and a worshiper of St. Martin Luther King the Divine, although he fails to revere him above Jesus.

Moreover, he asserts that the United States are an exceptional country, a propositional country, a conventual country, and not a genetic country. Thus, he believes that “all men are created equal” as he processes to describe their natural inequality. Therefore, the US Constitution and American history should be understood in the light of this proposition. Naturally, he rejects the fact that the Constitution was written for Whites and not for Blacks and other nonwhite races — therefore, the need for the illegal fourteenth amendment.

Further, Beck professes to be a Christian. However, like most Christians, he has no objection to miscegenation and refuses to recognize God’s prohibition of miscegenation. He finds interracial mating acceptable if done in marriage.

Moreover, Beck acknowledges that God created the races and, therefore, the races should be preserved. (Thus, this belief makes him appear to be a racial preservationist. However, his actions and most of his comments related to race show that he is definitely a racial nihilist. Perhaps, he suffers from some kind of dissociative disorder. To illustrate this disorder, Beck has no objection to or concern about interracial mating although it results in the genocide of the races intermating, which racial nihilist support. If he were a true racial preservationist, he would support racial separation, but he does not. On the contrary, he opposes racial separation.) Further, he suggests that races differ because God created them with different attributes and for different purposes. If true, the races and, therefore, individuals of different races cannot be equal. Thus, Beck’s beloved proposition “that all men are created equal” dies.

Additionally, Beck claims that slavery is contrary to Christianity and the Bible. One wonders what Bible he uses. No where does the Bible or Christianity as taught in the Bible condemn slavery. On the contrary, the Bible sets forth a code for the treatment of slaves. Peter even urged slaves to be obedient to their masters regardless of how the master treated his slaves. (Because the Bible does not condemn slavery, the abolitionists abandoned it.)

Also, Beck suffers from Dixiephobia and Confederaphobia. He claims to be highly knowledgeable in American history. Yet, his knowledge (or should we say ignorance) of Southern history and, especially, the US Constitution and secession is appalling. He erroneously believes that slavery was the real cause of Southern secession despite slavery being better protected within than without the Union. For him, Father Abraham is the savior of the Union although the Union that Lincoln and the Radical Republicans created only superficially resembled the Union that the founding fathers created.

Beck claims that liberty and everything else good with the country comes from the Pilgrims and out of New England. (In The War Between the States, p. 138, Albert T. Bledsoe wrote, “The pilgrim fathers of Massachusetts delighted in two things: first, in the freedom from persecution for themselves; and, secondly, in the sweet privilege and power to persecute others.” This is an accurate description of the Yankee that Beck seems to admire.) Everything bad comes from Jamestown and out of the South. That is, Yankees and Northerners are righteous, and Southerners are evil. (Apparently, all those liberal and progressive Democrats in the North whom Beck despises are immigrants from the South masquerading as Yankees. He seems to believe that most Democrats today are still Southerners, and most Republicans are Northerners and Yankees. Yet, he seems schizophrenic about Southern Republicans, i.e., he praises them as Republicans but condemns them as Southerners.)

He implies obliquely that the first thing that the colonists in Virginia did was to build a fleet of slave ships, sail to Africa, kidnap thousands of Africans, returned to Virginia where they daily beat the Africans who survive the journey and inflicted all sorts of cruelties and tortures on them just to satisfy their sadistic lust. Further, he seems to suggest regret about the Radical Republicans’ failure to genocide the Southerner during Lincoln’s War and Reconstruction.

Beck says that Americans need to choose between the liberty (of the Pilgrims) and despotism (of the Southerner). In 1861, Southerners tried to separate themselves from Beck’s utopia of the freedom-loving and liberty advocating Puritan Yankees. However, Beck’s beloved Yankees would not let the South go — a decision with which Beck approves. Because the United States are (“is” as he would say) a propositional country and a conventual country, the North could not let the South go. It had to purge it of its evil. (In Beck’s mind, this evil was slavery. To the Northerner, this evil was depriving the U.S. government of 85 percent of its revenue, of which 80 percent paid for subsidies to Northern industries, if the secession of the Southern States were successful. Moreover, like most Northerners of that time, Beck hates the South and Southerners.)

Most of the State governments that Beck praises are in the South while most of the State governments that he condemns are in the North and on the West coast. Thus, most Southerners must have migrated to the North and West coast, while most Yankees must have migrated to the South. Unfortunately for him, population statistics do not support such migration.

Moreover, despite his Dixiephobia, most of what Beck likes in the country reside in the South, except its traditional social system, which he despises. Most of what he dislikes in the country resides in the North, except its racist hypocrisy, which he accepts. Thus, Beck seems to have some kind of dissociative disorder.

Like the Palestinians, Southerners are subhuman. Therefore, equality does not apply to the Southerner, especially the unreconstructed Southerner.  Nor does equality apply to Palestinians.

Except for the curse of slavery, Southerners contributed nothing to the founding of the United States. Apparently, Washington and Jefferson were not true Southerners; they were Yankees disguised as Southerners, so Becks seems to suggest.

Moreover, Beck judges historical figures by today’s racial standards, which Beck has adopted. Thus, President Wilson is a racist because he fired the Black personnel on the White House servant staff and segregated federal offices. Andrew Jackson is even more deplorable than Wilson because he forcibly moved Indians in the Southeast to Oklahoma (where they later allied with the Confederacy against the United States).

Like most conservative commentators these days, Beck insinuates that today’s Democrats are antiblack, anti-integration, pro-segregation, and White supremacists because most Democrats before World War II favored segregation and White rule. (This is called guilt by association.) However, he fails to identify pre-World-War-II Republicans who were segregationists and White supremacists — as nearly all pre-World-War-II Republicans were. Examples are repatriationist, White supremacist Lincoln; slaveholder, White supremacist Grant; and progressive, imperialist, eugenist, White supremacist Teddy Roosevelt. Instead, Beak defends the first two of these racist Republican presidents and treats them as great patron saints of racial equality, i.e., Black privilege, power, and supremacy — for that is the meaning of racial equality. Roosevelt, he identifies as a progressive because he ran as the Progressive Party’s candidate in 1912, and not as a Republican although he was the Republican president from 1901 to 1909.

On the plus side, Beck does oppose socialism and much of the economic agenda of liberals and progressives. Moreover, he favors controlled borders and is pro-life. Unfortunately, he has adopted most of the social agenda of the progressives, liberals, and socialists.

Conservatives like Beck are a greater threat to the South and Southerners (true Southerners, not White wokespersons, White social justice warriors, and the like who happen to be born in the South) than are Black Lives Matter and Antifa. Black Lives Matters and Antifa are the enemies without while conservatives like Beck are the enemies within. Enemies within are far more dangerous.

Afterthought
Beck ranks Wilson among the worst presidents because he ordered the racial segregation of federal offices. Yet, he seems to ignore Wilson’s real crimes: bringing the interventionist foreign policy to the United States and thus globalism to America, establishing the Federal Reserve System, adopting draconian laws that destroyed free speech and other liberties in the name of national security, lying the United States into World War I, dictatorially controlling the US economy and nationalizing the railroads and radio broadcasting to control information, and establishing the regulatory state where regulatory agencies enacted rules (legislative), enforced their rules (executive), and decided if their rules had been violated (judicial).

Like other neoconservatives, Beck ranks Lincoln among the greatest presidents mainly because he freed the slaves although he never freed a slave. He seems to overlook Lincoln’s real accomplishments: making himself absolute dictator who was above the States and the US Constitution, destroying the Constitution, imprisoning people who disagreed with him without due process of law, sacrificing more than 600,000 men to impose his protective tariff, authorizing the deliberate killing of women and children, giving the country legal-tender paper fiat money, establishing the imperial presidency, and committing treason according to the Constitution when he levied war against States that he calmed never left the union.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Analysis of a Speech Given to Black Lives Matters

Analysis of a Speech Given to Black Lives Matters

Thomas Allen

A local newspaper in a small town covered a small Black-Lives-Matter protest of about a dozen protestors.[1] (Based on the picture, Whites outnumbered Blacks.) This article analyzes that speech as presented in the newspaper article. My comments are enclosed in brackets.

Beginning the Black-Lives-Matter event, the organizers made some introductory remarks. They said that the event was being held for the cause of Black Lives Matter. Then, they introduced the guest speaker, who was a retired US Army Black female colonel.

The colonel began by praising the organizers and Black Lives Matter. [However, she failed to mention that goal of Black Lives Matter was to destroy White America and replace it with a socialistic Black America.]

Vigorously and joyfully, she approved of dismantling and removing the local Confederate monument. [Obviously, she is a Confederaphobe and probably a Dixiephobe, a hesperophobe, and an albusphobe. Consequently, she appears to suffer from mental problems. Ironically, she gave  her speech in front of another Confederate memorial, which has so far escape desecration.]

The article notes that the town has been sued for removing the statue. [However, the article does not mention that the statue was removed in violation of State law. Also, it was removed in violation of international law: “Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II),” Article 16 – “Protection of cultural objects and of places of worship,” which reads:

Without prejudice to the provisions of The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954, it is prohibited to commit any acts of hostility directed against historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples, and to use them in support of the military effort.]

She notes that people can never change history, but they can change their beliefs [by rewriting history to fit the current ideology or agenda — a la 1984].

Next, she comments about her father, who was a veteran of World War II, and about him being treated like a second class citizen. [Now, because of the civil rights laws of 1964 and 1991 and various other laws, court decisions, and administrative regulations, Whites are treated like second class citizens.] Moreover, when he returned home, he saw statues memorializing the Confederacy and none honoring the veterans of World War II. [When the Confederate soldiers returned home, they saw no statues honoring them. All they saw was devastation. Unlike her father, they also faced starvation. Moreover, most of these soldiers never saw a Confederate statue. Most of these statues were erected around the semicentennial and the centennial of Lincoln’s War.]

However, she does note that most of these Confederate statues were erected in the 1910s and 1920s with another wave of erections occurring in the 1950s and 1960s. She is convinced that they were erected to symbolize Jim Crow. Their purpose was to terrorize Blacks and convince Blacks that the White South had won Lincoln’s War. [If that were their purpose, they were highly ineffective. How many Southerners have ever met a Black who was so possessed by superstition that he lets statues terrorize him? This colonel has a low opinion of Blacks during this era if she believes what she says. Most Blacks seem to have ignored Confederate statutes until the White Confederaphobes demanded their removal. Just as the Puritan Yankee used the Negro to genocide the Southerner during the First Reconstruction, so he again uses the Negro to genocide the Southerner during the Second Reconstruction.]

Then, she attacks the Confederate soldier. According to her, they fought to defend an economic system based on the brutal destruction of Black families. [Apparently, she never considered that most Southerners were fighting to defend their homes and families from an invading horde. Furthermore, the welfare state of the Civil Rights Era has done more to destroy the Black family than slavery ever did. If she wants to save the Black family, she should lead the charge to dismantle the welfare state instead of focusing on destroying Confederate monuments.]

Like progressives, liberals, and neoconservatives, she accuses the Confederate soldier of treason. [If any treason were involved, Lincoln and his followers are the traitors. The reason that the US government never tried Jefferson Davis for treason is that it could not win the case. It even hired several leading attorneys to prosecute the case. These attorneys turned down the offer and advised the government that it had no case. Davis had no problem acquiring leading attorneys to defend him. Of course, this was a time when the courts had not been politicized as they are today.]

She claims that Southerners rebelled against the United States because they refused to accept a political solution to slavery. [Her knowledge (ignorance) of history ranks down there with that of the typical progressive, liberal, and neoconservative. Slavery was not the cause of the war; taxes were. Lincoln offered to concede almost any kind of protection and guarantee of slavery that the South demanded if it remained in the Union and let Lincoln collect the taxes for the benefit of the North. About Lincoln’s War,  The Quarterly Review of London wrote in 1862:

For the contest on the part of the North is now undisguisedly for empire. The question of Slavery is thrown to the winds. There is hardly any concession in its favor that the South could ask which the North would refuse, provided only that the seceding States would re-enter the Union. . . . Away with the pretense on the North to dignify its cause with the name of freedom to the slave!

In 1861, Karl Marx, who was an opponent of the South, summarized the war as follows:

The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty.]

After she has spent most of her speech lambasting, condemning, castigating, degrading, and lying about Confederate soldiers, she asks their descendants to join her and her agenda. She asserts that she wants peace, unity, and change. [Does her desire for change include ending Black supremacy and Black privilege that now controls the United States? Does it include ending the genocide of the Southerner in particular and the White race in general? Does her idea of unity mean unity in the genocide of the Southerner and the White race? Is her definition of peace the communist definition: Peace means no resistance to the agenda of Black Lives Matter and all the destruction that it entails? To the first two questions, the answer is “no.” To the last two questions, the answer is “yes.”

Disappointingly, far too many Southerners suffer from Confederaphobia, Dixiephobia, hesperophobia, and albusphobia. They gladly join the colonel and Black Lives Matter in the eradication of the South and the White race and the destruction of America and Western Civilization.

In a closing note, one must wonder whether she became a colonel because of merit or because of Black privilege. Until proven otherwise, the safe assumption is that she became a colonel because of privilege as she is doubly privileged: first as a Black and second as a woman.]

Endnote

1.   Carey Johnson, “A Plea: ‘Move Forward Together,’” The Franklin Times, August 6, 2020, p. 1A.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.