Issues with Trinitarianism and its Christology — Part 1

Issues with Trinitarianism and its Christology — Part 1

Thomas Allen

    Trinitarianism and its Christology may be 100 percent correct, which would be surprising because they are manmade. The following issues and problems with Trinitarianism and its Christology are presented in no order of importance.
    1. The way that the creeds relating to the Trinity Doctrine and its Christology were developed and adopted is a disgrace to Christianity and an insult to Jesus. Their development and adoption depended mostly on speculation, intrigue, and violence and little on Christian charity, forgiveness, humility, restraint, and the Scriptures. They were long on speculation and short on Scripture. Their adoption depended much more on conniving and coercing than on reasoning and persuading. The doctrine of the faction that excelled in cunning, scheming, bribing, and wielding the sword won and became orthodox. Most of the leaders at the councils that adopted these doctrines seemed to be extremely egotistical and void of humility. More often than not, individual egos seemed to be more important than God, Christ, or the Scriptures. The winner got everything, and the losers were anathemized and were often exiled and stripped of their property. Thus, the dissidents were not allowed the dignity of maintaining their opinion. They had to agree with the majority of the council or be anathemized and, otherwise, punished.
    Especially in the Eastern Empire, Christians believed in the vendetta and carried their grudges for a century or more. When they gained enough power in a council, they would declare the theological ancestors of their theological opponents heretics, even if they had been dead for more than a century.
    Furthermore, the discussions of the various councils often concerned church politics more than Christian doctrine. Usually, the side that won the debate had imperial support and became orthodoxy. Imperial support came not only from the emperor, but also his family, courtiers, and the bureaucracy. Moreover, religious issues were often used to advance political issues. Thus, the development and adoption of the Christian creeds on the Trinity and related issues depended much more on politics, both secular and church, than on theological debate.
    When these doctrines were adopted, the behavior of Christians was like that of radical Muslims of today. Both the clergy and laity behaved like today’s college students who seek to oppress all with which they disagree; they disdained the free exchange of ideas. The councils that developed these Christian doctrines often behaved like political conventions at their worst. All sorts of corruption (bribery, threats, violence, etc.) and political influence were used to win the agreement. Slogans, symbols, stereotypes, and guilt by association were used much more frequently to advance doctrinal discourse than reasonable, intelligent, and logical debate.
    Moreover, the laity did not behave any better than their leaders in the councils. Often, they acted worse. Although the laymen were ignorant of the theology involved, they were hostile toward anyone who disagreed with them.
    Arguments for the various competing doctrines were often written so convoluted, complex, and technical that few could understand them.
    If it were not for several emperors of the Roman Empire, the Nicene Trinity may never have become the orthodox doctrine of the Catholic Church. These emperors enforced the Nicene Trinity doctrine, while suppressing competing doctrine.
    Christianity would have been a more peaceful and Christlike religion if both the “orthodox” and “heterodoxy” had followed the Scriptures instead of abandoning them in favor of speculation. In developing their doctrines, both the orthodox and heterodoxy seem to prefer speculation to the Scriptures, although both used selected Scripture to support their speculations. Moreover, to have used persuasion instead of coercion to convince opponents of the error of their doctrine would have resulted in a more peaceful, trusting, and loving society.
    If the clergy had expended the effort of living as Christ taught instead of forcing their speculations about his being on everyone else, this era would have been much more peaceful and probably would have made greater advancement in Christianity. Moreover, a united Roman Empire would most likely have lasted longer, and Islam may never have left the Arabian peninsula.
    2. Jesus’ rise to become God Himself, i.e., the eternal God the Son, who is equal to the Father, had much more to do with Christianity becoming the state religion of the Roman Empire than with anything in the Scriptures. Jesus had to lose his image as a human rebel against the Empire. Furthermore, having Jesus as God suited the autocratically ruled Empire much better than having Jesus remaining a humble man. As a result, the gospel texts that stressed Jesus’ humanity and supported his subordination to the Father, were minimized. Paul’s letters describing Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection were transformed from the political context in which these events occurred to a cosmic event.
    3. How many orthodox Trinitarians realize that the prevailing (orthodox) idea of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for about 200 years before Constantine made Christianity the state religion was similar to the heresy of the Jehovah Witnesses: the preexisting Son was subordinate to the Father and was not eternal and the Holy Spirit was an attribute or operation of the Father instead of a person of a triune God (however, many believed that the Holy Spirit was a person, but inferior to the Father and the Son). Before then, the prevailing idea of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit was similar to the heresy of the Biblical Unitarians (not to be confused with Unitarian Universalists) and Christadelphians.
    4. In the early days of Christianity, people believed that if the state (country) practiced an incorrect form of Christianity, God would punish that state and society with wars, plagues, famines, and other disasters. If true, Orthodoxy must have been an incorrect form of Christianity because the Roman Empire collapsed under Christianity. Furthermore, Orthodox Christianity in North Africa and the Middle East fell to Islam.
    5. The Church Fathers who developed the Nicene Creed used Platonic philosophy and speculative reasoning in deriving their Creed. Scriptural support in its development was scant. Scriptural support came later when the Scriptures were interpreted to support a predetermined dogma.
    6. A majority vote in a council of bishops decided to change the unipersonal God about whom Jesus preached and to whom he prayed to a triune God of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Thus, they elevated the man Jesus to Deity (Paul, Peter, and John referred to Jesus as a man and never as God Himself). Moreover, the council was not even representative of the Church as a whole — as though a council could change God.
    7. From the late fourth century onward, anyone who disagreed with the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity (or any other Catholic doctrine) has been branded a heretic. For more than a thousand years, free religious debate ceased. Apparently, the Trinity Doctrine is so insecure that Trinitarians must suppress any questioning of their doctrine. Moreover, Trinitarians became notorious for their book burning.
    8. Ask a Trinitarian if there is only one God, and he will answer, “Yes.” Ask him if Jesus is God, and again he will answer, “Yes.” Next, ask him if the Heavenly Father is God, and he will answer, “Yes.” Finally, ask him if Jesus is the Heavenly Father, and he will answer, “No.” Thus, the Trinitarian says that there is one God, and then he says that there are two Gods. Which is correct? For there to be only one God, the answer to one of the questions must be incorrect: Jesus is not God; the Heavenly Father is not God; or Jesus is the Heavenly Father. This is the logical and reasonable conclusion. However, the Trinitarian would muster all the logic that Trinitarianism allows and declare, “Not two Gods, but three Gods who are one God” and then quote the Athanasian Creed, “So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God.” Thus, he shows that the Trinity Doctrine is void of logic and reason and relies mainly on mere assertion (and for hundreds of years, on political power).
    9. For many Trinitarians, the test of a true Christian is not believing Jesus, loving him, and striving to follow his example and teachings. It is believing what some ancient councils, about which most Christians know nothing, said about his nature.
    10. Why do Protestants reject the doctrine of Mary being the Mother of God? It is such a component part of the Nicene Trinity Doctrine that for a thousand years any Trinitarian who questioned it was excommunicated and condemned as a heretic.
    11. Jesus, Paul, and John had plenty of opportunities to explain clearly this previously unknown triune God, yet they failed to do so. Why? Completely alien to their Jewish audience, who believed in a unipersonal God, was the concept of a triune God. So obscure is the support of the doctrine of the Trinity and dual nature of Christ in the New Testament that around 400 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, a good application of Greek philosophy, and the frequent use of force against dissenters were needed to discover it.
    12. Nowhere does the Bible declare that there are three equal, eternal beings, each of whom possesses all the attributes of Deity, yet they together constitute but one God. Moreover, nowhere does the Bible claim that Jesus had both a human nature and a divine nature and that these two natures made one person. As these concepts would have been completely new to the Jewish audience to whom Jesus and the apostles preached, one would think that they would have explained these new concepts in detail.
    13. The Trinity Doctrine and its Christology of Jesus having two natures are two dogmas that have been so deeply inculcated in the Christian mind that few Protestants question it — and the few who do are usually condemned as heretics. Yet, these two dogmas are based on Catholic tradition instead of the Scriptures. Whatever scriptural support is given for them it is via Catholic traditional interpretation of Scriptures. However, these supporting verses can just as easily and usually more legitimately be interpreted such that they do not support the Catholic dogma of the Trinity Doctrine and its Christology. (Another Catholic doctrine based more on tradition than on the Scriptures is that of the unity of man, i.e., all humans are descended from a common set of parents. It has been so ingrained in the minds of men that even secular humanists, atheists, and nearly all other non-Christians do not question this dogma. The disagreement between them and the traditional Catholic dogma is when the initial set of patents came into being and how they came to be. Moreover, both believe in Darwinism although many of the followers of the traditional Catholic doctrine deny it.) So much for Protestantism’s boast of freeing itself from Catholic dogma.
    14. Beyond the comprehension of mere Christians are the Trinity Doctrine and its concomitant Christology. Only an enlightened elite, the illuminated ones, can truly understand them — so asserts Gregory of Nazianzus, a principal force behind making the Holy Spirit a coequal, coeternal God along with the Father and the Son. Moreover, Gregory rejected the notion that one can come to know God by applying rational thought to the Scriptures. Apparently, a great deal of philosophical speculation is necessary to really know God. Consequently, Gregory’s claim that only the enlightened can understand the mystery of God is akin to Gnosticism, for the Gnostics maintained that only the enlightened can comprehend the mystery of God.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2

More religious articles.

Addendum to “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?”

Addendum to “For Whom Is 

the Constitution Written?”

Thomas Allen

Additional evidence that the US Constitution was written by and for Whites is that the US Supreme Court ruled that Blacks were not citizens, and the fourteenth amendment was needed to make them citizens. Unfortunately, the fourteenth amendment, which is discussed below, also changed the construct of the country and the US Constitution.

Missouri Compromise
Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 1 of the US Constitution, reads: “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.” During the debate on the Missouri Compromise in 1821, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, who was the author of this clause said, “At the time I drew that Constitution, I perfectly knew that there did not then exist such a thing in the Union as a black or colored citizen, nor could I then have conceived it possible such a thing could ever have existed. .  . .”[1] The most important clause in the Constitution about citizenship is this comity clause, and its author says that it applied only to Whites and not to Blacks; therefore, the US Constitution is only for Whites.

Dred Scott Decision
The Dred Scott decision ruled that Negroes were not citizens under the US Constitution. Contrary to the popular myth, the Dred Scott decision did not declare or make the Negro nonhuman or subhuman. It merely declared that Negroes like foreigners were not citizens of the United States. Not being a citizen under the Constitution, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Scott, a Black slave, could not sue in a court of the United States government.
The Supreme Court ruled that Negroes were not, and were not intended to be included, under the word “citizens” in the Constitution, and, therefore, they could claim none of the rights and privileges that it provided and secured to citizens of the United States. Moreover, the Court acknowledged that a State could grant Negroes the rights and privileges of the citizens of that State, as some of the New England States had done. However, having the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State did not make a Negro a citizen of the Union or grant him rights in other States. (It also recognized that some States had given foreigners who intended to become citizens of the United States the rights and privileges of citizenship in that State, but this action did not make them citizens of the United States until they had been naturalized according to the nationalization law of the United States.)
Further, the Court declared that at the time of its adoption, the Constitution recognized as citizens the citizens in the several States. This recognition made them citizens of the new political body created by the Constitution when it was adopted. No other classes of people were included in this citizenship. They formed the Constitution for themselves and their posterity, and for no one else. All the personal rights and privileges guaranteed to citizens under this Constitution were intended only for those who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterward, by birthright or otherwise, become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded.
The Court identified two clauses in the Constitution that point directly and specifically to the Negro race as a separate class of people. These two clauses clearly show that the Negro was not considered part of the people or citizens under the Constitution. One was the clause that reserves to each State the right to import slaves until the year 1808 (Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 1). This sanction unquestionably referred to the Negro. The other provision was the pledge of the States to each other to maintain the right of property of the master by delivering up to him any slave who escaped if he were found within their respective territories (Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 3).
Thus, with the Dred Scott decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Negro could not be a citizen of the United States although a State could grant him the rights and privileges of a citizen of that State. By inference, no nonwhite could be a citizen of the United States under the Constitution.
Although the Supreme Court did not rule on the status of Indians in the Dred Scott decision, the Constitution strongly implies that Indians were not and could not be citizens of the United States. However, some States had granted Indians rights and privileges of citizens of their States. (Even after the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, Congress declared that Indians not taxed were not citizens under that amendment.)

Fourteenth Amendment
Because of the Dred Scott decision, the fourteenth amendment was necessary to make Negroes citizens of the United States. Unfortunately, it did more than that. It destroyed the original Constitution and changed the whole concept and construction of the country. Not only did the fourteenth amendment make the Black man a citizen of the United States, but it also made the White man a citizen of the United States. Before, one was a citizen of a State, and by virtue of being a citizen of a State, he was a citizen of the United States. Under the fourteenth amendment, any citizen of the United States became a citizen of the State in which he resided. Thus, the fourteenth amendment changed the construction of the United States from a confederation of sovereign States to a consolidated union of States.
Before the fourteenth amendment, no national citizenship existed; a person was a citizen of a State. The term “citizen of the United States” was a term of convenience that meant that someone was a citizen of a State. According to one of the promoters, Senator James Blaine, of the fourteenth amendment, its intent was to change the status of citizenship by replacing citizen of a State with a citizen of the United States. Senator Blaine said, “. . . we are not confining the breadth and scope of our efforts to the Negro. It is for the white man as well. We intend to make citizenship national. Heretofore, a man has been a citizen of the United States because he was a citizen of some-one of the states: now we propose to reverse that.”[2]
Besides changing citizenship, another purpose of the fourteenth amendment was and still is to humiliate and shame Southerners by making the Negro their master. Its purpose was and still is to degrade the Southerner to the level of the Negro and even below that level. Its objective was to degrade the Southerner by creating conditions that would encourage interracial mating. Sacrificing their beloved Negro to destroy the Southerner was of little concern for the Radical Republicans; they were just so much collateral damage. After all, Puritan Yankees considered Southerners to be subhuman at best and most likely a nonhuman beast.
Unfortunately, for the Northerner, but not the Radical Republicans, who were Puritan Yankees, whose descendants are Liberal Democrats, this degradation spread across the country as the Negro became elevated above Whites everywhere. Not only has the Negro been elevated above Whites, so have all other nonwhite races.
The fourteenth amendment was illegally, unlawfully, and unconstitutionally ratified. Most of the so-called legislators of the Southern legislatures who voted to ratify the fourteenth amendment were not citizens when they voted on the amendment. They did not become citizens entitled to vote until after the amendment was ratified. Moreover, the fourteenth amendment has other irregularities in its proposal and adoption, such as failure to achieve two-thirds of the votes in the Senate needed for its proposal.
When it was first sent to the States, 11 States rejected it (only 10 were needed to kill the amendment). Then, Congress refused to recognize the governments of the Southern States and replaced them with Negro governments controlled by carpetbaggers and scalawags backed by the US army to ensure the ratification of the amendment. Besides the ten Southern States voting to reject the fourteenth amendment, seven other States also voted to reject it. Although military might forced these 10 Southern States to change their rejection of ratification, two States, Ohio and New Jersey, that had previously voted to ratify the amendment changed their vote to reject it. While accepting the approvals of the unlawful governments of the Southern States, the Secretary of State refused to recognize the disapproval by these two States.
The Southern States that had rejected the fourteenth amendment were stripped of their representation in the US House of Representatives and the Senate and had their constitutions voided. Then, Congress through the army forced them to draft and adopt a new constitution for Congress’ approval and to ratify the fourteenth amendment before they were allowed any representation in Congress. Male inhabitants who were not disenfranchised because of participation in the rebellion elected delegates to the convention for drafting the new constitutions. Thus, most White males were disqualified. The legislature elected under the new constitution had to ratify the fourteenth amendment. Only then would Congress readmit that State and allow its Representatives and Senators be seated in Congress. Consequently, according to the law enacted by Congress to reorganize the governments of the Southern States, these States had no legitimate government when they ratified the fourteenth amendment.
Thus, many whites were disenfranchised for participating in the rebellion, and therefore, Negroes elected most of the delegates to the States’ constitutional conventions, although they had no legal right to vote. The constitutions drafted by these conventions were presented to the voters of the State for ratification. These voters were largely male Negroes since most Whites were disenfranchised for participating in the rebellion. Again, these Negroes had no legal right to vote.
The legality of the Southern States was not questioned when they ratified the thirteenth amendment, which forbade slavery. However, these same governments became illegal when they rejected the fourteenth amendment.
The Congress that passed the fourteenth amendment for submission to the States did so without Representatives and Senators from the Southern States although all, except Texas, had been entirely restored to all their functions as States in conformity with the organic law of the land.
To get the fourteenth amendment ratified, Congress had to enfranchise the Negroes and disfranchised the White men. Then, Congress had the Negroes, with the aid of carpetbaggers and scalawags, elect delegates to a convention to draw up a constitution that gave Negroes the right to vote. Afterward, the constitution was adopted without the vote of most White men. Next, a legislature was elected without the votes of most Whites. Thus, the State legislature consisted mostly of Negroes with some carpetbaggers and scalawags. After that, the Negro dominated legislature ratified the fourteenth amendment to make Negroes citizens of the United States. Consequently, people who were not citizens and could not vote elected a body that ratified the amendment that made them citizens with the right to vote. Such is the infamy of the fourteenth amendment.
The most hideous consequence of the fourteenth amendment was to destroy the original Constitution and the original construct of the United States. The United States were established as a federation of free and independent sovereign States. These States were a genetic nation, and they established the United States as a genetic country, that is, a country of, by, and for the White race. However, by making Negroes citizens, the fourteenth amendment changed the construct of the United States. They cease being a genetic federation and became a propositional empire. As a result, the purpose of the United States ceased being to protect, preserve, and promote the White residents thereof. A new purpose had to be found to include the Negro. That purpose became equality and democracy. From now on the United States would war to make the world safe for equality and democracy.
To accomplish this goal all men had to be changed into faceless beings called citizens. Moreover, each citizen was as good as another citizen. That is, citizens became interchangeable with one another. Importantly, people cease identifying themselves by race and identified themselves as citizens. Then, these citizens could be united to fight for democracy and equality. As long as these citizens would fight for democracy and equality, the United States fulfilled its purpose. Provided that these citizens would fight for democracy and equality, the type and quality of citizens mattered little: whether the citizen was White or Black or some other race did not matter. (Not only do liberals and libertarians revel in the conversion of the United States and the Constitution from a White country and Constitution to a propositional country and Constitution, so do nearly all conservatives.)
Thus, the fourteenth amendment completely destroyed the United States and subverted the US Constitution. It changed the country from one dedicated to protecting, preserving, and promoting the White race (the Aryan race) to a proportional country dedicated to spreading democracy and equality. Moreover, what the repeal of the prohibition amendment (the twenty-first amendment) did to the prohibition amendment (the eighteenth amendment), the fourteenth amendment effectively did to the ninth and, especially, the tenth amendments.
When the Negro became a citizen and the equal of the Aryan, the United States as originally founded died. The Hamiltonian-Lincolnians, Puritan Yankees, Marxists, Cabalist Jews, and their ilk won, and they have ruled the country ever since. Liberty has waned, and the US government and its despotism have waxed. Nearly all the governmental programs that many conservatives and most libertarians rail against have grown out of the fourteenth amendment.

Endnotes

1. Erst LaFlor, The Betrayal of the White Race (LaFlor Publishing Co., 1970), p. 4.

2. Bill Ivy, “Attention Constitutional Celebrities.”

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Review of Ebeling’s “Freedom Is Why Immigrants Come to America”

Review of Ebeling’s “Freedom Is Why Immigrants Come to America”

Thomas Allen

The following is a review of “Freedom Is Why Immigrants Come to America” by Richard M. Ebeling dated May 22, 2019, and posted by the American Institute of Economic Research. His article primarily covers immigration between 1840 and 1914. He claims that the immigrants of this era came, and even today come, to the United States because they wanted to live free or to escape troubles of Europe and to find a better life. (Today, only a few come from Europe.)
Unlike today, all the immigrants who came to the United States during this time were from Europe, i.e., they were White, with the exception of Chinese imported to work in the West and some Japanese. They were of the same race, White (Aryan), the same religion, Christian, and the same cultural background, Western Civilization, as Americans. (Not being White, Negroes were not true Americans; they had to be incorporated through the unconstitutionally ratified fourteenth amendment.) Now most immigrants are of alien races and cultures and often non-Christian. However, like the immigrants of old, the new immigrants come seeking a better life — usually in the form of welfare.
Also, unlike today, no welfare state existed to support them. They had to support themselves. (Ebeling  implies that today’s “immigrants,” most of whom are nonwhite, come for the same reason. Some do; they are mostly Whites. Most come to receive their rapine from stupid Whites through various welfare programs. Thus, like the immigrants of old, they also come to improve their lives. However, instead of coming to make their way with their labor like the immigrants of old, they come to improve their lives through handouts from the welfare state.)
Ebeling notes that before the early 1900s, European immigrants usually did not need a vista or a passport to enter the United States. (The inference is that today’s immigrants should not need a vista or passport to enter the United States.) In the 1880s, the first major restrictions were placed on immigration; they were placed on Chinese and Japanese, primarily for racial reasons. (His implication is that no restrictions should be placed on immigration. If they are, they are primarily racist.)
He argues that immigrants came to the United State because of individual freedom. That may have been true before the welfare state. Now, most come for their free handouts. Also, even then more probably came to improve their economic status than for freedom. That is certainly true today where most seem to come to improve their economic status by living off welfare. Then, they were expected to work to improve their status. Now, they are not.
According to Ebeling, classical liberal principles guided America. This may be somewhat true in the economic realm where the liberal principles of the free market prevailed — except for industries protected with protective tariffs. However, since the 1933 when Roosevelt brought fascism to the United States, socialism has been the guiding economic principle.
Unfortunately, in the social realm, liberal principles have come to dominate. The new morality of racial genocide, which is closely related to liberalism, which abhors racial distinction, has supplanted the old morality, which protects and preserves the races.
According to Ebeling, the lack of governmental interference in economic and social life drew people to the United States. This may have been true in the past. However, today, with the government’s attempt to manage the economy and especially social affairs with all sorts of Black privileges, that can hardly still be true.
Freedom can scarcely be what draws people to the United States today. The police state that Bush put in place has brought the United States down to the level of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Communist China, even though the worst of these tyrannies have yet to manifest themselves in the United States. (If the United States are the freest country today, that is a said commentary on the rest of the world.)
Interestingly, Ebeling accuses the South of political intervention in the economy via slavery. However, he ignores real political intervention in the economy like protective tariffs, subsides to businesses, contracts to political favorites for internal improvements, and fiat money. Generally, Southerners opposed most of these whereas Northerners promoted them. Moreover, New Englanders did not oppose slavery while they were amassing fortunes in the slave trade. Only after the importation of slaves became illegal did the Puritan Yankee began to become abolitionists.
Ebeling claims that, except in the South before 1860, only a “few instances of state-sponsored, state-endorsed or state-enforced discrimination and persecution of ethnic, racial or religious groups” existed. Apparently, Illinois prohibiting free Blacks from entering that State was not state-sponsored or state-enforced discrimination — likewise, with the Northern States that outlawed interracial marriages.  Moreover, the whole debate about prohibiting slavery in territories was to keep Blacks out of the territories and preserve them for Whites only. Furthermore, because of the few numbers of Blacks in the North, custom was usually sufficient to keep most Blacks “in their place” away from Whites. Later, these customs were often enforced by governmentally protected labor union monopolies and racial exclusionary clauses in deeds and contracts, which governmental courts enforced.
Ebeling notes that most immigrants who came to the United States avoided the South. He blames this avoidance on slavery before the War and the segregation laws of the South after the War. Moreover, according to him, politics were more separated from economics in the North and West than in the South.
He ignores several important factors in avoiding the South. For most immigrants, New York City was the port of entry. From here, traveling across Pennsylvania and the Midwest was easier than traveling to the South. Historically, people of New England and New York had moved across Pennsylvania and the Midwest and from there farther westward. Only a few migrated to the South. So, routes westward were better established than routes southward.
Another, and more important, was the presence of Blacks. Most Blacks resided in the South — as slaves and then as freedmen. Like most people, liberals and libertarians excepted, these European immigrants preferred living among their own kind. (How many liberals and libertarians practice what they preach and live in predominately Black neighborhoods?)
A third reason was that the North and Radical Republicans (descendants of the Puritan Yankees and radicals who fled to the United States after the failed Revolution of 1848) had destroyed the South economically with the War and Reconstruction. So thorough was the economic destruction of the South that almost a century was needed for it to recover. Even today, parts still have not recovered — Mississippi for example. Unless the immigrant was a scoundrel, a mountebank, or had political connections with the US government, he had little chance of acquiring a comfortable estate in the South. Too many impoverished Blacks and Whites lived in the South against whom he would have to compete. Moreover, they were too poor to be good customers if he were a merchant. Only in the North and the West, did he have much economic opportunity.
Based on his description of his ancestry, Ebeling is not a descendant of Puritan Yankees. However, he certainly displays their anti-Southerner biases and prejudices.
Ebeling closes his article by praising immigrants. According to him, they are far superior to native Americans. He ignores the hordes that come to the United States as colonists and who enjoy the free handouts that stupid Americans give them while they bring down the United States and forever end the hope of the libertarian paradise that Ebeling seeks. He gives many of the trite remarks that liberals and libertarians use to support open borders and unlimited immigration, so I will not repeat them other than he considers them more patriotic than most native Americans.
Also, he is a great proponent of the melting-pot principle. That principle is mixing the races together to form motley mongrel man, which is genocide and the end of not only racial diversity but all diversity.
For him, the biggest danger resulting from restricting immigration is turning from a free marketplace to a political planning of society based on an identity politics of race and gender and possibly class, and abandoning the “ideals of individual liberty, free enterprise, and voluntary association for human dignity, material betterment, and social harmony and peace.” Like neoconservatives, liberals, and most libertarians, Ebeling places no value on natural collectives like race. He preaches freedom, but it is not the freedom of the White man as a White man or the Black man as a Black man: It is the freedom of the Mulatto man.
Also, like neoconservatives, liberals, and nearly all libertarians, Ebeling is a disciple of the new morality. Unlike his despised antebellum Southerners and Southerners of the Jim Crow era and most nonwhites, who were and are followers of the old morality, today, most Whites and unfortunately most Southerners are followers of the new morality. Likewise, except for the Puritan Yankees and the radicals from Europe, nearly all Northerners and immigrants from Europe between 1840 and 1914 followed the old morality. Furthermore, like nearly everyone else in the United States today, he believes that the United States are a propositional country and not a genetic country. Thus, the United States are doomed to perish and with that all hope for Ebeling’s libertarian nirvana will die.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Some Thoughts About Terrorism

Some Thoughts About Terrorism

Thomas Allen

The war on terrorism is being used to enslave the American people. This is illustrated below with the discussions on terrorism, fighting terrorism, and the Transportation Security Administration.

Terrorism
Congress has shredded the Bill of Rights in the name of protecting Americans from terrorists. Yet, it allows the greatest terrorist organization in the United States, if not the world, to continue to operate with impunity. If Congress really wanted to protect Americans from terrorists, it would abolish the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which exists at the pleasure of Congress. Since Congress continues to allow the IRS to operate, obviously it is not concerned with protecting the American people from terrorism. The purpose of the antiterrorist programs and agencies that Congress and the President have created is to enslave the American people and not to protect them.

Fighting Terrorism
A favorite slogan of the Bush administration’s war on terrorism was that we need to kill the terrorists over there so that they cannot kill us over here. How are they going to kill us over here unless the US government lets them in? The terrorists have no navy or air force. Surely, the greatest navy and air force in the world can stop any rickety vessels or air crafts that the terrorists might commandeer. Therefore, terrorists were and are no real threat to the American people unless the US government invites them in. Inviting them, the Bush and especially the Obama administrations did with their open borders and unlimited immigration policies.

Transportation Security Administration
People should be suspicions of alt-right, conservative, and libertarian leaders who do not openly protest the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and urge people to boycott flying on commercial airliners until the TSA is abolished. Moreover, these conservative leaders should lead by example and refuse to fly on commercial airliners until Congress abolishes the TSA. Their failure to do so shows that they prefer slavery and convenience to liberty.
The TSA is a highly visible apparatus of America’s police state. Its primary job is not to protect passengers from terrorists, but to teach them to be obedient slaves to ridiculous and humiliating requirements — just as Mussolini required his lieutenants to perform ridiculous and humiliating activities. If such a young, visible, and irritating agency of the police state can be abolished, then recovery of America is hopeful. If not, America is doomed to despotic tyranny.
Moreover, the TSA violates at least five of the amendments of the Bill of Rights: the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth. An argument for ignoring the violations of these inalienable rights is that flying is voluntary. Thus, by the mere act of flying on an airplane, a person voluntarily exchanges his inalienable rights for slavery, which is a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. Voting is also voluntary. Following the reasoning for violating the rights of airline passengers, Congress could require everyone registered voter to sign away all his inalienable rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.
If the spokesmen for the alt-right, conservatives, libertarians, and other preachers of liberty want to strike a blow for liberty, they need to refuse to fly on commercial airliners until the TSA is abolished and is replaced with nothing. Moreover, they need to urge their followers to imitate their example and refuse to fly on commercial airliners until Congress abolishes the TSA. Likewise, their followers need to persuade their friends and relatives to boycott commercial airlines. If enough people refuse to fly until Congress abolishes the TSA and replaces it with nothing, the airlines will eventually force Congress to abolish the TSA.
If people refuse to give up the short-term convenience of flying, they deserve enslavement. Unfortunately, they will also drag people who value freedom over slavery further down into slavery.
Nevertheless, the TSA does offer a great opportunity for pedophiles. Where else can a pedophile get paid to grope children all day long?

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Christians and Creationism

Christians and Creationism

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The addendum was added in 2025.]

The discussion below shows that many Christians who claim to be creationists support Darwinism, that the breed-of-dog analogy fails to support the argument of all humans descending from Adam and Eve, and that the only living thing that Eve can be the mother of the Adamites, Aryans, or Whites, if Darwinism is false.

Are Christians Really Creationists?
Are Christians true creationists or are they Darwinists? Whether a Christian is a creationist or a Darwinist, i.e., an evolutionist, can be discovered by simply asking him if all the races (species) of men are descended from Adam and Eve. If his answer is yes, he is a Darwinist. If it is no, he is a creationist.
Today, most taxonomists are lumpers. That is, if two otherwise different animals can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, they should be lumped together as the same species. Thus, the dog (Canis familiaris), the gray wolf (C. lupus), and the dingo (C. dingo) used to be considered different species. However, since they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, taxonomists have lumped them together as Canis lupus. The coyote and jackal have not yet become part of C. lupus. (However, a dog can also breed with a jackal [C. aureus] and a coyote [C. latrans] and produce fertile offspring. Likewise, a wolf can breed with a coyote and a jackal and produce fertile offspring.)
Some other species that can mate and produce fertile offspring are the gaur or Indian bison (Bos gaurus) and the gayal (Bos frontalis), the American bison (Bison bison) and the yak (Bos grunniens), the American bison (Bison bison) and the wisent or European bison (Bison bonasus), the American bison (Bison bison) and the domestic cattle (Bos taurus taurus or Bos primigenius taurus), the wisent or European bison (Bison bonasus) and domestic cattle (Bos taurus taurus or Bos primigenius taurus), the domestic horse (Equus caballus) and the Przewalski's horse or Mongolian wild horse (Equus przewalskii), the dromedary camel or Arabian camel (Camelus dromedarius) and the Bactrian camel (Camelus bactrianus), the dromedary camel or Arabian camel (Camelus dromedarius) and llama (Lama glama), the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) and the polar bear (Ursus maritimus), the lion (Panthera leo) and the leopard (Panthera pardus), the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and the false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens). Several of these interbreeding species are of different genera. Most likely, the Clymene dolphin, formerly called the short-snouted spinner dolphin  (Stenella clymene), is a hybrid species of the spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris) and the striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba).
Another possible example is the red wolf  (Canis rufus) and the eastern wolf (Canis lycaon). Some zoologists believe that the red wolf and eastern wolf are really hybrids of the gray wolf and the coyote. If the red wolf becomes a hybrid, it is no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act. (A true creationist would argue that the reason the red wolf appears to be a hybrid of the gray wolf and the coyote is that God created the red wolf using DNA similar to that which He used in creating the gray wolf and the coyote.)
Another example of two species mating and producing fertile offspring is the Cuban crocodile (Crocodylus rhombifer) and the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus). The Cuban crocodile has become an extremely endangered species, partly because the American crocodile and the Cuban-American crocodile hybrid are breeding it out of existence. (We are seeing a similar scenario being set up to exterminate the White race. In the United States, the American Negro has been a chief weapon in this destruction. However, the American Negro is being destroyed by being used to destroy the White race. Nevertheless, the death of the American Negro is acceptable collateral damage to rid the universe of an evil far greater than Satan: the Aryan race.)
Some creationists admit that different species can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. According to them, such interbreeding is how new species or kinds, as they like to say, came into being. For example, Anas poecilorhyncha and A. platyrhynchos are two species of ducks that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Although these two species do not normally come into contact with each other, when they do, they interbreed. Their offspring is so viable that it is recognized as an independent species, A. oustaleti.
Many Christians believe that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 are angelic beings. These angelic beings interbred with human women (Adamites) and produced fertile beings, the Nephilim. Many non-Christians and New Agers also believe that angelic beings mated with humans. Since the Nephilim were alive centuries later at the time of Moses, two things are proven: The Noachian Flood was not global, and the Nephilim were fertile. Thus, angelic beings of the spiritual realm mated with human beings of the physical realm and produced fertile offspring. According to the lumper’s primary criterion for defining a species, angels and humans are of the same species.
This absurdity shows that the ability to produce offspring should not be the primary criterion for determining a species. Contrariwise, the inability to produce fertile offspring should be used to disqualify creatures from being classified as the same species, instead of the ability to produce fertile offspring being used to classify them as the same species.
Likewise, the same is true of DNA. (Do spiritual beings have DNA?) DNA should be used to exclude rather than to include. If two similar groups have similar DNA, it is because the Creator used similar DNA in making similar groups, i.e., species or kinds as many creationists prefer to use. Therefore, because Aryans, Turanians, Melanochroi, Negroes, Khoisans, and Indo-Australians have similar DNA and can produce fertile offsprings when they interbreed does not make them the same species. (Have Khoisans and Indo-Australians ever interbred and produced fertile offspring?)
One interesting aspect about using DNA to determine species is the water buffalo or domestic water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis). This species consists of two subspecies: the river buffalo with 50 chromosomes and the swamp buffalo with 48 chromosomes. These two subspecies can interbreed and produce fertile offspring with 49 chromosomes.
Like orthodox evolutionists, creationist Darwinists reject the notion of the fixity of species. Both orthodox evolutionists and creationist Darwinists believe in the mutability of species. Their primary disagreement is the starting point and time required for one species (or kind) to change to another species (or kind). Another major difference is that orthodox evolutionists believe that life began by some kind of spontaneous generation, while creationist Darwinists believe that life began by some kind of divine creative act.

Breeds of Dogs
Many creationist Darwinists point to the more than 300 breeds of dogs to support their claim that all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve. Most contend that all the species of Canis (the gray wolf, including the domestic dog and dingo, the coyote, African golden wolf, Ethiopian wolf, Eurasian golden jackal, Asiatic wild dog, African wild dog, black back jackal, and side-striped jackal) descended from a common pair of parents. Some claim that all the species of dogs, wolves, foxes, and coyote descended from common ancestors; that is, all the species of the Canidae family have a common pair of initial parents. Thus, these so-called creationists resort to Darwinism to expand the origins of species. God merely created the initial parents from whom these species evolved (developed, as these creationist Darwinists like to say). If true, their assertion that all humans descended from Adam and Eve easily supports that the biological races of men are different species: They evolved (or developed) into different species from common parents.
As for the breed of dogs, they are artificial creations. With perhaps a few exceptions, they do not occur naturally. Breeders have developed them by breeding dogs with traits that they want. Breeders keep the offspring that have the desired traits and cull the rest. They keep breeding the offspring until the offspring breed true with the desired traits. Where is the evidence of such an authoritarian program in the development of the various human species, races, and breeds? If the dog breeder analogy is accurate or has merit, then God would have selected offspring from Adam and Eve and bred them to produce the desired racial traits and would have destroyed those who did not have the desired traits.
If Occam’s razor (“simpler solutions are more likely to be correct than complex ones”) is applied, the simplest solution is having God creating the parents of each race. That is, each biological human race is descended from a different pair of parents. Fewer assumptions are involved in this explanation of the species of men than the evolutionism offered by creation Darwinism. Moreover, it is more Biblical.
In the nineteenth century, before political correctness gained control of science, anthropologists and others could discuss the races of men and their hybrids with an honesty and frankness that cannot occur today. Some anthropologists concluded that some human hybrids lack fecundity to survive for more than a few generations, if that long. That is, if the hybrids did not breed with one of the parent stock, they would die out within a few generations. In On the Phenomena of Hybridity in the Genus Homo (edited by C. Carter Blake; London: Longman, Green, Longman, & Roberts, Paternoster Row,1864), Dr. Paul Broca summaries some of these studies. He comments (page 61):

Zoologists have, in each of the natural groups which constitute the genera, recognised several types which they denominate species.
The human group evidently constitutes one genus; if it consisted only of one species, it would form a single exception in creation. It is, therefore, but natural to presume, that this genus is, like all the others, composed of different species. In the greater number of genera, the various species differ much less from each other than certain human races. A naturalist, who, without touching the question of origin, purely and simply applies to the human genus the general principles of zootaxis, would be inclined to divide this genus into different species.

Eve: Mother of All Living
In Genesis 3:20, the Bible calls Eve the mother of all living. From this statement, most creationists infer that all species of men are descended from Adam and Eve. (According to the “two seed” theory, only some humans are descended from Adam and Eve; the remainder is descended from Satan and Eve.)
If the passage that Eve is the mother of all living is literally true, and it has to be literally true if all species of men descended from Eve, then evolution (or perhaps devolution) is proven, and Chapter 1 of Genesis is wrong. If Eve is the mother of all living, then all animals, plants, fungi, protozoa, bacteria, and archaea are descended from her. The passage does not limit “all living” to only humans: That is merely an unsupported inference. Thus, evolution is not from a primitive single-cell creature toward the complex human. It is the opposite, i.e., from the complex human to the most primitive single-cell creature, which is more correctly devolution. (Consequently, the theory held by many creationists that life on earth is degrading or devolving is supported.) To avoid this absurdity that all living things descended from Eve and the contradiction of Chapter 1 of Genesis, the most appropriate interpretation of this passage is that all Adamites, Aryans, or Whites are descended from Adam and Eve — and nothing more.

Addendum

The following are additional species that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

1. A goat (Capra hircus) bred with a sheep (Ovis aries), an ibex (Capra ibex), or an aoudad (Ammotragus lervia) produces fertile offspring. 

2. A domestic sheep (O. aries) bred with an Asiatic mouflon (O. orientalis), mouflon (O. musimon), or big horn sheep (O. canadensis) produces fertile offspring.

3. A mouflon  (O. musimon) bred with a big horn sheep (O. canadensis) or a urial (O. vignei) produces fertile offspring.

4. Two species of mice, Peromyscus maniculatus and P. polionotus, can produce fertile offspring when mated.

5. Two other species of mice, P. leucopus and P. gossypinus, can also produce fertile offspring when crossed.

6. A llama (Lama glama) bred with an alpaca (L. pacos) produces fertile offspring.

7. Two species of barking deer, Muntiacus reevesi and M. muntjak, can produce fecund offspring.

8.  Two species of chinchillas, Chinchilla brevicaudata and C. laniger, produce fertile offspring when they interbreed. 

9. Guinea pigs, Cavia aperca and C. porcellus, produce fertile offspring.

10. Two species of chimpanzees, Pan satyrus and P. schweinfurthii, can interbreed and produce fecund offspring. 

11. Two species of leaf monkeys, Pithecus chrysomelas and P. cruciger, can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

12. A slate-colored junco (Junco hyemalis) bred with white-winged junco (J. aikeni), Oregon junco (J. oregonus), and gray-headed junco (J. caniceps) produces fertile offspring.

13. A pig (Sus domesticus) can breed with a wild boar (S. scrofa) or banded pig (S. vittatus) and produce fertile offspring.

14. A domestic chicken (Gallus domesticus), red jungle fowl (G. gallus or G. bankiva), Ceylon jungle fowl (G. lafayette), gray jungle fowl (G. sonnerati), and Javan jungle fowl (G. varius) can all interbreed with each other and produce fertile offspring. 

Copyright © 2019, 2025, by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Old Morality – New Morality

Old Morality – New Morality

Thomas Allen

Before 1861, the old morality dominated the United States. The exception was the Puritan Yankee of New England and his colonies in New York and the Upper Midwest, which the radicals who fled Europe after the failed Revolution of 1848 reenforced, whom the new morality guided. Even before the arrival of the radicals, the Puritan Yankees were preaching the new morality.
The old morality is antebellum in nature. Under the old morality, the survival of one’s gene pool, i.e., one’s race (species), is of utmost importance. Accordingly, a person has mutual honor and respect for his people, i.e., its ethnicities and race. He has pride in and honor for his ancestors and sees a person, regardless of race, as a real person with real joys and sorrows and not as an incarnated spirit. Because race is highly important under the old morality, it perceives a person, whatever his race, as a concrete being. The old morality is a natural morality. It follows naturally from the bond between a mother and child, then the family, then the clan, then the nation (ethnicity), and finally the race, where it stops. Also, according to the old morality, Aryans wrote the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution for themselves and their White posterity and for no other. In short, the old morality preserves.
The new morality is postbellum in nature. Under the new morality, the survival of humanity is of utmost importance. Accordingly, a person is much more concerned with other people (races) than his own people. Thus, he is willing to sacrifice his own race for the benefit of other races. Moreover, he lacks pride in and honor for his ancestors, Most important, he looks at a person as an incarnated spiritual being and not as a real person, where all spiritual beings look alike, think alike, and act alike. Neither races nor male and female exist; races and the sexes are merely social constructs; they are chimeras. The new morality perceives people as an abstract being, no matter their race, which is irrelevant and even nonexistent. People heavily under the influence of the new morality do not respect a person with whom they disagree because such a person is not a citizen of humanity. The new morality is an unnatural morality. Also, according to the new morality, the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are propositions to spread equality and democracy throughout the world even if it means the extension of the Aryan. In short, the new morality destroys.
The new morality grew out of the abolitionist movement, which grew out of the Puritanism of New England. (Consequently, anyone who follows the new morality is fundamentally a Puritan Yankee.) By 1865, the new morality had gained control of the US government. (President Johnson was a notable holdout, who defended the old morality and was nearly impeached because of it.)
Following the end of the First Reconstruction, the dormant old morality came back to life. Although the progressivism of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson grew out of the new morality, the old morality guided them and most other progressives from the latter part of the nineteenth century until after World War I. Unlike today’s progressives, during this era, most progressives placed the welfare of their race first. They did not consider the United States to be a multicultural, multiracial concept country.
After World War I, the new morality grew into the fascism of Franklin Roosevelt. During his administration, the new morality began to strengthen. Following World War II, it returned with vigor and ushered in the Second Reconstruction to destroy finally the Southern, who had revived around the turn of the century, and to elevate the Negro not only to equality with the White (Aryan) race, but to make him and all other nonwhites the Aryan’s superior.
By the end of Lyndon Johnson’s reign, the new morality dominated the country. (Ironically, the last major battle against the new morality was fought in Boston, the heart of the birthplace of the new morality, between 1974 and 1976. This was the last strong and violent battle fought over school integration. When the Bostonians were finally defeated, so was the old morality.)
Now, the new morality has metastasized into globalism, feminism, transgenderism, open borders and unlimited immigration, conservative nationalism, American libertarianism, the final destruction of the States as independent sovereigns, etc. While the new morality has grown to consume the country, the old morality has faded into insignificance. Rare is a White who openly preaches the old morality.
Today, only the Negro and other nonwhites practice the old morality. (Failure of Aryans to practice the old morality has doomed the American Negro, for once the Asian and Latin American Turanians reach critical mass, they will reduce the American Negro to insignificance.) Although the new morality is alien to the Negro and other nonwhites, they use it to their advantage to cower and eventually to annihilate the Aryan. Unlike the Aryan, who live by the new morality, they all place their race first.
Scarce are political, economic, social, or religious leaders or spokesmen who are not disciples of the new morality. Anyone who dares to preach the old morality is condemned, ostracized, attacked, and silenced. Thus, vocal proponents of the old morality are seldom heard.
Unfortunately, for the White race, the new morality has not stopped at the borders of the United States. It has spread to infect Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the White countries of South American, and all Aryan outposts (Muslims of the Aryan race are the exception).
South Africa shows the lethality of the new morality. Here, it has driven the Whites of South Africa to suicide, as they have given their country to the Negro, who is now genociding the Whites — by that, showing his appreciation of the Aryan’s cowardly surrender. If the Aryan does not soon abandon the new morality and reinstitute the old morality, he will become an extinct species.
The following groups, Antifa and Black Lives Matters, illustrate the difference between the old morality and the new morality. Following the new morality, Antifa, most of whose members are Aryans, seeks to destroy everything White. On the other hand, Black Lives Matters, most of whose members are Negroes and who follow the old morality, place the Negro first and seeks to elevate the Negro to supremacy.
Today, although the new morality dominates most Aryans, a spark of the old morality smolders in many of them. (If an Aryan does not openly seek to preserve, protect, and promote the White race, including prohibiting nonwhites entering the country to become residents and prohibiting interracial mating, then the new morality controls him.) The new morality has completely consumed the progressive liberal, for no spark of the old morality glows in him. Moreover, the new morality has so consumed most libertarians that they show no spark of the old morality.
Some conservative commentators demonstrate people dominated by the new morality having a spark of the old morality. They protest derogatory remarks made against Aryans by progressive liberals, especially those made by people of color, nonwhites. Also, they protest discriminatory acts against Whites. Yet, about immigration, their objection is about the procedure and not about content or consequence. Most do not object to flooding the country with nonwhites; their objection is about the procedure used. If tens of millions of nonwhites enter the country legally, they have no objections. However, a few do disagree with allowing a massive number of nonwhites to enter the country. They do this not because they favor the Aryan, but because they do not favor him. To the contrary, they want to limit the immigration of nonwhites so that they can be easily assimilated and will not be encouraged to build enclaves to protect their ethnicity. Assimilation is a euphemism for amalgamation, i.e., interracial mating. Although a few conservative commentators may advise marrying within one’s race, none oppose miscegenation. Thus, as it consumes the Puritan Yankee and his descendant, the progressive liberal, the new morality consumes these conservative commentators. Consequently, like the Puritan Yankee, progressive liberal, and many libertarians, they consider the United States to be a propositional country and not a genetic nation. Contrary to their protest, these conservatives do not really care about the preservation, protection, or promotion of the White race — the old morality. (Or, does the fear of that great smear word “racist” cower them to the point that they no longer care about their race?)
In summary, the old morality is a natural morality that preserves, protects, and promotes one’s race. The new morality is an unnatural morality that leads to the destruction of the races, especially the Aryan race, as it is the only race stupid enough to practice it.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Libertarianism and Social Issues

Libertarianism and Social Issues

Thomas Allen

Below, some flaws of libertarianism related to social issues are exposed. Discussed are libertarian views on contagious diseases, discrimination, transgenderism, the nature of man, morality, and adultery. The flaws discussed below may be more perception and image than reality. However, perception and image are often more controlling and important than reality.

Contagious Diseases
The underlying principle of libertarianism is that everyone should be allowed to do whatever he pleases that he can afford if he does not trespass against another person or his property.
If a person with a contagious disease transmits that disease to another person, has he trespassed against the person whom he infects? Can the person who is infected sue the person who infected him? Should a community be allowed to protect itself from a carrier of a contagious disease by preventing the infected person from entering their community? Since a significant number of illegal immigrants entering the United States have contagious diseases, these are important questions that libertarians need to answer.
Since libertarians seem to express no concern about letting an unknown, but significant, number of people into the country with contagious diseases, they must have a great deal of confidence that vaccines will protect them, even from diseases for which no vaccines have been developed. (This faith is not surprising when the esteem that libertarians have for multinational corporations is considered.)

Discrimination
With one exception, most libertarians object to discrimination. Although most libertarians abhor discriminating against people based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or political orientation, they oppose the government prohibiting people and companies from discriminating based on these reasons. Nevertheless, more libertarians seem to oppose discrimination based on race or sex than on religion or politics.
However, few libertarians object to discrimination based on wealth with many finding such discrimination agreeable. (This is a typical Yankee attitude.) For example, most libertarians object to “fair housing” laws that forbid private owners refusing to sell to a person because of race or putting restrictions in deeds to prohibit selling to people of specific races, although most libertarians find such practices reprehensible. However, few object of gated communities with high association fees designed to price nearly all of the undesirables out with extremely high housing cost. Thus, they find discrimination because of wealth acceptable. However, the person discriminated against is discriminated against and feels discriminated against; the reason for the discrimination is of secondary importance.
Another example is that most people discriminate in favor of family members. Most libertarians probably would not object to such discrimination if economics is not involved. For libertarians, economic trumps everything. It is the only acceptable reason for discrimination. Perhaps some libertarians find some exception to this dictum. They may object to discrimination against Blacks or homosexuals even if such discrimination is more profitable.

Transgenderism
All libertarians should oppose transgenderism because it is an act of fraud, but most do not. When a biological male (has a Y chromosome) tries to pass as a female (has no Y chromosome), that is a fraud. Likewise, the same is true when a biological female attempts to pass as a male. Nevertheless, how many libertarians really do consider transgenderism a fraud? (How long will it be before a person who dates a new person will require the date to provide a genetic test to prove his or her sex and sign a contract identifying what is accepted as conceptual sex?)

Nature of Man
In agreement with Rousseau, many libertarians, especially the anarcho-libertarians, believe that man by nature is good, unselfish (except the Randian Objectivists, who consider selfishness a great virtue), and wise. However, the government has corrupted and degraded him. How could wise, good, and unselfish people create something as corrupting and degrading as government? Is it not more reasonable and logical to consider people to be naturally sinners and that government is corrupted and degraded because sinners created and run it?
For that reason, power should be decentralized and dispersed instead of centralized and concentrated. Nevertheless, most libertarians who may believe that man is by nature sinful believe that a free market is sufficient not only to suppress that sin in the economic sphere but also in the political and social spheres.
A free market does a fairly good job of regulating sin in the economic realm because it usually disperses and decentralizes economic power. However, Marxism in all its forms, including progressivism, communism, socialism, and fascism, does a poor job because it consolidates and concentrates economic power. Nevertheless, a free market does little to regulate and suppress sin in the political sphere and especially the social sphere, where it is often in the forefront of sin.

Morality
As the old saying goes, in general, libertarians agree with conservatives on economic issues and with liberals on social issues. Thus, libertarians believe that the free market economy can exist and even thrive in a morally degraded society. Therefore, most libertarians oppose outlawing or even treating as mental disorders, homosexual acts, transgenderism, miscegenation, and other formerly sexual immoralities and such fraudulent perversions as “homosexual marriages.” (What is being referred to here are primarily public acts of sexual immorality and not private acts.) Most favor, or at least do not oppose, banning the God of the Christians and His Son and Messiah, Jesus, from public life. Yet, few seem to object to moving the god of Islam and Judaism and the gods of Hinduism and paganism to the forefront of public life, because these religions are far more compatible with secular humanism than is Christianity (although Muslim currently offers more resistance to homosexuals and transgenders than do most Christian.) Most progressives and liberals and many libertarians are secular humanists.
Strange is that libertarians, who claim to be great lovers of liberty, turn against the teaching of true Christianity, which is the only religion compatible with true liberty. Libertarianism grew out of Western Civilization, which grew out of Christianity and is or used to be a Christian society. No other religion, not even secular humanism, is compatible with libertarian ideals. Yet, most libertarians want to jettison Christianity’s teachings on morality. However, libertarians have not gone as far as Marxists, progressives, and their kindred in rejecting Christianity’s moral teaching of “thou shalt not steal.”  Nevertheless, in agreement with Marxists, progressives, and their kindred, most libertarians condone abortion, which is a violation of the moral law “thou shalt not murder.”
Libertarians fail to realize that abandoning one of God’s moral laws easily leads to abandoning the others. Marxists, progressives, and their kindred know this. That is why they eagerly push sexual immorality. (Next to lying, sexual morality is the easiest for humans to violate.) They know that abandoning sexual morality weakens and even destroys the family and makes stealing, murder, and even abandoning God, which is the ultimate goal, much easier. They know that sexual immorality makes establishing a socialist or a communist utopia much easier. So, why do so many libertarians join the Marxists in breaking down morality when the result is the death of the free market economy? The only real resistance that libertarians offer to the degradation of society is their opposition to using taxpayers’ money to do it.
Most libertarians seem not to recognize that liberties come from the God of the Christians. (Unfortunately, throughout the ages, Christians have been highly destructive of these liberties and have at times rivaled the Marxists in destroying liberties.) Secular man is the enemy of liberty, and Marxists and their kindred are secular men, who have elevated man above his Creator (just as the US government has been elevated above its creators, the States).

Adultery
Libertarians believe in the sacredness of contracts. Therefore, libertarians should be in the forefront in condemning adultery, which is a violation of the marriage contract. However, they are not. Contrariwise, they give the condemnation of adultery an extremely low priority. Some even find adultery acceptable, and almost no libertarian believes that the marriage contract should be enforced where adultery is involved. Their solution is to void the contract, i.e., divorce.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.