Do Human Races Exist: Appendices

Do Human Races Exist: Appendices

Thomas Allen

Appendix 1. Discussion with RN1 in comments to an article in “We Love Trump Report.” 

RN1: Mayor Wu should NOT be apologizing for having the emails sent to ALL Council Members! She should be apologizing for NOT intending to invite the whites in the FIRST PLACE! Plain. And. Simple. PERIOD!

Me to American Patriot: Nonwhites segregating themselves from Whites is the only thing that will save the suicidal White race. Since most Whites are racial nihilists, they are determined to sacrifice themselves on the altar of humanity. Since most people of other races are racial supremacists or racial separationists, they seek to protect, preserve, and promote their race — something White stopped doing decades ago.

RN1 to Me: But we’re all the same race. The human race!

Me to RN1: You prove my point. Are you so stupid that you cannot distinguish between a Korean and a Zulu? If you are correct, then why do we have all these laws and policies that prohibit discriminating against nonexisting nonwhites while encouraging discrimination against nonexisting Whites? Why do we have all these laws and policies that give nonwhites benefits and privileges that are denied nonexisting Whites? Even the great archconservative Martin Luther King could identify the races of humans and wanted Negroes (his word) to have special benefits and privileges. Apparently, these nonexisting Whites can distinguish the race of man that God created. Even toddlers and dogs know that races of humans exist. Only stupid racial nihilists like you are unable to identify a person’s race, which is an insult to that person because his race is an essential part of his identity. Racial nihilists do prove one thing: They prove that nonwhites are more intelligent than Whites where race is concerned. Furthermore, following your logic, there are no differences between men and women because both are of human race. Thus, you must be a proponent of transgenderism since you have proven the proponents of transgenderism correct.

RN1 to Me: What in the world are you even saying? You don’t make much sense. We are ALL of the HUMAN race! With that said, there are different ETHNICITIES within our same race! And there are only TWO genders (male and female)! It's VERY simple to understand! Where did I not make sense to you?

Appendix 2. Discussion with RN2 in comments to an article in The New American.

Original Commenter: Feminize [sic] the males and masculinize [sic] the women; there is such a mass desire to get rid of all God’s creations and some Christians have had enough. 

IMHO messing with God’s formulations is not only dangerous it is downright cruel. The children are the victims; mRNA, drug enhancement vaccines, drugs to trans, drugs for depression, sex edu. at age 4, etc. Sex isn’t in the organs it’s in the mind that controls the organs and the natural hormones. Mess with the minds and hormones of children and you have a mess. Their minds and bodies are not ready for sex or hormones as infants and toddlers......but it's being forced on them; cruelty.

God Help US

Me to Original Commenter: Don’t forget the genociding of the races that God created and that has been pushed since the 1960s.

RN2 to Me: The races that God created? From what I read, God created man kind, both male and female. “Race” is a divisive goo to you evolutionist invented classification. We are all being genocided — black, white, male, female, homosexual, straight, American, European, etc... I know you don’t believe we came from monkeys who came from pond scum, which came from an explosion of nothing.

Me to RN2: If you are correct, evolution is proven. Like begets unlike. Each kind after a different kind. End of story. By the way, Adam invented classification when he named the animals. Consequently, according to your reasoning, Adam must have been an evolutionist. Moreover, since I wrote that God created the races, that precludes me from being an evolutionist. However, the scenario that you describe and seem to support requires you to be an evolutionist.

RN2 to Me: No, not if I'm correct. If scripture is correct, after God created animals, He created man in His image — a clear distinction and separation between animals and man kind. If scripture is correct, then each animal brings forth creatures after their kind. That being the case, and considering the clear distinction between animals and man, it stands to reason that man also brings forth his kind as supported and evidenced by our own eyes and experience. Dogs can only bring forth dogs, cats can only bring forth cats, man can only bring forth man. No animal has or can evolve into another kind of animal, nor has or can any animal evolve into man. There is no evidence that one kind became another. I've not read any scripture that indicates that God created races or different “kinds” of man, just man. Differences in skin color, is not a result of evolution. There are no races. Not if I’m correct. If scripture is correct, God created Adam, and God created Eve. Adam and Eve brought forth their kind in His image. Evolution is NOT proven.

Me to RN2: If God did not do it, what causes the difference in skin color? Since races do not exist, then you must be unable to tell the difference between an East Asian and a Sub-Saharan African. If races do not exist, why do Republicans work so hard to get the Black vote? If races do not exist, why do Blacks have so many benefits and privileges denied Whites, and Whites are discriminated against? If races do not exist, how can one identify a person’s race with a high degree of accuracy from his blood? https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2015/12/of-one-blood.html. If races do not exist, how can one identify a person's race with a high degree of accuracy from his skeleton? https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2016/05/skeleton-differences-of-human-races.html. If races do not exist, why do groups differ greatly in nonphysical traits? https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2022/02/nonphysical-racial-differences.html. Only one kind of man is created in God’s image: https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2016/06/what-race-was-adam.html.

RN2 to Me: What makes you think I can not distinguish between an East Asian and a Sub-Saharan African? I have eyes that work the same as all man kind (with the exception of defect, of course), just as the people of those regions do and can see the differences in Anglo-Americans. How are your political prejudices a scientific determinant of so called ‘race?’ How are benefits and privileges a scientific determinant of so called ‘race?’ All of these are a result of the fall of man kind. God did not cause the fall. He therefore did not cause the variations you call ‘race,’ and certainly not man’s prejudices. “If races do not exist, how can one identify a person's race...” <== This is a logic trap within your question. It is circular and can't be answered.

This article based on scripture and science will answer your questions about skin color, facial features, blood characteristics, bone structure, etc. It is certainly too long to paste here.

“How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?” https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p040/c04018/chapter18.pdf.

Me to RN2: If you can distinguish between East Asians and Sub-Saharan Africans, you have identified two distinct races. I have glanced at the article you referenced and will review it in more detail when time permits. It seems like a covert evolutionist article claiming to be a creation document by doing the impossible with genetics. If all mankind descended from Noah and his family, then evolution is proven. A tribe or nation (nationality) has a common ancestral origin, which makes them monoracial (of the same people group) and are not hybrids. Moreover, skin color is a minor racial characteristic. An albino East Asian can be easily distinguished from an albino Sub-Saharan African, although they have the same skin color. The authors of the paper prefer “people group” to “race”; I prefer species, which is a much more accurate term. Here are two articles that show that most fundamental Christians are covert evolutionists: https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2020/05/fundamental-christians-and-evolution.html and https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2019/11/christians-and-creationism.html. Moreover, if races do not exist, why does God prohibit mongrels, mixed breeds, or multiracial people in his assembly https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2017/05/commentary-on-deuteronomy-232.html. However, I doubt that you will read or even look at this article and the previous ones that I linked. In closing, I quote Jeremiah, who declared the immutability of the races (species) of man when he said, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?” (Jeremiah 13:23a). The implication is no. Thus, Jeremiah testifies that fundamental Christians err when they maintain that all the species of man descended from Adam and Eve or from Noah through his sons and their wives.

RN2 to Me: No, I have not identified two distinct races. I have identified two groups of people, each with common characteristics resulting from many generations of environmental adaptations and mutations, not different creations of God. All are descended from one. Not evolution (one kind becoming another). Not separate creations. Descendants. “And [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; ‘Species,’ the term you prefer over ‘people groups,’ nations and tribes, is a 14th Century invention by evolutionists. It cannot more accurately describe that which existed thousands of years before it.

God does not prohibit ‘mongrels’ from His assembly. “Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” A better question would have been, “Why did God make the prohibitions of Deut. 23?” Not because they were a different creation. Not because they evolved from animals. Not because they were a different ‘species.’ Not because of the color of their skin. He prohibited them because they were pagans, worshipers of false Gods, workers of evil. He prohibited them so Israel would not be destroyed. He prohibited them for the same reason he prohibited Israelites from marrying foreign nationals from cultures of evil. Even then, God allowed some that were converted.

Why doubt that I read the articles you linked when you could simply ask? Because you did not read the article I linked? Because you cannot convert me and initiate me into the evolutionist cult? Yes, I read them, and they don’t hide their Aryan “master race” scripture twisting ideologies. They make false claims such as, “They imply, if not outright claim, that the blood of the races of humans is identical. Thus, races cannot be distinguished by blood.” No, they don’t. They do not imply or claim there are ‘races,’ rather nations and tribal groups. They do not imply or claim the blood of people groups are identical. This is explained in the article I linked that you did not read. They do not imply or claim that ethnicity groups cannot be distinguished by blood (also explained).

You “closed” by partially quoting Jeremiah who did NOT declare “the immutability of the races (or species — a term loved by Darwin and invented thousands of years after God spoke to Jeremiah). The full quote is “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.” This in no way indicates that skin can not change over time and through generations. In fact, we know that skin can change with environmental factors, and can actually change quite abruptly with conditions doctors call “vitiligo.” What the Lord is saying is that the evil people of Judah have ignored God’s words for so long and are so accustomed to doing evil, that changing their hearts is as likely as the heavily pigmented Ethiopian changing his own skin or a leopard changing its spots — so unlikely He will destroy them.

So, now I will close by saying, you and I have a different belief system. Neither you nor I will change our hearts. Evolution is pseudo-science. There are no races, and the only master is the Messiah.

Me to RN2: As interesting as it is, I must close this discussion. After decades of studying this issue, I am convinced that I am correct, and you are not going to change my mind. Moreover, I am not going to correct your errors. Anyway, I congratulate you for not resorting to name-calling, as many commenters do when they cannot counter an argument. By the way, you believe that I am an evolutionist; I am more of a creationists than you are since I credit God with creating the races of humans (which your article calls people groups), and you resort to evolutionary methods. Further, I do not believe in a master race.

RN2 to Me: I thought you had already closed. “In closing, I quote Jeremiah,...” Perhaps, you meant only to close your prior comment. If so, fair enough.

I am not sure why you insist on making projections toward me. First, you doubted I would read your links, when in fact I already had. Second, you state as fact that I believe you are an evolutionist — ignoring my very first comment. I do NOT believe you are an evolutionist. You said you are not. I know you are not. I believe TC Allen is manipulating words to convolute what is obvious to “creationists,” just as you believe the author and contributors of Chapter 18 of Creation Answers Book 8th Edition is (not to be confused with “The Creation Answer Book,” by creation and biblical apologist Hank Hanegraaff).

“Only one kind of man is created in God’s image” is indicative of a master kind, or ‘race’ and ‘species’ as you prefer. TC Allen states that whites [only] are created in God’s image and have dominion over the earth, which would include the other supposed ‘races’ and ‘species’ of man. If these beliefs are not a belief in a master ‘race,’ I do not know what is.

“After decades of studying this issue, I am convinced that I am correct, and you are not going to change my mind.” Sound like Jeremiah 13:23? Keep an open mind, Me. Everyone can be deceived. Even the apostles and others who literally walked the earth with Messiah have been deceived. Don’t place all of your trust in TC Allen’s writings. I don’t place all of mine in the people at Creation Ministries International.

God bless and keep you. I’m out. The final word is yours.

Part 1: Main Article.

More social articles.

Do Human Races Exist? –Main Article

Do Human Races Exist?

Thomas Allen

Do human races exist? I discussed this issue in comments to two different articles. First, I discussed it with RN1 in comments to an article in “We Love Trump Report”: “Boston Mayor Defends Sending Out Invitations For Segregated Holiday Party” by Russell Bartlett at https://wltreport.com/2023/12/14/boston-mayor-defends-sending-invitations-segregated-holiday-party/. Second, I discussed it with RN2 in comments to an article in The New American: “Burundi’s President Calls for Public Execution of Homosexuals”  by Angeline Tan January 2, 2024, at https://thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/burundis-president-calls-for-public-execution-of-homosexuals/#comment-6359761180. I have changed the pseudonyms of the commenters to protect the guilty. The discussions are in the appendices.

If human races do not exist, how can racial discrimination occur? How can a nonexistent race discriminate against a nonexistent race? Further, if races do not exist, then White supremacy and White privileges cannot exist because the White race does not exist. Yet, progressives and liberals who are the most adamant in the notion that races do not exist are the most vociferous at decrying White supremacy and White privilege.

Most progressives and liberals claim that the various human races are social constructs and do not exist genetically. Many conservatives, such as RN1 and RN2, act as though they agree with them. Conservatives do so by asserting that only one race, the human race, exists; races are merely artificial constructs created by evolutionists. Most proponents of the racial social construct theory are racial nihilists, who believe that human races do not exist or if they do, they are irrelevant. 

According to the racial social construct theory, genetics does not determine a person’s race; societies’ arbitrary choice and selection determine it. Consequently, if races are social constructs, then merely abolishing the White racial construct can abolish White privileges and White supremacy.

The best answer that racial nihilists, like RN1 and RN2,  can give to the question of racial discrimination is that the races exist as social constructs, and, therefore, they and their names are fluid and can change at a whim. (In a limited sense, this is true of everything in nature. The names of everything in the universe can and do change from one culture to another and from one era to another. However, the substance or essence of the thing whose name is changed remains the same.) However, contrary to their belief, the genetics of the races is fixed and cannot change — unless the theory of evolution is correct.

Moreover, many White conservatives, like RN1 and RN2, pride themselves on denying the existence of races or at least not noticing a person’s race. They declare that only one race exists: the human race. Are these conservatives ignorant, stupid, liars, or self-deceivers? Even the nonwhites whom these conservatives seem to be trying to placate openly admit the existence of genetic races. These conservatives are racial nihilists who are practicing the new morality of sacrificing their own race, the White race (a.k.a. Aryan, Adamite, or Homo albus), on the altar of humanity. (See "Old Morality – New Morality” by Thomas Allen.)

Although racial nihilists, most of whom are Whites, claim that human races do not exist, nearly all nonwhites claim that they do exist. Thus, nonwhites show more intelligence and honesty concerning race than do White racial nihilists. (See “Views on Race” by Thomas Allen.)

People who assert that only one race exists are calling Moses and God liars. God  through Moses declares in Deuteronomy 23:2, “No half-bred [mongrel] may be admitted to the assembly of the Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh.” (See “Commentary on Deuteronomy 23:2” by Thomas Allen.) If only one race exists, mongrels cannot exist. Since, according to the Bible, mongrels exist, then more than one race must exist.

Also, Jeremiah writes, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?” (Jeremiah 13:23a). (See "Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race" by Thomas Allen.) The implication is that a leopard cannot change its spots. God created the leopard the way it is; genetics fixes its appearance, character, temperament, etc. Likewise, the Ethiopian cannot change his skin. That is, when God created the Melanochroi and the other races, he genetically fixed their physical appearances and genetically influenced their intelligence, character, temperament, etc. Therefore, the racial characteristics of the human races are fixed and cannot change. They are immutable because God fixed them when he created the races. (Although both RN1 and RN2 give God the credit for creating man, they do not give Him credit for creating the various human races. Instead, they resort to Darwinism, although they deny that they are doing so.)

Nearly all race deniers like RN1 and RN2 confuse race, which is genetic, with ethnicity, which is cultural. Almost everyone can distinguish between a Norwegian and a Swede, who are Aryans (Whites) of the Nordic racial type, on the one hand, and a Zulu and a Tswana, who are Negroes (Blacks) of the Bantu racial type, on the other hand. Anyone who claims that he cannot tell the difference is either brain-dead or a liar. However, almost no one can distinguish between Norwegians and Swedes based on physical appearance. Likewise, almost no one can distinguish between Zulus and Tswana based on physical appearance. Norwegians and Swedes are ethnicities of the Aryan race, and Zulus and Tswana are ethnicities of the Negro race. Thus, races and ethnicities are not the same. Ethnicities are subdivisions of a race and are based on culture. (See “Some Comments on Race and Ethnicity” by Thomas Allen for further explanation of the differences between race and ethnicity.) 

Furthermore, a person’s race can be identified with a high degree of accuracy from his skeleton (see “Skeleton Differences of Human Races” by Thomas Allen). Moreover, a person’s race can also be identified with a high degree of accuracy from his blood (see “Of One Blood” by Thomas Allen). Also, races differ significantly in nonphysical characteristics (see "Nonphysical Racial Differences” by Thomas Allen).

Human races are as genetically fixed as are human sexes. (Nevertheless, human races [species] can crossbreed and produce hybrids, as can some species of Canis [the dog, wolf, coyote, and jackal] and Bos [the gaur and the gayal, the American bison and the yak, the American bison and the wisent, the American bison and the domestic cattle, and the wisent and domestic cattle].) Although RN1 and RN2 recognize some of the genetic differences between the races, they reject the existence of the human races.

Moreover, RN1 and RN2 and people like them claim that human races do not exist because the Bible does not specifically use “race” in the biological sense. If they are consistent, they would argue that fungi and bacteria do not exist because the Bible does not mention them. Yet, these people accept the existence of fungi and bacteria. Many things exist that the Bible does not mention. Because the Bible does not mention “race” does not mean that human races do not exist.

Both RN1 and RN2 are racial nihilists and consider themselves conservatives. While denying that human races exist, they claim that they can distinguish between the human races.

RN2 displaces far more intelligence than does RN1. RN1 can only repeat catchphrases that he has heard or been taught. He believes that only one race, the human race, exists. He shows little understanding of why he believes that human races do not exist other than he has been told that they do not exist. 

At least, RN2 can explain why he believes that human races do not exist. Although he is wrong, he can offer a plausible argument for his belief.

RN1 criticizes Mayor Wu of Boston for not inviting Whites to her party. Then, he has the audacity to declare that “we’re all the same race. The Human race.” If we are all of the same race, then her party could not have been racially segregated, as RN1 and the article assert. How could she apologize to Whites if Whites do not exist? Likewise, like most people of his kind, RN1 confuses race, which is genetic, with ethnicity, which is cultural.

RN2 rejects the notion that God created the human races. According to him, Darwinian principles, such as mutation, natural selection, and adaptation, explain the origin of the various human races. Although he denies that he is an evolutionist, he uses evolutionist principles. Furthermore, he claims that evolutionists created biological classification. Yet, the first known classifier was Adam, who named the animals. Moreover, modern-day biological classification preceded Darwin’s theory of evolution by about a century. 

Although RN2 states that the principle of “each after its kind” is correct, he implies that it does not apply to humans. If true, we should see East Asians producing Negroes regularly. Despite asserting that human races do not exist, he claims that he can distinguish between East Asians and Negroes.

Like many Christian “creationists” who use evolutionary principles to explain the origins of human races, RN2 prefers using “people groups” instead of “race.” Many evolutionists prefer “geographical populations” instead of “race.” 

Moreover, he errs when he states that “species” is a term that evolutionists invented in the fourteenth century. Since the theory of evolution came into being in the nineteenth century, evolutionists could not have invented a term that came into being four hundred years earlier.

Also, when RN2 asserts that God does not prohibit mongrels in His assembly, he errs. As quoted above, Deuteronomy 23:2 clearly states that God does not allow mongrels in His assembly. RN2 claims that this verse means that pagans are not allowed in God’s assembly. Thus, he translates the Hebrew word for “mongrel” as “pagan.” He is the only person whom I have encountered who gives such a translation. Most others erroneously translate the Hebrew word for “mongrel” as a person of “illegitimate birth,” “illicit birth,” “illegitimate or unlawful marriage,” “forbidden marriage,” “born out of wedlock,” or a similar phrase.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2: Appendices.

More social issues articles.

Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race

Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race

Thomas Allen

Jeremiah 13:22–24 (emphasis added):

22 And if thou say in thine heart, Wherefore come these things upon me? For the greatness of thine iniquity are thy skirts discovered, and thy heels made bare.

23 Can the Ethiopian [Cushite] change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

24 Therefore will I scatter them as the stubble that passeth away by the wind of the wilderness.

The implication is that an Ethiopian cannot change his racial characteristics, and a leopard cannot change its spots. Jeremiah is using irony to show that the people whom he is addressing have become so accustomed to practicing evil that they cannot and do not want to change their ways and do good. They are as fixed in their evil ways as an Ethiopian is in his racial attributes, and a leopard is in its spots. The chance of them becoming good is on the same level as the chance of an Ethiopian, i.e., a Melanochroi, changing his biological racial characteristics, which is never. If the racial traits of a Melanochroi can change, then Jeremiah’s analogy fails. Moreover, a leopard can change its spots. Consequently, Jeremiah has declared that the biological attributes of the races, or more accurately, species, of humans are immutable.

The attributes of a species are fixed; they are not fluid and do not change over time.  According to Jeremiah, the biological races of humans, as opposed to cultural and ethnic races, are fixed, and, therefore, they should be considered species. Thus, several extant species of humans exist: Aryan (Homo albus), Turanian (H. luridus ), Negro (H. niger), Melanochroi (H. brunus), Indo-Australian (H. australis), and Khoisan (H. khoisanii).  Lumpers have mistakenly grouped all of these species into a single species, contrary to Jeremiah. (Whom do you believe? Jeremiah, whom God inspired, or modern-day lumpers and Darwinists.) Also, several species of humans are extinct; they include Neanderthal (H. neandertalensis), Homo erectus, giants (H. gigantus), e.g., Nephelium and kindred people mentioned in the Bible, Denisovan man (H. denisova), and Florisbad man (H. heidelbergensis).

(According to Darwinism, species are fluid; they are not fixed. Over time, one species can change into another species. Jeremiah’s analogy, which requires that the characteristics of the various human races, or more correctly species, be immutable, is incompatible with Darwinism. Moreover, under Darwinism, a leopard can change its spots.)

Appendix 1. Melanochroi.

The King James Version and many other translations translate the word “Cushite,” which is a literal translation, as “Ethiopian.” Others use “Cushite.” Regardless of which word is used, both are referring to a Melanochroi. A few erroneously translate it as “a black man, “a black Moor,” or “an African.”

Melanochroi are predominately found in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, coastal Iran, southern Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan, Libya south of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, Chad, Niger, Mali, Mauritania, Algeria south of the Atlas Mountains, and central and southern Morocco.

Appendix 2. The Superiority of Hybrid Theory.

Some people argue in favor of interracial breeding using the “superiority of hybrid theory,” i.e., the superiority of mixed-racial people. Thus, the offspring of parents of different races is superior to the parent races in most, if not all, aspects — intelligence, beauty, strength, health, character, temperament, personality, etc. Even if true, which it is not, the advantages of hybrids are lost in the next generation. The offspring of hybrids are inferior not only to the hybrid parents but also to the parent races of the hybrids. For this reason, hybrids are not bred.

The notion of the superiority of hybrids comes from agriculture. People who promote this theory observe that some crosses of chicken breeds result in superior egg layers. However, if these hybrids are bred, their offspring are inferior to the hybrids and the original parent breeds. Likewise, with hybrid seeds, which result in some superior traits, such as disease resistance and yield, their descendants are not planted because they produce plants inferior to the hybrids and the parents of the hybrids. Furthermore, the proponents of this theory overlook two things. First, many hybrids are discarded before a hybrid with desirable traits is found. Second, unlike human hybrids, which are developed by random breeding, selective breeding develops livestock and seed hybrids. Consequently, the superiority of hybrid theory is highly flawed.

The proof that the superiority of hybrid theory is invalid is Kamala Harris. She is a hybrid — a cross between a Melanochroi (an Asian Indian) and a Negro (a Caribbean Black). Obviously, she is inferior to the average Negro and the average Melanochroi.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Contrasting Machiavelli and Washington

 Contrasting Machiavelli and Washington

Thomas Allen

The author of Internal Relations of the Cities, Towns, Villages, Counties, and States of the Union; re, The Municipalist: A Highly Useful Book for Voters, Tax-Payers, Statesmen, Politicians and Families, second edition (New York: Ross & Tousey, Dexter & Brothers and William Radde, 1859), pages 192-193, contrasts the political philosophy of Niccolo Machiavelli as presented in the Prince and George Washington as presented in his farewell address. His contrast follows.

Machiavelli identifies a hereditary prince at the head of a consolidated monarchy as the best form of government. 

Washington identifies a federal republic under one elective executive as the best form of government.

Machiavelli treats more on subjects, and their prudent management.

Washington treats more political business, and its good organization, distribution, and performance. 

Machiavelli advises his prince how to conquer a republic by ruining it and keeping down influential men.

Washington maintains that liberty ought to be the main pillar of the Union. 

Machiavelli suggests that the prince must manage public affairs, so that in all places, times, and occasions, the people may need his administration and regimen, or that he has his hands in everything.

Washington sees the proper organization and distribution of public business as the best guarantee for the safety of both the people and the government. 

Machiavelli argues that a prince is to have no other thought or study but war.

Washington believes that by our Union we will avoid the necessity of overgrown military establishments. 

Machiavelli thinks a prince may not shun vices and infamy if he can only preserve thus his dominion.

Washington believes that honesty is the best policy.

Machiavelli claims that a prince ought not to keep his parole when it is to his prejudice.

Washington believes that all engagements should be observed in their genuine sense, justice, and good faith toward all nations.

Machiavelli holds that having all the good qualities in reality is necessary for a prince, and to play the hypocrite well.

Washington believes that honesty, virtue, and morality are necessary springs of popular government.

Machiavelli believes that the prince ought to be terrible at home to his subjects, and abroad to his equals.

Washington believes that the ideal is a life under the benign influence of good laws under a free government.

Machiavelli argues that a prince must recommend himself to the world through great enterprises and valor (of course expensive things), and monopolize knowledge.

Washington is for peace, economy, and diffusion of knowledge.

Machiavelli advises his prince never to league with another more powerful than himself.

Washington is against all entangling alliances.

Machiavelli warns the prince of the snares of women. 

Washington warns of the wiles of party and faction.

Machiavelli advocates rank king-craft.

Washington advocates undefined democracy.

The author also contrasts virtues with vices, page 301:

Virtues: Justice, self-control, attention, honesty, veracity, truth, prudence, politeness, piety, charity, modesty, simplicity, economy, patience, sobriety, pudicity, industry, conscientiousness, fortitude, glory, patriotism, righteousness, love, humanity.

Vices: Injustice, carelessness, recklessness, faithlessness, dishonesty, falsehood, calumny, intrigue, slander, hypocrisy, imprudence, inurbanity, profanity, inhumanity, avarice, impudence, extravagance, prodigality, passion, intemperance, lewdness, free love, laziness, treachery, perfidy, cowardice, bombast, treason, villainy, corruption, hatred, vengeance, cruelty, barbarism.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Cussons on the Hypocrisy of the Puritan Yankee

Cussons on the Hypocrisy 

of the Puritan Yankee

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Commentary on John 10:30

Commentary on John 10:30

Thomas Allen

I and my Father are one. (John 10:30)

[Note: most translations since 1900 use “the” instead of “my.” Contrary to the assertions of some Trinitarians, whatever word is used makes no difference.]

John 10:30 is one of the strongest proof texts of Trinitarianism. According to many Trinitarians, this verse proves that Jesus is of the same substance or essence as the Father. Namely, Jesus is claiming to be one with his Father in substance or essence and by that, his deity. He is claiming that he is one of the persons of the Triune God. Thus, these Trinitarians understand this verse to mean that Jesus and the Father are equal and are persons of the same God.

Some Trinitarians claim that the “are” in this verse proves the plurality of persons, i.e., God consists of multiple persons. For Trinitarians, God consists of three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Further, the “one” in this verse proves the unity of God, i.e., the three persons are one God. Consequently, Wesley claims, “Therefore, if He [Jesus] was not God, He must have been the vilest of men.” Thus, if Jesus is not God, he is guilty of blasphemy. 

If this verse proves that Jesus and the Father are both God, it supports modalism just as easily as it supports orthodox Trinitarianism.  It implies that Jesus and the Father are the same God, but are different manifestations, modes, or aspects of God. That is, a modalist understands this verse to mean that Jesus and the Father are the same person but are different manifestations of that person.

Unitarians understand Jesus to mean that he and his Father are united in will and purpose; they are of one mind and purpose. Their conclusion is supported by John 17:11: “And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.” (Emphasis added.) Jesus prays that as he and his Father are one, his followers may be one, i.e., united in purpose. He was not praying that his followers would become one being or substance.

Not only do Unitarians have this understanding, but so do some Trinitarians, such as Erasmus and Calvin. Calvin argues that Jesus is speaking of his agreement with the Father; he is not speaking of the unity of substance. Likewise, in The Layman’s Biblical Commentary, volume 6, Floyd Filson writes about this verse, “Jesus and the Father are one in purpose and in love for the sheep.”

Some Trinitarians take both sides. If the verse is connected to the text that precedes it, it means oneness of purpose. However, if it is connected to the text that follows it, it means oneness of essence, and, therefore, affirms Jesus’ deity.

When this verse is read in context, it is in the context of the good shepherd (Jesus) caring for his sheep (his followers). Jesus is talking about the unity of purpose. He is not talking about the unity of substance or essence. 

A good Christian claims, “I and the Father are one.” However, he is not claiming that he is equal to the Father, of the same substance as the Father, or God. He is claiming that he is in union and agreement with God. This is what Jesus means in John 10:30. What separates him from his followers is that being the Son of God, he is in perfect union and agreement whereas they are not.

Unity can exist without equality. Unity of purpose and enterprise are examples. Another example is the soldiers of an army; an army has a unity of goals and objectives but is hierarchal in structure (no equality).

Thus, John 10:30 refers to the perfect unity of action and purpose between God the Father and Jesus the Messiah. It does not refer to both Jesus and the Father being of the same essence or substance or to the intrinsic deity of Jesus.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

More religious articles.

Revisionist History

Revisionist History

Thomas Allen

In response to a comment that I made on “MSNBC’s Revisionist History About JD Vance and America’s Failed Wars,” The New American, by Selwyn Duke, July 22, 2024, (https://thenewamerican.com/us/msnbcs-revisionist-history-about-jd-vance-and-americas-failed-wars/#comment-6515624670), I had an interesting discussion with “Confused” on revisionist history. (I have changed his pseudonym to protect his ignorance or stupidity — whichever the case may be.)

Duke’s misleading statements on revision history prompted my comment. My comment was:

A revisionist history is a history that disagrees with the standard orthodox establishment history. It is a historical account based on facts or a perspective that differs from the standard orthodox establishment history, which emphasizes a particular narrative or agenda instead of objective facts. That is, the primary purpose of the standard orthodox establishment history is to declare that the victors had the moral high ground and were not at fault or to advance an agenda of the establishment. More often than not, revisionist history is closer to the truth than is the standard orthodox establishment history. 

(This comment is a quotation from “Another Discussion with the Imbecile” by Thomas Allen.) The essence of revision history is that it significantly contradicts standard orthodox establishment history.

Duke may be the cause of some of Confused’s confusion about revisionist history. He writes that Alexander Nazaryan, a left-winger, condemned JD Vance over who launched America’s failed wars. Nazaryan attacked Vance and claimed that Vance was accusing Democrats in general and Biden in particular for the death of Americans in the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars, although Vance hardly mentioned these wars and did not blame Democrats for them. Nazaryan identified the Republican Party as the party of war because of Bush the Younger’s war with Iraq. Yet, Nazaryan ignored the wars in which Democrats led the countries: World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. Duke called Nazaryan commentary revisionist history. Nazaryan’s historical account may be revisionist history, but that does not mean that all revisionist historians are left-wingers.

Confused maintains that only left-wingers write revisionist histories; right-wingers do not write revisionist histories. However, since progressives, liberals, and neoconservatives write most standard orthodox establishment history, they have little need to write revisionist history. Consequently, right-wingers write most revisionist history.

Among the right-wing writers of revisionist history are Dennis Cuddy, G. Edward Griffin, Jim Marrs, Jack Mohr, Eustace Mullins, Murray Rothbard, Antony Sutton, Nesta Webster, Clyde Wilson, and even Pat Buchanan. (This list is only a minute sample of right-wingers who have written revisionist histories.) Because these writers have written revisionist history, Confused considers them to be left-wingers, even communists. Following are some examples of revision history.

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that the French Revolution began as a spontaneous grassroots revolt of repressed peasants and proletarians against an oppressive aristocracy, monarchy, and clergy. Revisionist historians argue that the French Revolution was planned years earlier and was guided by elites and secret societies. (See “The French Revolution: Part I: The Foundation” by Thomas Allen.)

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that slavery was the cause, even the sole cause, of Lincoln’s War. The North fought to free the slaves, and the South fought to preserve and even to expand slavery.

Revisionist historians argue that slavery was a minor, even an insignificant issue, until about halfway through the war. Tariffs were the primary cause of secession for the Lower South, and the denial of the constitutional right of a State to secede was the primary cause of secession for the Upper South. (Until 1861, most people, including and especially New Englanders, claimed that States had a right to secede. However, once New Englanders and their allies in New York and the Upper Midwest gained control of the US government, States no longer had a constitutional right to secede.) Thus, the South fought against Northern exploitation, and the North fought to continue to exploit the South. Further, the South fought to preserve self-government and not to protect slavery. Most Southerners fought to repeal an invading hoard; if the Yankees had not invaded the South, no war would have occurred.

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack. Revisionist historians say that it was a surprise attack for the people at Pearl Harbor. However, it was not a surprise to Roosevelt and his inner circle. They knew about it before it happened. Not only did they let it happen, but Roosevelt facilitated the attack. (See “World War II” by Thomas Allen.)

Robert Welch, who was a co-founder of the John Birch Society, asserted that President Eisenhower was a Communist sympathizer and an agent of the Communist conspiracy. Standard orthodox establishment historians disagree with Welch.

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone assassin. Moreover, no conspiracy was involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. Revisionist historians argue that Oswald did not act alone; others were involved in the assassination, which made it a conspiracy. Furthermore, Oswald may not have been the actual assassin. (For more on the Kennedy assassination, see “A Credibility Test” by Thomas Allen.)

One left-wing revisionist history that has become partially, if not wholly, accepted as standard orthodox establishment history is that slaves in the Catholic Latin colonies were treated better than in the Protestant colonies of North America. This history is the opposite of the truth. Slaves were treated better in Protestant North America.

Another slavery-related left-wing revisionist history has become standard orthodox establishment history. That revisionist history was that slavery was the reason for Lincoln’s War. Many Republican leaders, who were the progressives of that day, promoted this revisionist history. Now, this explanation for the war is the standard orthodox establishment history.

Confused is like Imbecile; any history with which he disagrees is revisionist history. The standard definition of revisionist history, which he rejects, is any explanation of a historical event that disagrees significantly with the standard orthodox establishment explanation. (For more on revisionist history, see https://tcallenco.weebly.com/history.html.)

Discussion in Comments

Me: A revisionist history is a history that disagrees with the standard orthodox establishment history. It is a historical account based on facts or a perspective that differs from the standard orthodox establishment history, which emphasizes a particular narrative or agenda instead of objective facts. That is, the primary purpose of the standard orthodox establishment history is to declare that the victors had the moral high ground and were not at fault or to advance an agenda of the establishment. More often than not, revisionist history is closer to the truth than is the standard orthodox establishment history. https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2024/05/another-discussion-with-imbecile.html

Confused: That’s not correct. “Revisionist history” has a negative connotation and is usually applied to leftist manipulation of history.

There are facts relating to events that have happened. Actual history involves revealing and expressing those facts.

Me: If you are correct and I am wrong, then the official explanation of the Kennedy assassination and 9-11 are accurate, and the revisionists are wrong. Likewise, only revisionist historians claim that the Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election. Also, the conspiratorial history that the JBS [John Birch Society] spews out is revisionist history, and, therefore, it has a negative connotation and is usually applied to manipulate history if you are correct. Most revisionist historians do a better job of discovering and explaining facts relating to historical events than do the standard orthodox establishment historians, whom you seem to prefer to believe.

Confused: Your above analysis is incorrect and illogical.

The problem is semantics. You’re defining “revisionist history” in a very anomalous way. The people you’re describing are conspiracy theorists, who may be right or wrong. Here is the definition of “revisionism”: “1 : a movement in revolutionary Marxian socialism favoring an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary spirit.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revisionism

By calling correct historical interpretations “revisionism” YOU are unwittingly demonizing them by associating them with a negative label. You can do that if you wish, but it’s misguided and unwise.

Please stop hurting the cause.

Me: Your definition is for “revisionism” and not for “revisionist history.” Nevertheless, if you are correct, then people who question the official history of the Kennedy assassination and 9-11 and present an alternative explanation are Marxist socialists.

Confused: Again, that’s illogical. It’s only “revisionist history” if it’s an incorrect portrayal of history put forth to deceive and warp people’s conception of reality. So if the 9/11 doubters are correct, or at least if they’re questioning the official story in good faith, it’s not revisionist history.

Me: I have concluded that you are like Imbecile; any history with which you disagree is revisionist history. The standard definition of revisionist history, which you reject, is any explanation of a historical event that disagrees with the standard orthodox establishment explanation of that event. JBS’s conspiratorial explanation of various historical events is revisionist history, just as a communist class-warfare explanation of the same event is revisionist history.

Confused: Go bake some cookies, hon.

END

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More historical articles.