A Letter: South Africa

A Letter: South Africa

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1986 responding to an article by Ms. Frances Kendall in Reason magazine.]

    The solution to South Africa's problem offered by Frances Kendall is interesting. If implemented, I would be surprised that her solution would work without some significant changes. Based on the information in her article, her solution contains several major flaws.
    First, she recommends drawing cantonal boundaries without regard to tribal or racial boundaries. Thus, she proposes to commit the same error that has been committed in the rest of Africa. The colonial powers drew political boundaries with little regard to tribal or ethnic boundaries. When they withdrew, the colonial boundaries remained. The result of this disregard for tribal and ethnic boundaries has led to oppression and bloodshed all over Africa. This has happened in spite of the constitutions that most of these countries have which guarantee all sorts of rights for the people. There is no reason to believe that South Africa would be any different. Besides, most Swiss cantons are racially, ethnically, and culturally homogeneous. The German-Swiss and French-Swiss have much more in common than do the Zulu and Xhosa, who are traditional enemies. They certainly have much more in common than these two tribes have with the Afrikaner.
    Another flaw is the erroneous belief that a bill of rights is compatible with democracy. A bill of rights is as antidemocratic as a true monarchy. In a democracy the majority rules. The will of the majority must prevail if democracy is to live. The purpose of a bill of rights is to limit the political power of the rulers, which in a democracy is the majority. But if the power of the majority is limited, i.e., the majority cannot change the bill of rights at its whim, then some sort of minority rule exists. Where a minority rules, a democracy cannot exist.
    Another flaw is the absurd idea that the antidiscrimination provisions of the constitution would be used only against the central and cantonal governments, but not against private companies, associations, and individuals. One needs only to look at the Second Reconstruction of the South in the United States to see how ridiculous this concept is. During the Second Reconstruction of the South, antidiscrimination laws have been aimed as much at, or perhaps even more so, the private sector as they have been aimed at the State and local governments. There is no reason to believe that the Black rulers of South Africa would allow Whites even in a totally White canton to refuse to sell, rent, or provide services to a Black who enters or tries to enter that canton.
    She also proposes to allow communists and other terrorists to participate in formulating a new government for South Africa. Unless she desires despotic socialism, which she seems to abhor, allowing communists to participate is highly questionable. Although there may be one, I know of no instance in the third world where communists have been allowed to participate in formulating a government without the communists or at least despotic socialists eventually ruling.
    In her article, she offers no method to keep the central government from becoming more powerful by usurping the rights and powers of the cantonal governments and the people as the central government has done in the United States and, to a lesser degree perhaps, in Switzerland. Most likely, the usurpation would occur more quickly and more completely in South Africa for at least two reasons. First, there is no tradition of independent cantonal government. Second, her solution seems to require the central government to antedate or be created simultaneously with the cantonal governments; thus, the cantonal governments will appear to be creations of the central government.
    The only difference between her solution and the predictions of the prophets of doom is the method by which the Afrikaner will perish and the amount of time involved. If war comes as the prophets of doom predict, the Afrikaner may perish. But he will die like a man fighting for his race, culture, and homeland. (Oh, if only the rest of the West had this courage!) If her solution is implemented, the Afrikaner will surely perish. But he will die like a wimp as he is bred out of existence. (To die like wimps seems to be the insatiable desire of the West, not only for the Afrikaner, but for all that is European in race and culture.)
    There is, I believe, a better solution to the South Africa problem than the cantonal solution offered by Kendall, and that is, what I would term, the States’ rights’ solution, which, unlike her cantonal solution, requires true decentralization and dispersal of political power.
    First, the boundaries of the cantons should be drawn along tribal, ethnic, racial, cultural lines. This would ensure that the inhabitants of a given canton would have a common language, tradition, culture, heritage, etc. It would greatly reduce internal conflict within a canton.
    Next, instead of adopting a democratic form of government for the central and cantonal governments where rule is by the will of the majority, a republican form of government where rule is by law and where each important political faction and segment of society can be guaranteed some degree of representation should be adopted. The principle of “one man, one vote” should be abandoned. Representation should be proportioned primarily on the basis of the tax base and not on the basis of population. Voting should be weighted in accordance with the amount of taxes paid. The more taxes a person pays, the more votes he should have. This is the market concept of the more wealth a person has, the more “votes” he has in the market, applied to the political process.
    Perhaps the reason that Switzerland is among the freest of countries is that it was one of the last (maybe the last) in the non-Islamic world to grant suffrage to women. In the United States, the rapid acceleration in the growth of government and the decline of liberty began within a decade after women gained the “right” to vote. With few, if any, exceptions, as the franchise has expanded, the government has grown and liberty has declined. With political equality, democracy, has come economic equality, socialism. If liberty is one of Kendall’s objectives, democracy is not the panacea that she believes it to be. As John Randolph of Roanoke proclaimed “I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality.” In other words, one can have liberty; one can have equality; one can have neither; but one can never have both.
    Perhaps the most important principle that needs adopting is Calhoun’s doctrine of concurrent majority. Under this principle, each canton would have the right and power to veto acts of the central government, as far as that canton is concerned, that are, in the opinion of the canton, unconstitutional or unduly infringe upon the rights of the canton and its citizens. This principle could be applied at the cantonal level where important segments of society could have the power to veto acts of the canton as far as the acts apply to that segment. Likewise, each canton should possess the ultimate veto and have the right to secede without molestation or armed conflict.
    To protect the cantons from the central government and to preserve their rights and the rights of their citizens, the cantonal governments should have control of a significant part of the armed forces.
    The plan proposed by Kendall probably will not solve South Africa’s problems. It will surely not save the Afrikaner. The plan that I have briefly outlined above may not solve South Africa’s problems either. However, it does offer the Afrikaner a much better chance of surviving. (I am convinced that the West will accept no solution short of turning South Africa into a Soviet colony with a Black-led puppet government.)
    As an unreconstructed Southerner, my sympathy and empathy are with the Afrikaner. I believe that Western civilization may well live or die with him. Just as the South stood against the world and fought and died for all the nobleness of Western civilization 125 years ago, so today does the Afrikaner. I wish him victory.

Copyright © 1986 by Thomas C. Allen.

More political 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.

A Letter: Communist Democracy, Genocide, Fascism

A Letter: Communist Democracy, Genocide, Fascism

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1990 responding to Mr. Howard Ruff about an article that he wrote for his newsletter, “The Ruff Times.”]

    I agree with your comments in the March 12, 1990, issue of “The Ruff Times” about the dangers of Gorbachev consolidating power in his hands. Anyone who prefers liberty to despotism seeks to decentralize and disperse power rather than to centralize and concentrate it as Gorbachev is doing.
    However, I disagree with you that “communist democracy” is an oxymoron, much less the oxymoron of the year. Enclosed is a short article that I wrote for the “Southern National Newsletter” about a year ago in which I aver that democracy is much more compatible with and akin to socialism, of which communism is just one branch, than a free market economy and that democracy has little to do with freedom — at least in the sense that freedom was thought of before the coming of the welfare state. If you want to pursue an oxymoron, try the ever-popular, ever-present oxymoron “Judeo-Christian.” [Judaism teaches that Jesus was a bastard, sorcerer, blasphemer, and worse. How does that compare the teachings of the Christian New Testament about Jesus?]
    As for South Africa, your prognostication is not as dismal as mine. The Afrikaner is on his way to extinction. The genocide of the Afrikaner will be both by the more traditional violent method typically practiced in Africa and by the more subtle method typically practiced in the United States and the rest of the Western Hemisphere. [The Black controlled government of South Africa is now actively promoting genociding the Afrikaner and other White South Africans.] Most likely, Apartheid will win in the end. As the various South African tribes war with each other for supremacy, South Africa will become divided into several countries. There will be only four winners: the Black African leaders who survive to become dictators, the British multinational corporations, the international bankers, and the Soviet Union. [We can now omit the Soviet Union from the list. I guess that the globalist, i.e., the multinational corporations and international bankers, no longer have any use for the Soviet Union. Most likely, China will take the place of the extinct Soviet Union in South Africa.]
    Perhaps the reason that “genocide” is such an abused term is to conceal from the American public that genocide, as defined by the Genocide Convention, is an official governmental policy of the United States. Enclosed is an article that I wrote for the “Southern National Newsletter” after Congress approved legislation to implement the Genocide Convention in which I aver that according to the Convention, genocide is an official governmental policy in the United States.
    To conceal from the American public that they live in a fascist country, albeit a democratic fascist country if you want an apparent oxymoron, is perhaps why the term “fascist” is abused as much as if not more than “genocide.”  The United States are a fascist country. It has adopted the welfare state and it has total control of all property in the United States — both of which are key elements of fascism. As in the autocratic fascist countries about 50 years ago [now 75 years ago], individuals are allowed to own property, pay taxes on their property, and are held responsible and liable for their property.  However, the government tells them what they may, can, and shall do with their property and what they may not, cannot, and shall not do with their property. (The government may not be involved in all areas of property usage, but the people have conceded it the right to be so.) The government has the benefits of ownership while the property owners have the responsibility.

Copyright © 1990, 2019 by Thomas C. Allen.

More political articles.

The Genocidal War Against the White Race

The Genocidal War Against the White Race

Thomas Allen

    A genocidal war is being waged in America today, and it is not against the Black race. It is against the White race. This genocidal war is being waged in Europe and other countries founded and built by the White race. (It has been nearly won in South Africa.)
    The intellectuals of academia, who ironically are mostly White, are the architects of the genocide of the White race. Their preaching of the goddess Equality demands the death of the White race: All that is White must be destroyed. They are guided by envy, an insatiable lust for equality (well not exactly — they are to be the masters and all others are to be slaves, a millennium ruled by intellectuals instead of Jesus to correct the errors of mankind), and apparently self-hatred (victims of their own propaganda?).
    These intellectuals have built a system in America based on the premise of equality: All humans are equal; there are no racial differences beyond skin color (even differences in skin color would be denied if they were not so obvious). Being mostly White, these intellectuals have concluded that Whites are intellectually superior to other races. Their conclusion is not ill-founded, for studies, many of which they have suppressed, support their conclusion. To serve their goddess Equality, they must remove the source of inequality by eradicating the White race. They must destroy the White race even if they must destroy themselves. (This suicidal urge is hard to understand because most of these intellectuals are White males. However, then habitual sin leads to self-destruction.)
    The intellectual supremacy of the White race has led it to acquire a larger share of the wealth, which is an affront to the goddess Equality. The coercive power of government can only go so far in redistributing wealth. There is no guarantee that its redistribution will not later be undone. To ensure the permanence of the redistribution, the superior race must be eliminated. The White race must go. (These intellects delude themselves with their own intelligence. Every race has great variation of intellect, talents, and abilities. Wealth has to continuously be redistributed to prevent some from having noticeably more wealth than others.)
    To achieve equality among humans, the White race must be destroyed. Many tactics have been employed to achieve this objective. Two fratricidal wars have been fought in Europe during the twentieth century. These wars killed tens of millions of White men in the prime of life. In the second war, tens of millions of White women and children were also killed. Billions of dollars in wealth were wasted and destroyed, thus, hastening the day when White civilization would be reduced to third-world poverty.
    During recent decades, the war has taken on a more subtle tone. The “divide and conquer” tactic has been used with a great degree of success. White women have been pitted against White men. Woman is no longer man’s complement. She is now his competitor.
    Numerous laws have been enacted to destroy the family and to inject women into the workplace. Various welfare programs make fathers superfluous and destroy their need and responsibility. Public education relieves parents of the responsibility of training and teaching their children. Equal employment opportunity and affirmative action laws force discrimination against White males. Ever increasing taxes force White women into the workplace if the family is to maintain a reasonably decent standard of living. These and other laws are attempting to eradicate the White race by belittling and reducing to insignificance the White male.
    Other weapons include integration and immigration. Integration is used to break down inhibitions against the sin of miscegenation. The White race can be destroyed by breeding it out of existence through interracial marriages. To provide breeding stock for this objective, immigration laws have been revised to favor the immigration of non-Whites. Because nearly all illegal immigrants are non-White (Blacks from the West Indies, mestizos from Mexico, and East Asians) little effort has been expended to thwart the flow. To the contrary, the United States government acts to encourage illegal immigration by requiring American taxpayers to support them.
    University professors, who are mostly White males, habitually condemn White males. They accuse them of being the scourge of the Earth, the source of racism (the greatest sin known to these intellectuals), and the root of all evil. White males, i.e., the White race, for without White males the White race is impossible, is a virus that must be eradicated if the world is to be saved.
    White males have been delegitimized and dehumanized to the point where many feel the necessity to apologize for being one. They are the only class against whom people can legally discriminate. They are the only class against whom people are required to discriminate. If White males can be completely delegitimized and dehumanized, the enemies of the White race may succeed in their attempt to destroy the White race.
    White males need to stop apologizing for being White and men. They need to reassert their authority. They need to purge their ranks of traitors, which unfortunately includes most of their political, business, labor, academic, and religious leaders. Then they can save the White race and return it to its rightful place.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Ethnic Harmony

Ethnic Harmony

Thomas Allen

    In The Natural Law of Race Relations (1993), Laszlo Thomay presents his natural law of race relations. Based on ethnical relations in various multinational countries, he derives this law. (He uses race in the biological and national sense. Except when quoting from his book, “race” in this article refers to a biological race, such as the Negro race or Turanian race. “Nationality” means race in the national sense, such as Slovene, Basque, Sioux, or Zulu; all people of the same nationality are of the same biological race. “Ethnic” is used in a broad sense to include both race and nationality.) He states the law as follows:

People of different races, nationalities, languages or cultures can not live peacefully and harmoniously within the confines of the same state if the minority exceeds a certain proportion of the total population. Exceptions may occur by virtue of reducing the effective size of the minority when the minority lives in a geographically separate area with full autonomy, and/or the minority is willing to be, and capable of being absorbed into the majority, and/or the minority is very small and avoids any action deemed to be provocative to the majority.

A shorter, but less exact, stating of this law is, “The larger and more noticeably different a minority is, the more relations between majority and minority deteriorate.”

    Maintaining good racial and ethnic relationships requires maintaining the minority below a certain percentage of the country’s population. The percentage varies, but it usually is below one to five percent. The more noticeable the minority, the more it threatens the majority; the lower the percentage is, the less it threatens the majority.

    The noticeability can be visual or audible. People of different races are visually different. They cannot overcome this difference. People who speak different languages are audibly different. If they are of the same race, they can overcome this difference, at least by the following generation, by the minority learning to speak fluently the language of the majority.

    The United States offer an example of where audible differences are overcome, but not visual differences. People from the many national groups of Europe have come to the United States. They are of the same primary race, so any visual differences are cultural, which they can change, and not biological, which they cannot change. Most of them learn to speak English. English becomes the primary language of most of their children. By the second or third generation, they are part of the majority.

    However, Blacks have been unable to fit in. Although most of the majority will deny it, the majority perceives Blacks as a threat. Audibly they are indistinguishable from the majority. Except for some recent immigrants, Blacks have spoken English for generations. However, their visual differences are highly noticeable. Being biological, these differences cannot be overcome.

    The recent onslaught of Mexican Indian and mestizo immigrants shows even more striking differences from the majority. They display not only visual differences that are biological; they also display audible differences. Spanish is their primary, and for many only, language. Most have no desire to replace Spanish with English as their primary language.

    A few multiracial (or perhaps more correctly multiethnical or multinational) countries with good relationships do exist. The primary example is Switzerland. The four different nationalities are of the same race. They segregate themselves geographically. Whenever a person of one nationality moves to an area dominated by a different nationality, he is expected to adopt, and he usually does, the language of the area into which he moves.

    However, strife exists in most multiethnical countries even when the people are of the same race and segregate themselves geographically, essentially, according to their nationality. Examples of these countries are Canada, Belgium, the former Yugoslavia, the former Czechoslovakia, Nigeria, South Africa, Sri Lanka, and India.

    The way to reduce ethnic strife is to reduce the effective size of the minority. This reduction can be achieved by territorial separation, assimilation, or a cooperative attitude by the minority.

    Territorial separation within a country would require segregating minorities into definite geographical areas with definable political boundaries. Such areas should have full autonomy over domestic matters. Territorial separation explains in part the success of Switzerland. However, that the unusual conditions that account for Switzerland’s success exist elsewhere is doubtful.

    The United States have tried internal territorial separation. The result, however, has been a failure. Indians were segregated into reservations. Instead of giving them independence on their reservations, the United States government reduced them to wards. Blacks have, in the North at least, been largely segregated to the inner parts of the large cities. They have been denied domestic autonomy. As it did the Indians, the United States government has made them wards. Furthermore, they are forced on the majority via various integrationist programs, thereby defeating the purpose of geographical separation.

    Assimilation can only work if the minority is biologically the same as the majority, i.e., of the same race unless the majority wants to destroy itself. Assimilation has worked in the United States as far as European immigrants are concerned. Europeans are of the same race as the majority. Moreover, they are of the same basic Christian culture of Western Civilization. These immigrants desired to adopt the language and the way of life of the majority. However, the Negro differs biologically from the majority and has not been assimilated. Unless the majority, as well as the minority, are willing to destroy themselves, assimilation of different races cannot occur.

    A cooperative attitude by the minority can go a long way toward creating ethnical harmony. The minority must make no special demands. It must not complain or seek a dominating role. So, the less noticeable the minority, the better the relationship. A cooperative attitude by the minority seldom occurs unless the minority is extremely small. Nearly all minorities in the United States abhor a cooperative attitude.

    Several actions can be taken to improve ethnical harmony not only in the United States but also globally. These actions are territorial separation and independence (the break up of empires) with border adjustment where appropriate, repatriation, and restrictions on immigration. The objective is to reduce the size of the minority until it no longer matters and the majority no longer considers the minority a threat to its existence.

    Where practical each nationality should have its own independent nation-state. (About 170 countries would be required to provide each nationality of the Aryan race of any significance to its own country.) The division of empires into nation-states has recently occurred with Czechoslovakia, which divided into a state for Czechs and one for Slovaks. It has occurred to a limited degree with the break up of the old Soviet Union. (To finish this process, many more nationalities in Russia will have to receive independence, and many Russians will have to be repatriated to Russia from the new nation-states of the old Soviet Union.) This solution would eliminate strife in Canada between French Quebec and English Canada, South Africa among the Afrikaans, Zulus, Xhosas, etc., Belgium between the Flemish and Walloons, the multinational countries of Europe, and just about every country in Africa where political borders were drawn for the benefit of the imperial powers with little regard for the various African nationalities. Independence is the best solution and the solution that should be used whenever possible. (The major difficulty with creating independent nation-states will be overcoming the lust for power and empire of the governing bodies of the empires of the world. An empire is a country containing more than one significant nationality.)

    In the United States, Indian reservations should be granted complete independence — at least on domestic and economic issues, if not in foreign relations. Furthermore, the United States empire should be divided into several independent federations.

    A possible solution to the Negro problem would be to create independent states similar to Indian reservations for Blacks. Political boundaries could be drawn around areas inhabited predominately by Blacks. These areas would include a large fraction of the major cities and parts of the rural South.

    Once nation-states have been created for each nationality, some border adjustments may be necessary. Such adjustments are likely to be needed in Europe and Asia where historical provincial and regional boundaries often encompass minorities who are the majority in the adjacent state. The map of Africa would have to be completely redrawn. The objective is to create a separate, homogenous state for each nationality without any minority.

    Once each nationality has its own independent nation-state, it would have to take steps to prevent future minority problems. Severe restrictions would have to be placed on immigration. Immigration should be limited to nationalities that the receiving country can assimilate. The number of immigrants should be restricted so that they can be assimilated.

    Recent arrivals (any post-World War II immigrants and their descendants) who have not been assimilated should be repatriated. Repatriation could be used on older unassimilated minorities who have identifiable homelands to which to return. Since World War II, several countries have resorted to repatriation to protect their majority. These include Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania expelling Asian Indians. In North America, some Indian tribes have expelled from their reservations non-Indians who have been living there for years.

    Liberals, neo-conservatives, libertarians, shallow thinkers, and far too many theologians would object to restricting immigration. They would argue that people have a right to move to any country to which they desire, to retain their religion, language, and special culture, and to transmit these values to their offspring. Their objection to immigration restriction rests on a false premise that people have a right to go wherever they please. People have no such right. No one has the right to enter and occupy someone else’s territory unless he is invited and accepted. This principle is as true of a collective national domicile as it is of an individual private domicile. The people of the receiving country have the right to decide whom they will invite
.
    When immigration is not controlled, the majority risks losing its territory to a minority, who supplant them as the new majority. A classic example is the United States and Canada where Europeans supplanted the Indians. Albanians have replaced the Serbs as the majority in the former Serbian region of Kosova. Fijians are on the verge of losing their country to Asian Indians, who are now the majority. (Fiji presents an interesting situation where the minority would have to repatriate the majority to regain its country.) Uncontrolled immigration can destroy a people.

    When a minority race or nationality exceeds a certain fraction of the population of a country, ethnic strife erupts. Ethnic strife can be lessened by internal geographical separation, assimilation, and a cooperative attitude by the minority. Assimilation is not practical or possible when the majority and minority are of different races. Geographically separation does not work in countries that promote integration. Minorities abandon their cooperative attitudes once they exceed a certain fraction of the population. The only long-term solution to ethnical strife is for each nationality to have its own independent nation-state. To prevent future ethnic strife, these nation-states need to restrict immigration to those nationalities that they can assimilate and to such numbers as can be assimilated. Keeping minorities to a very small number will eliminate ethnic strife.

Copyright © 1996, 2011 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on social issues.

Great Britain at the End of the Nineteenth Century

Great Britain at the End of the Nineteenth CenturyThomas Allen

[Editor's note: The footnotes in the original have been omitted.]

At the end of the nineteenth century, three great events happened that would have a great impact on Great Britain and the world. They were establishment of the Rhodes Scholarship, formation of the Fabian Society, and the Boer War.

Cecil Rhodes and the Rhodes ScholarshipOne of the most important Illuminists to rise to power, fame, and wealth at the end of the nineteenth century was Cecil Rhodes, “the progenitor of the modern secret societies.”[1] He obtained enormous wealth through exploiting the diamond and gold fields of South Africa and gaining monopolistic control of the diamonds and gold of South Africa for the Rothschilds. Between 1890 and 1896, he was the prime minister of the Cape Colony. He dreamed of Great Britain controlling contiguous territory from Egypt to the Cape of Good Hope and extending British rule throughout the world. He wanted to make the British Empire so great and powerful that war would become impossible. (Great Britain was his surrogate for world government.) To pay for achieving his goal, Rhodes’ secret society would gradually gain control of the wealth of the world.

The Round Table Group became a society for the financial elite, and the Fabian Society became a society for the intellectual elite. Although the two societies had some differences, both, nevertheless, had the same socialistic objective, where the elite would rule the people and use the same tactic of gradualism.

With the aid of William T. Stead, a Theosophist and spiritualist and a social reformer and imperialist, and Alfred Milner, who was a 33rd degree Freemason, Rhodes, a Freemason, established a secret society, the Society of the Elect, in 1891 with Rhodes as its leader.[2] Baliol Brett (Lord Esher) soon joined.

Rhodes used the Jesuit and, to a lesser extent, Freemasonry, as the models for his organizational structure. He organized his society with an inner circle and an outer circle. The inner circle was called the Society of the Elect, and the outer circle, the Association of Helpers. Controllers of the inner circle were the “Circle Initiates” and included Rhodes, Stead, Brett, Milner, and Victor Rothschild. Nathaniel Mayer Rothschild and Arthur Balfour were also chosen to be part of the Circle of Initiates.[3] Milner later organized the Association of Helpers as the Round Table Group. The British Rothschilds provided the money.

The principal objective of his society was to gain control of the government, the economy, the media, and education. Initially, Illuminists would capture influential positions gradually and surreptitiously. Within several decades, these Illuminists would hold enough influential positions that they could openly and more quickly fill key positions with other Illuminists. When Illuminists obtained control of these four aspects of society, the Illuminists could usher in Lucifer’s New World Order.

After Rhodes’ death in 1902, the Society of the Elect set up the Rhodes Trust. Among the members of the Society of the Elect at this time were R. H. Brand of Lazard Freres, Sir Alfred Beit, and Sir Alfred Milner. Sir George Parkin became the Organizing Secretary of the Rhodes Trust while Milner became its chief trustee.[4]

Rhodes’ fortune was used to establish the Rhodes Trust. This Trust has been an important component of the Nimrodic goal of world domination. Its purpose is to train young men in the ways of Illuminism.

The Rhodes Trust funded the Rhodes scholarships. These scholarships paid for attendants to Oxford University where the students are trained to become Illuminists. Quigley described the Rhodes scholarships as follows:

The [Rhodes] scholarships were merely a facade to conceal the secret society, or, more accurately, they were to be one of the instruments by which members of the secret society could carry out Rhodes’ purpose.[5]

The Fabian Society
The Fabian Society was founded in 1883. Its early members included, Anne Besant (later leader of the Theosophical Society), Edward Carpenter (poet laureate of British socialism), Percival Chubb (a governmental clerk), William Clarke (a disciple of Mazzini), Havelock Ellis (an apostle of free love), Lord Richard B. Haldane, Ramsay MacDonald (a founder of the Labor Party and first prime minister of a Labor Party government), Frank Podmore (a spiritualist), George Bernard Shaw (a dramatist and a Communist), Sidney Webb (a civil servant and later MacDonald’s Minister of Labor), Beatrice Webb (a socialist economist), Charlotte M. Wilson (an anarchist), and H.G. Wells (a writer).[6] The organizers of the Fabian Society were from the upper and middle classes. Most of its founders were Freemasons. They intended to use the Fabian Society to gain power and position.

The object of Fabian Society was to bring about a world revolution to establish global socialism—not through a worker’s uprising, but through gradualism. Its goal was to establish a godless, classless one-world socialist state. As outlined by H.G. Wells, its program included expropriation of private property through taxation, increase and expansion of public education and public services, governmental programs feeding school children, governmental takeover of health care, establishment of minimum wage, and transfer of child-rearing from parents to government. (For all practical purposes, the Fabian program has been carried out.) The only real difference between Fabian socialists and Communists is the tactics used to establish a world socialist state, which both seek. Communists use revolution to establish socialist governments. Fabians use propaganda, legislation, and, most importantly of all, indoctrination of school children and university students. “. . . these intellectual revolutionaries would acquire power and influence in the official and unofficial opinion making and power-wielding agencies of the world.”[7] Once such influence and power were obtained, a one-world socialistic state could quietly be established.

To achieve their goal, Fabians infiltrated academia, so they could indoctrinate the youth of England. They also established themselves in the political parties and the government. The Fabian Society concentrated on capturing key positions in the government bureaucracy where socialistic regulations could be written instead of winning elective political offices. They sought gradually to socialize Great Britain. The Fabian Society was closely associated with British intelligence. (British intelligence and the Fabian Society used Anne Besant to capture control of the Theosophical Society.)

In 1893, Keir Hardie and Friedrich Engels founded the Independent Labor Party (I. L. P.) It was the Party of the socialists. A majority of the Fabians belonged to it. Most of its leaders were Fabians. The Independent Labor Party soon took over the active political work of the Fabian Society. The Fabian Society then concentrated on its literary works and propaganda. Later, in 1900, the Fabians founded the Labor Representation Committee, which became the Labor Party in 1906.

The Boer War
The nineteenth century closed the way it began—with war. Although the Boer War (1899-1902) was much smaller than the Napoleonic Wars, it, nevertheless, served the Illuminists to test brutal tactics for use in future wars. The first use by a major European power of concentration camps, starvation, and disease as important weapons of war to defeat an enemy came in the Boer War. The British destroyed the Boers’ farms and refused to take prisoners, shooting Boers who attempted to surrender. The British used these uncivilized weapons in its genocidal war against the Boers (Afrikaans), the descendants of the Dutch settlers in South Africa. Directing the British in the use of these weapons was Sir Alfred Milner, who was Governor-General and High Commissioner of South Africa from 1897 to 1905 and an agent of the Rothschilds.

Milner is credited with starting the war; he certainly was an ardent advocate of war with the Boers. Stead promoted the war in the British press. As the political advisor of Queen Victoria and King Edward II, Brett persuaded them to support the war. Thus, these three men, who had assisted Rhodes in forming his secret society, gave him a present of making the Boer republics part of the British Empire as a step toward uniting the world under British rule.

The Boer War gave Vickers-Maxim Co., an arms manufacturer, the opportunity to test its products. This company was formed in 1897 when Vickers bought naval Construction and Armament Co. and Maxim Nordenfeldt Guns and Ammunition Co. The Rothschilds were the largest shareholders of Vickers at the time of the purchases.

The primary purpose of the Boer War was to incorporate the Boer republics into the British Empire and to extend the Rothschilds’ control over the diamond and gold mines of South Africa. (Through DeBeers, the Rothschilds have nearly monopolized the diamond industry. Through Anglo-American Corp., the giant gold mining and holding company, they control much of South Africa’s gold mines and many other mineral resources inside and outside South Africa.)

Endnotes

1. Jim Marrs, Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids (New York, New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2000), p.85.

2. Stanley Monteith, Brotherhood of Darkness (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Hearthstone, 2000), p. 117. W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Capitalist: A Review and Commentary on Dr. Carroll Quigley’s Book Tragedy and Hope (Salt Lake City, Utah, 1971), p. 30.

3. Monteith, p. 109. Skousen, p. 30. Marrs, p. 87.

4. Eustace Mullins, The Curse of Canaan: A Demonology of History (Staunton, Virginia: Revelation Book, 1987), p. 87. Skousen, p. 30.

5. Dennis L. Cuddy, The Globalists: The Power Elite Exposed (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Hearthstone Publishing, 2001), p. 14.

6. K.R. McKilliam, Conspiracy to Destroy the Christian West (London, England: The Board of Anglo-Saxon Celtic Deputies, n.d.), p. 12. Mullins, Curse of Cain, p. 103. Lady Queenborough, (EdithStarr Miller), Occult Theocracy (Two vols. Hawthorne, California: The Christian Book Club of America, 1933), p. 557.

7. John A. Stormer, None Dare Call It Treason (Florissant, Missouri: Liberty Bell Press, 1964), p. 21.

8. Eustace Mullins, The World Order: Our Secret Rulers (Second ed. Staunton, Virginia: Ezra Pound Institute of Civilization, 1992), pp. 35-36.

[Editor's Note: The original contains a list of references, which has been omitted.]

Copyright © 2009 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on history.