Some Comments on Immigration

Some Comments on Immigration

Thomas Allen

Following are some random thoughts on immigration.

– Except for immigrants fleeing persecution, most immigrants have come to the United States to improve their economic well-being. Before 1970, these immigrants came with the intent of becoming productive members of the community. For the past several decades, most have come to live off the community; they are parasites. When they arrive, they receive free housing, free food, free medical care, and cash payments — especially if they enter illegally.

– Whitism is the most hideous disease ever to defile the universe and thoroughly contaminates the United States. It is worse than the most dreaded form of cancer. Moreover, Whitism is a disease for which no cure exists — not even the deaths of all Whites can rid the country of it. Even if all Whites were dead, Whitism would still infect the country forever.

Thus, the question is, why would nonwhites want to come to a country as thoroughly contaminated with Whitism as the United States? Why would nonwhites want to come to the United States and be contaminated with Whitism — a disease for which no cure exists?

– Unlike European immigrants, nonwhite immigrants cannot fully assimilate without genociding American Whites. Even if nonwhite immigrants speak perfect English, are perfect Christians, and believe and advocate all the precepts that neoconservatives claim make an American, they cannot fully assimilate without genociding American Whites. To be fully assimilated, nonwhites would have to intermarry and interbreed with American Whites, which results in the genocide of American Whites.

Moreover, nonwhites who participate in the miscegenetic genocide of American Whites show their disrespect for their ancestors and ancestry gene pool. These nonwhites dishonor their ancestors and violate the Fifth Commandment by polluting the gene pool that their ancestors gave them.

– Why would nonwhites want to live among Whites, who are subhuman? Furthermore, why would nonwhites want to degrade themselves by marrying or having sex with these White animals unless they are into bestiality?

– If diversity is wonderful and a sign of strength, why do its proponents strive to amalgamate the races? Why flood the country with people of various races and cultures and try to assimilate them and, by that, destroy diversity? Assimilation leads to miscegenation and homogenization, which destroy diversity.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social articles.

A Propositional or Genetic Country

A Propositional or Genetic Country

Thomas Allen

Is America a propositional (creedal) country or a genetic country? Namely, is America a set of ideals (a set of principles) or a nation? (A nation or nationality is a people of the same biological race [species] who have a common origin, culture, language, and history; who have common traditions and customs; and who are capable of forming or constituting a nation-state.) 

Neoconservatives and most other conservatives and libertarians believe that being an American means believing in a set of ideals (propositions, creeds); being an American is certainly not genetic. Consequently, America is not a nation but is a set of ideals.

Likewise, nearly all liberals, progressives, socialists, and other left-wingers believe that America is a set of ideals. Nevertheless, they greatly disagree with conservatives and libertarians about what these ideals are or should be. All agree that America is not a nation; it is not genetic.

The guiding creed of most conservatives, libertarians, and left-wingers is that “all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights.” For conservatives and libertarians, this creed means equal opportunity. For left-wingers, it means equal outcome.

(Believing that America is a propositional country inspires many conservatives to promote the invasion of other countries to impose their ideals on them. Left-wingers think likewise, but their ideals differ from those of conservatives.)

Accordingly, conservatives, libertarians, and left-wingers support the immigration of nonwhites. They even place the immigration of nonwhites above Whites. They merely differ in the number allowed entry within a specific time. 

Conservatives want to limit the influx of immigrates such that the immigrants can be assimilated. Conservatives who believe that America is a set of ideals want to limit immigration not to protect the genetic American nation. They want to restrict immigration so that the immigrants come in such a small number that they can be fully assimilated, integrated, into their conservative set of American ideals. Yet, true assimilation requires miscegenation and, consequently, genocide; thus, most conservatives are racial nihilists who have no concerns about replacing Americans of all races with motley mongrel men.

The left takes the Jacobin approach and wants to flood the country with as many nonwhite aliens as possible in the shortest amount of time. It wants to utterly destroy the country so that it can rebuild the country in its own image. To achieve its Luciferian creed, the left must destroy America as a genetic nation, which is achieved by flooding the country with nonwhites.

Most libertarians support unlimited immigration. However, most fail to see the destructive effects of such immigration. Unwittingly or not, they ally themselves with the left in destroying America as a nation.

Like libertarians, conservatives are aiding the left’s program to destroy the American nation by not vigorously opposing letting nonwhites reside in the United States.

No matter which approach is taken, the race of the founding fathers ceases to exist. The left’s approach is merely quicker and far more obvious than the conservatives’ approach. Yet, in the end, both result in the death of the country that the founding fathers established — they established a nation and not a propositional country.

Ideals (proportions, creeds) transcend borders. Borders cannot contain them. However, borders are essential to the preservation of nations. If being an American is a set of ideals, creeds, no one has to come to the United States to be an American. Everyone can be an American wherever he is. 

However, if the United States are a nation and being an American is genetic, then allowing nonwhites to become residents destroys America. Supporting the immigration of nonwhites means supporting the destruction of the American nation.

Will conservatives and libertarians ever learn? Or, will they forever support the left in its drive to destroy America? So far, nearly all conservatives and libertarians are supporting the left’s war against the American nation.

The founding fathers wrote and ratified the US Constitution to keep the government under the law – a nomocracy. Contrary to what most conservatives, libertarians, and left-wingers assert, the founding fathers did intend for the Constitution to establish a teleology — a society based on abstract principles of natural rights, equality, democracy, etc. The founding father intended for the United States to be a White nation and not to be a propositional country.

Appendix

The American nation divides into several ethnicities. Among these ethnicities are the Southerner, Yankee, Northerner, and Westerner. Other nations inhabiting the United States are the Southern Negro and the Northern Negro and the ruminants of various Indian tribes. However, the population of nearly all Indian tribes is too small to support a nation-state.

With the massive invasion of Turanians and mestizoes from Latin America, one or more new nations are being formed in the United States. With the growing numbers of Turanians from Asia and Melanochroi from Asia and Africa, these people may soon be forming new nations within the United States.

Although most Whites and Indians and many Negroes may be willing to sacrifice themselves to form motley mongrel man, most of the newcomers are not so eager to sacrifice themselves.

Americans can assimilate Europeans because Americans and Europeans share a common race (Aryan, Homo albus), religion (Christianity), and major culture (Western Civilization). Whites from Europe and elsewhere do not destroy the genetic make of the American nation. However, some whites are much more difficult to assimilate than others. Because they are White Christians, Assyrians from the Middle East can assimilate without great difficulty. However, the assimilation of White Muslims from the Middle East like the Kurds and from the Maghreb like the Berbers are more difficult to assimilate because of religious and cultural differences. Likewise, because of religious differences, historical tribalism, and avariciousness and overbearingness especially at the higher echelons, Jews are more difficult to assimilate. Nonwhites cannot fully assimilate without destroying the American nation.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley 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.

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.