Monday, April 24, 2023

The Heritage Foundation on Critical Race Theory

The Heritage Foundation 

on Critical Race Theory

Thomas Allen


The Heritage Foundation (HF) has published a pamphlet titled Critical Race Theory: Knowing It When You See It and Fighting It When You Can. It discusses some errors and flaws of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and why it is wrong. In so doing, HF  reveals the defecation of neoconservatism: Its opposition is presented from a neoconservative perspective. HF’s arguments are based on racial nihilism and equality (as opposed to equity).

HF asserts that “in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the government rejected racial discrimination.” Regardless of its wording, this Act did not reject racial discrimination. Instead, it led to discrimination against Whites in favor of Blacks with quotas, affirmative action, and other privileges for Blacks.

Next, HF declares that “the civil rights movement affirmed that prejudice has no place in American life.” That is a lie. The civil rights movement has been built on prejudice against Whites.

Moreover, initially, the civil rights movement was aimed at the South although Southerners possessed no prejudice against Blacks. Collins English Dictionary defines prejudice as “an opinion formed beforehand, esp an unfavourable one based on inadequate facts.” Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary defines prejudice as “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.” The attitudes of Southerners toward Blacks were based on 400 years of observation, knowledge, thought, reason, and facts. They were not prejudging against Blacks. However, prejudice against Blacks may have existed in the North and West in areas where Blacks were rare.

Further, HF claims that “the vast majority of Americans we work and worship with, live and learn alongside, embrace the equal rights and dignity of all.” Thus, HF reveals its racial nihilism and support of policies that lead to the genocide of Blacks. Such a utopia exists only in the nightmares of self-loathing Whites and racial nihilists, nearly all of whom are White. If it were not for governmental coercion, much of this apparent harmonious integration and amalgamation would vaporize. Except for racial nihilists and those who hate their race, most people prefer associating with people of their own race. Moreover, the actions of most nonwhites show that they want to be superior to Whites and not just their equal.

HF notes that CRT “champions curricula and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs that separate individuals by race.” Separating individuals by race perseveres the races and is biblically supported. Apparently, HF prefers genocide. It wants to integrate and amalgamate the races, which is genocide.

Moreover, diversity and inclusion are incompatible. If diversity is to be preserved, segregation and separation are necessary. Inclusion requires integration and amalgamation.

HF idolizes the conglomeration of the races in America. Again, HF promotes breaking up the country, a civil war with one race dominating the other races, or genocide of the races via amalgamation into motley mongrel man. Amalgamation seems to be HF’s choice.

HF worships the civil rights movement though most of the problems that the country faces today have grown from the mentality that brought about the civil rights movement. (At the foundation of the civil rights movement were communists, and most of the problems of the country have grown from the communist mentality — see, “Are the United States a Communist Country?” by Thomas Allen.)

Although CRT errs in blaming the failure of Blacks on White, its solution is not as destructive as HE’s are. (Blacks are the blame for their failures; they need to accept responsibility for their own actions and the outcome of those actions.) HF’s solution is genocide via the amalgamation of the races into motley mongrel man.

Also, CRT errs in asserting the existence of White privileges. Whatever privileges that Whites may have had are long dead. Today, only nonwhites, especially Blacks, have special privileges.

One condemnation of CRT that HF has is its communist origin. Yet, HF has no qualms about the communist origins of the civil rights movement.

HF states that “children from intact families are less likely to spend time in prison or face poverty than children from non-intact families.” During the Jim Crow Era, most Black families were intact families, but during the Civil Rights Era, many Black families have become non-intact families. Yet, HF condemns the Jim Crow Era while praising the Civil Rights Era.

While CRT opposes meritocracy, HF supports it. In spite of meritocracy leaving Blacks in general at the bottom of the economic ladder, HF supports it. In the market system of the United States, which rewards merit when government coercion is absent, Whites, Turanians (primarily, East Asians), and Melanochroi (primarily Asian Indians and Pakistanis) in general will do much better than Blacks.

If admission to colleges and universities depended solely on merit, more Whites would go to colleges, and fewer Blacks would go — especially at the more prestigious universities.

HF favors school choice. Parents should be allowed to choose which school to send their children to. If White parents wanted to send their children to a school that allowed only White students, would HF find this acceptable? Likewise, with Black parents wanting to send their children to schools that only allowed Black students, would HF find this acceptable? It would probably condemn these choices and support outlawing such schools. Why? Because it wants to genocide Blacks — at least the policies that it promotes lead to the genocide of Blacks.

If the policies promoted by HF are implemented to their fullest, Blacks will fail behind White and other races educationally and economically because of the connate disabilities of Blacks, i.e., because of genetics. CRT recognizes this outcome; that is why it promotes special privileges for Blacks and the suppression of Whites.

HF offers two definitions of “equality”; both are chimeras. One is equal treatment under the law, and the other is equal opportunity.

Because people differ, true equality under the law is an illusion. The closest approach to it is everyone is arrested by the same officer and tried by the same judge and jury with the same defense attorney and prosecutor. Even then, equality would not be achieved because people differ on different days. 

Even in a more general sense, equality before the law cannot exist because of discretion. Thus, to start approaching equality before the law, law enforcers, prosecutors, and judges have to be stripped of any discretion. Even jury nullification, the bulwark against tyranny, has to be forbidden.

In “Gottfried and Equality,” I describe the delusion of equality of opportunity. A five-foot, fat, klutz does not have the same opportunity of becoming a professional basketball center as does a seven-foot, agile, athlete.  A dimwit does not have the same opportunity of becoming a doctor or engineer with a Ph.D. as does a genius. Genetics denies people equal opportunity.

The underlying principle of equality before the law and equality of opportunity is that everyone is identical. If that were true, everyone would have an equal outcome.

Because genetics discriminates against Blacks in most endeavors, CRT preaches equity, equality of outcome. A society can come closer to achieving equality of outcome than achieving equality of opportunity. Governmental coercion can cause equality of outcome, equity, to be approached. Genetics prevents equality of opportunity from ever being approached.

CRT leads to discrimination, demonization, and hatred of Whites and to granting special privileges to Blacks. HF’s policies lead to the genocide of Blacks and Whites. Under CRT, Blacks win and Whites lose. Under HF’s policies, both Blacks and Whites lose.


Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles. 

Saturday, April 15, 2023

WHAT IS THE BEAST?

WHAT IS THE BEAST?
Thomas Allen

    And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Ninevah by decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything:  let them not feed, nor drink water:  But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn everyone from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.  (Jonah 3:7, 8)

(Note:  3:7 refers to man and beasts and herds and flocks, but 3:8 refers only to man and beast.)  Man, beast, herds, and flocks were not to eat or drink; but what kind of beast wears clothes?  What kind of beast can cry unto God?  What kind of beast can turn from its evil ways?  What kind of beast has hands and can turn to violence?

    And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of every man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.  Whoso sheddeith blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made he man.  (Genesis (9:5, 6)

What kind of beast has the intelligence to know right from wrong and to be accountable for his action as is implied by this passage?

    No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years.  (Ezekiel 29:11)

What kind of beast has feet as opposed to paws and hoofs?

    And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it:  whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death:  There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.  (Exodus 19:12, 13)

What kind of beast has hands that can touch a mountain?

    And six years thou shalt sow thy land, and shalt gather in the fruits thereof:  But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still; that the poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave the beast of the field shall eat.  In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy oliveyard.  (Exodus 23:10, 11)

What kind of beast eats grapes and olives?  Would a farmer let domestic or wild animals wonder freely through his vineyard or oliveyard, thus trampling and destroying his plants?

    Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith:  neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto:  it is confusion.  And if a man lie with a beast he shall surely be put to death:  and ye shall slay the beast.  And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast:  they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.  (Leviticus 18:23, 20:15, 16)

With what kind of beast can man, male and female, have sex.  What kind of beast can be held morally responsible for its sexual conduct?

    And the Philistine said to David, Come to me, and I will give thy flesh unto the fowls of the air, and to the beast of the field.  (I Samuel 17:44)

What kind of beast eats meat and the flesh of man?

    And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and the beast of the field have I given him also to serve him.  (Jeremiah 27:6)

What kind of beast can act as a servant of man?

    That they shall drive thee from man, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.  (Daniel 4:25)

What kind of beast would take care of an insane King?

    So Jeremiah wrote in a book all the evil that should come upon Babylon, even all these words that are written against Babylon, and shalt see, and shalt read all these words;  Then shalt thou say, O Lord, thou hast spoken against this place, to cut it off, that none shall remain in it, neither man nor beast, but that it shall be desolate forever.  (Jeremiah 51:60-62)

What kind of beast no longer inhabits the area of ancient Babylon"  The area is abundant with game today.

    When I shall send upon them the evil arrows of famine, which shall be for their destruction, and which I will send to destroy you:  and I will increase the famine upon you and will break your staff of bread:  So will I send upon you famine and evil beasts, and they shall bereave thee; and pestilence and blood shall pass through thee; and I will bring the sword upon thee.  I the Lord have spoken it.  (Ezekiel 5:16, 17)

What kind of beast can be evil?

    But these as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption:  And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time.  Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceiving while they feast with you:  Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls:  an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children.  (II Peter 2:12-14)

What kind of beast can speak evil, enjoy rioting, have eyes full of adultery, covet and sin?

What kind of beast, domestic or wild, accompanies man, lives among man, is a servant of man, has hands and feet, eats meat, wears clothes, can talk, can have sex with man, can riot, can be held morally accountable for its action, can covet, can sin, can repent, and can pray to God?  Beast, beast of the field, and beast of the earth refer to a creature that resembles and is like man.  The beast refers to the _________.

Copyright © 1995 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Thursday, April 6, 2023

American Police State

American Police State
Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was written in 2002, shortly after the enactment of the so-call PATRIOT Act]

    In defending his newly imposed restrictions on legal rights, President Bush said that “the Constitution is sacred” and that it will not be undermined in his war against terrorism. His actions contradict his words.
    He has had American citizens arrested and imprisoned without charges, hearings, or convictions and without access to an attorney or anyone else. Apparently, he can have anyone arrested and imprisoned indefinitely merely by labeling that person as “an enemy combatant.” The victim is not allowed to appeal this charge. This action violates the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, to be informed of the charges, to confront witnesses, and to have a lawyer.
    The Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) is building several large detention (prison) camps across the country. These centers may be used to imprison people who refuse an untested toxic vaccination, dissenters, segments of the population declared “enemy combatants,” terrorists like constitutionalists and Christians who believe that these are the last days, and others whom Bush deems undesirable.
    Bush endorsed and rapidly pushed through a scared, cowardly Congress his Anti-Patriot bill. This bill was not even available for Congressmen to read until after they had passed it.
    Under this law, federal agents can monitor conversations between a prisoner and his attorney. Such monitoring violates the Sixth Amendment.
    Court hearings can be, and are being, held in secret The Sixth Amendment requires trials to be public.
    The Anti-Patriot Act also makes a mockery of the Fourth Amendment. Now almost no restrictions are placed on searches and seizures. Probable cause is no longer needed for search warrants. (When Congress asked the Justice Department how many subpoenas had been issued under the Anti-Patriot Act, the Justice Department told Congress that the information was classified and could not be released. Nearly every time that the Bush Administration does is classified and cannot be released. Why all the secrecy? What is Bush trying to hide? The police state that he has given America.)
    Legal barriers to the police searching library records have been greatly reduced. These searches include removing hard drives of computers from libraries. Not only can the police view the Internet usage of a suspect, but they can also view the usage of everyone else who has recently used that computer. Until now, what one read was protected under the First Amendment. The Anti-Patriot Act has voided this First Amendment Protection.
    The only things that remain sacred are that racial profiling will not be used and the borders will not be closed to immigrants. Racial profiling and closing the borders to immigrants are not unconstitutional.
    Bush is knowingly, or possibly unknowingly, falling into an old standard Communist trap. A common Communist tactic is to commit terrorist acts to cause the government to react with oppression. The typical government reaction to terrorism is to clamp down on the freedom of the people. More terrorist acts are followed by more freedom-restricting reactions by the government. Soon the people are living in a police state that is nearly as oppressive as what the Communist would have imposed. Discontent and rebellion are often the results.
    If Bush were really serious about defeating terrorism, he would bring all the U.S. troops scattered across the globe home and use them to seal the borders to all immigrants. (He would also respect the posse comitatus law and refuse to allow troops to participate in law enforcement or to patrol American streets.) He would reduce immigration to zero. (The Mexican invasion is far more detrimental to American welfare than anything that Iraq, Hussein, bin Laden, al-Qaeda, or any other Arabic terrorist group could inflict.) He would institute a vigorous program to round up and deport all illegal immigrants. When an immigrant’s visa expired, he would have to return home.
    Instead of violating the Constitution to fight terrorism, Bush should use it. Anyone who is suspected of terrorism or collaborating with terrorists should be tried quickly in open court. If convicted, he should be sentenced to the fullest extent of the law. Any high-ranking governmental official who knew about the 9-11 attack, aided the terrorists in the attack, concealed information that could have prevented it, or otherwise aided the terrorists should be publicly executed.
    Instead of seeking to curb private ownership of firearms, Bush should be openly and vigorously encouraging it. He would push to repeal federal laws that impede private ownership of firearms. A highly armed citizenry is not only the best defense against terrorism, but it is also the best defense against a despotic police state.
    Bush would replace our Zionist Middle East foreign policy with a more even-handed one that did not favor either side. He would withdraw the United States from the United Nation and all those entangling alliances created under the authority of the United Nations including NAFTA and GATT. He would embargo trade with China, North Korea, Syria, Saudi-Arabia, and other countries whose governments support terrorists or whose governments allow private citizens to support terrorists.
    Instead of administering the government in secrecy, Bush would open the government up to public inspection. With the possible exceptions of weapons technology, manufacturing trade secrets, the identity of undercover agents, activities related to criminal investigations, and the like, he should declassify and unseal all governmental records and make them available to the public. If we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then the people need to know what the government is doing. Bush would make public all records concerning the 9-11 attack. He would release everything that could reveal who knew what when.
    If Bush’s goal is to turn the United States into a despotic police state with troops on the street where citizens fear both the government and terrorists, he is traveling the right road. If his goal is to defeat terrorism, protect the Constitution, and restore American freedom, he needs drastically change course.

Copyright © 2002 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Tuesday, March 28, 2023

Difficult Verses

Difficult Verses

Thomas Allen


In “The Bible Is Reliable, Part 2,” Grace (in) Focus, November/December 2022, page 20, Dix Winston identifies some difficult sayings of Jesus. Two are (emphases are added):

(1) John 14:28: “Ye heard how I said to you, I go away, and I come unto you. If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced, because I go unto the Father: for the Father is greater than I.”

(2) Luke 18:19: “And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, even God.”

Two other verses that he does not mention that would be difficult from his perspective are:

(1) 1 Corinthians 8:6: “yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.”

(2) 1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus,”

(These two verses are the key verses that convinced Isaac Newton that Trinitarianism errs and Unitarianism is correct.)

Mr. Winston believes that the Bible is without error and should be understood literally. Therefore, the Bible correctly states what Jesus says.

Further, Mr. Winston is a Trinitarian. Yet, because of his faith in the Trinity Doctrine, he finds these verses difficult to understand. For him, Jesus obviously does not literally mean what he says. Thus, Jesus does not really mean that the Father is greater than he is or that he is not good because only God is good. Moreover, Paul does not really mean that only the Father is God. Being God, Jesus cannot mean what he clearly says in these verses. Not meaning what he clearly says, Jesus consequently deceives those who heard him and the readers of the Bible today. (Unless he wants to risk being a heretic, Mr. Winston cannot use the Jesus-speaking-in-his-human-nature argument because the Council of Chalcedon [where Jesus was declared to have two independent natures and wills] declared that whenever Jesus spoke, he always spoke as God the Son and never as a mere human.)

Like all Trinitarians, Mr. Winston does not believe in Occam’s razor: With competing explanations, a simple explanation is generally preferred to a complex explanation. While the Trinitarian explanation of these verses is complex, the Unitarian explanation is simple.

Unlike Trinitarians, Unitarians do follow Occam’s razor. They believe that Jesus literally means what he says in these verses. Thus, Jesus really does mean that the Father is greater than he is and that only God the Father is good.

Unlike Trinitarians, who believe that Jesus does not mean what he says and that these verses need to be explained away, Unitarians accept what Jesus says and have no need to explain them away. While the Trinitarian explanation of these verses is complex, the Unitarian explanation is simple.

Thus, Trinitarians let their doctrine decide how they interpret these verses. On the other hand, Unitarians let these verses guide them in establishing the Unitarian Doctrine.

Because these verses conflict with the Trinity Doctrine, Trinitarians find them difficult to understand. However, because these verses support the Unitarian Doctrine, Unitarians do not find them difficult.


Appendix

The following are other verses that Mr. Winston does not mention that are hard sayings of Jesus for Trinitarians. Trinitarians cannot use the Jesus-speaking-in-his-human-nature argument to explain away these verses without risking heresy. These verses are from the King James translation with emphases added.

– Matthew 4:10: Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

– Matthew 27:46: And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

– Mark 12:29: And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

– Mark 13:32: But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

– Mark 14:36: And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt

– John 1:18: No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

– John 5:19: Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

– John 7:16: Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

– John 8:28: Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

– John 8:40: But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

– John 17:3: And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

– John 20:17: Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

If Jesus were a co-equal God with the Father as the Trinity Doctrine proclaims, he would not have to depend on the Father as he says he does in some of the above verses.  Further, if he were God, his will would be the same as the Father’s, and he could not forsake himself. Moreover, he would be omniscient. Also, he would not declare God his Father as the only true God.


Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Sunday, March 19, 2023

A Response to a Minister Re COVID

 


A Response to a Minister Re COVID

Thomas Allen


The following are comments to “Ministry After Covid?” by Bob Wilkin. Mr. Wilkin urges people who do not wear masks to wear masks when they are around paranoid people who fear nonmask wearers. To keep from offending mask wearers, nonmask wearers should wear masks when they are around mask wearers. 

The next four paragraphs were emailed to Wilkin, but he did not reply to them.

The next major health crisis is going to be injuries and delayed deaths from the experimental COVID vaccines. These vaccines are neither safe nor effective. (https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2020/12/covid-19-vaccine.html, https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2021/03/more-on-covid-19-vaccine.html, or https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2020/12/covid-19-vaccine-its-effectiveness-and.html.) Moreover, when adjusted for undercounting deaths from the vaccines and overcounting deaths from COVID, more people have died of the vaccines than of COVID in the U.S. At least 10 times more people have died of the vaccines than reported. Less than 10 percent of the people reported as dying of COVID actually died of COVID in the U.S.

As for masks, you write, “we will all need to be sensitive to fellow believers who have strong convictions about everyone wearing masks.” What about people like me who have strong convictions that wearing masks causes more harm than good? (https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2021/04/masks.html) Are the everyone-needs-to-wear-masks proponents going to be sensitive to people like me? If masks protect, what does a person wearing a mask have to fear from a person not wearing a mask? Besides, I do not understand how a mask with gaps around the edges and holes many times larger than the virus can offer any protection from the virus. Wearing a mask as protection from the virus is like hiding behind a chain-link fence while someone is shooting at you and expecting not to be hit.

Unlike the vaccines, which are neither safe nor effective, there are treatments for COVID that are safe and effective. However, these treatments are being suppressed.

For vaccination and mask-wearing, the guiding principle should be “my body, my choice” and not “your body, my choice.” Anyone who chooses not to wear a mask or not to be vaccinated should be allowed that choice without any penalty. Likewise, anyone who chooses to wear a mask or to be vaccinated should be allowed that choice. If vaccination or mask-wearing really protects, then the vaccinated and mask-wearers have nothing to fear from those who are not vaccinated or do not wear masks. No person should force another person to be vaccinated or to wear a mask — the “your body, my choice” principle.

The knowledgeable catering to the ignorance of the ignorant keeps them ignorant. It does the ignorant no good and may even harm him. Instead, the knowledgeable should try to educate the ignorant. They should inform the ignorant of the uselessness and dangers of wearing masks as protection from a virus.

If the mask wearer is stupid, then the knowledgeable is wasting his time trying to educate the stupid. For stupid people to learn is extremely difficult and even impossible. In any event, a nonmask wearer should not become a mask wearer for the sake of the mask wearers.


Appendix.

People have speculated about the real purpose of the COVID-19 “vaccine.” Health officials, big medicine, and politicians claim that the purpose of the “vaccine” is to prevent people from contracting and spreading COVID-19. Moreover, a “vaccinated” person would be less likely to be hospitalized because of COVID-19 or die of it. Now, we know that these people lied to us. Studies are showing that a “vaccinated” person is more likely to contract COVID-19, be hospitalized, and die than an unvaccinated person.

Other than making a fortune for liability-free big pharma and big medicine, what is the purpose of the “vaccine?” Some speculate that its purpose is to cull the herd — the large-scale slaughter of humanity. Others speculate that its purpose is to create large-scale disability and, by that, generate enormous profits for big pharma and the medical industry. Or, could the purpose be a combination of these two? The “vaccines” cause all sorts of chronic terminal disabilities for big medicine to treat with drugs while killing the victims at various rates. 

(Many people confuse eugenics with culling the herd. Eugenics encourages high-quality people to reproduce while discouraging or preventing the reproduction of low-quality people. [Today, dysgenics is practiced as low-quality people are encouraged to reproduce while high-quality people are discouraged from reproducing.] Culling the herd means slaughtering the herd without regard to the quality of the people killed.)


Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Friday, March 10, 2023

Two Thoughts Related to Economics

Two Thoughts Related to Economics

Thomas Allen


The following discusses two errors related to money that Brandon Smith makes and protective tariffs and wages.

Brandon Smith’s Errors

Brandon Smith’s “Simple fixes to our economic problems that establishment elites won't allow” contains at least two errors.

1. “Basically, the Fed bankrolls the corruption through fiat money creation while government officials and corporations utilize the money to wreak havoc on our living standards. Ending the Fed would solve the fiat money problem” Eliminating the Fed would not eliminate the fiat money problem. The federal government can just print and issue government notes and their electronic equivalent. It did so during the Lincoln administration with the greenback, which was a fiat currency, that significantly reduced the purchasing power of the dollar. Merely cutting out the middleman, the Fed, does not solve the fiat money problem.

2. “[W]hile it is true that the Constitution explicitly states that the U.S. Treasury becomes the only issuer of U.S. currency, this was done at a time when our currency was backed by gold and silver and there was no corrupt middleman in the form of a central bank.” The Constitution does not make the US government the only issuer of US currency. It only delegates the federal government the power to coin gold and silver and to fix the weights and purity of the coins so minted. Also, the U.S. Treasury is not mentioned in the Constitution. Moreover, the federal government never issued paper money until the Lincoln administration. Before then, private banks issued all paper currency, and they continued to issue paper currency until Franklin Roosevelt’s administration. During that time the federal government issued several types of paper currency (US notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, and Treasury Notes of 1890). It continued to issue silver certificates until the 1960s and US notes until the 1970s. When the drafters of the Constitution removed the authority of the federal government to issue bills of credit, they thought that they had removed the authority for the federal government to issue paper currency. 

Protective Tariffs and Wages

Many people support protective tariffs because they believe that the tariffs will protect jobs and raise wages. If tariffs raise wages and protect jobs, it is only for those in the protected industries — and because of immigration, they may not even do that. However, they raise prices for everyone and, by that, they reduce the standard of living.

Historically, manufacturers have been the proponents of protective tariffs. They want protected markets for their inefficient companies. Also, they have been big supporters of large-scale immigration to suppress wages. Increasing the supply of workers suppresses wages and thwarts innovation.

Often, companies will use the argument of a lack of skilled workers so that they can import workers to work for less pay to suppress labor costs, i.e., wages. For example, companies may claim that a shortage of computer programmers exists because they have to pay computer programmers higher salaries than they want to pay. Consequently, these companies import foreign computer programmers who work for less pay. Importing foreign computer programmers to fill computer programmer jobs at lower wages prevents the market from signaling via higher wages that a shortage of computer programmers exists. Thus, fewer domestic workers learn computer programming skills. Allowing the markets to signal that a shortage of computer programmers exists encourages more people to learn the skills of computer programmers.

If people want to raise wages, they should severely restrict immigration. Fewer workers lead to higher wages and innovations that lower the cost of production. Moreover, immigration restrictions do so without increasing the cost of living.


Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More economic articles.

Wednesday, March 1, 2023

Four Comments on Political Issues

Four Comments on Political Issues

Thomas Allen


Blow four items are discussed. They are two ways of addressing secession, saving “our Democracy,” the difference between progressives and conservatives, and inalienable versus unalienable.


Two Ways of Addressing Secession

There are two ways of addressing secession: the Wilsonian and the Lincolnian.

  According to the Wilsonian principle, all nations capable of maintaining their own country should have their own country. (A nation or nationality is a people who have a common genetic ancestry, culture, language, and history; who have common traditions and customs; and who are capable of forming or constituting an independent country.) Since the people of the Donbass region are capable of maintaining their own country, they should have their own independent country, which they have done with the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic. (Through a plebiscite, the people of these two countries voted to join Russia, and Russia accepted them.)

According to the Lincolnian principle, once a region is part of a country, it can never secede and form an independent country unless it wins that right with war. Thus, being part of Ukraine, the two oblasts of Donbass can never be independent countries unless they defeat Ukraine in war. Furthermore, under the Lincolnian principle, Russia has the right to annex Ukraine because Ukraine seceded from Russia and did so without defeating Russia in war. 

Under the Wilsonian principle, the Ukrainian people deserve their own countries. However, under the Lincolnian participle, they do not unless they defeat Russia in war. 

Likewise, under the Lincoln principle, China has the right to annex Taiwan. Under the Wilsonian principle, China has no right to annex Taiwan; the Taiwanese deserve their own country, or perhaps several countries since several ethnicities inhabit Taiwan.


“Saving our Democracy”

According to the Democrats, the purpose of the January 6 select committee, the violation of due process in arresting and detaining the January 6 protestors, the censoring of people who claim that the Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election, and the lynching of Donald Trump is to protect “our Democracy.” The reason that Trump supporters were rallying in Washington on January 6 was to protect “our Democracy.” They were protesting the Democrats stealing the 2020 presidential election — and plenty of evidence supports the conclusion that the Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election.

Furthermore, Democrats are notorious for doing what they accuse others of doing. Thus, Democrats accuse Trump and his followers of destroying “our Democracy” while Democrats destroyed “our Democracy” by stealing the presidential election. Democrats stole the election, so they blame Trump and his followers for trying to steal the election.


Difference Between Progressives and Conservatives

G.K. Chesterton explains the difference between progressives and conservatives. About progressives, he writes, “The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes.” About conservatives, he writes, “The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.” Thus, progressives begin idiotic programs, and conservatives preserve them. Worse, Conservatives make the progressive programs operate more efficiently and effectively.

Seldom do conservatives eliminate progressive mistakes. Prohibition is an example of a progressive program that has been eliminated — and that was because progressives abandoned it. 

Another progressive program that has been abolished is eugenics. Conservatives did not end eugenics; progressives did. Progressives replaced eugenics with the genocide of the White race, which racial nihilistic conservatives only weakly oppose. (Paradoxically, the genocide of the hated White race leads to the genocide of the beloved American Negro.)


Inalienable vs. Unalienable

Some people stress a great difference between inalienable and unalienable. For them, the two words mean entirely different things — even opposite meanings. They maintain that unalienable rights cannot be transferred whereas inalienable rights can be. Following are some dictionary definitions of the two words.

These definitions are from Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition: 

– "inalienable," adj. Not transferable or assignable (inalienable property interests). — also termed unalienable.

– "unalienable," adj. See INALIENABLE.

Thus, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, the two words mean the same thing. It makes no distinction between the two.

Webster’s 1828 dictionary gives the following definitions:

– INALIENABLE, a. Unalienable; that cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another. The dominions of a king are inalienable. All men have certain natural rights which are inalienable. The estate of a minor is inalienable, without a reservation of the right of redemption, or the authority of the legislature.

– UNALIENABLE, a. Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights.

According to Webster, the two words seem to mean the same thing — especially, since he defines “inalienable” to mean “unalienable.”

The following are definitions of "unalienable" from other dictionaries:

– “Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable” – American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.

– “law a variant of inalienable” – Collins English Dictionary.

– “not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.” – Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary.

– “inalienable” – Merriam Webster.

The following are the definitions of "inalienable" given in these four dictionaries:

– “That cannot be transferred to another or others: inalienable rights” – American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.

– “not able to be transferred to another; not alienable” – Collins English Dictionary.

– “not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights” – Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary.

– “incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred” – Merriam Webster

“Unalienable” and “inalienable” look like they mean the same thing. Merriam Webster even defines “unalienable” to mean “inalienable.” What is the difference?


Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.