The Constitution of 1788 Was Only for White People

The Constitution of 1788 Was Only for White People

Thomas Allen

In “National Constitutionalism: An Originalist and Structuralist Analysis of Border Policy, Immigration and Naturalization Law, and the Fourteenth Amendment,” Preston Terry Damsky argues that the US Constitution that was ratified in 1788 was written for Whites and only for Whites. To support his argument, he uses quotations from the proponents of the Constitution. Some of these quotations follow.

Damsky writes, “Crucially, national constitutionalism rests in large part upon an originalist analysis of the meaning of the phrase ‘the People.’ The theory posits that although the People were an identifiable entity capable of political action prior to the ratification of the Constitution, the ratification process itself — and the political advocacy which propelled ratification forward — produced the controlling definition of the People for the purposes of constitutional interpretation.” Then, he proceeds to quote proponents of ratification of the Constitution.

In The Federalist No. 2, John Jay writes that the Americans are “a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.” Also, in The Federalist No. 2, Jay writes, “To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people . . . As a nation we have made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.”

In The Federalist No. 14, James Madison writes that “the kindred blood which flows in the veins of American citizens, the mingled blood which they have shed in defense of their sacred rights, consecrate their Union, and excite horror at the idea of their becoming aliens, rivals, enemies.” Additionally, he urges Americans to “[h]earken not to the unnatural voice which tells you that [Americans], knit together as they are by so many cords of affection, can no longer live together as members of the same family; . . . [and] can no longer be fellow citizens of one great, respectable, and flourishing empire.”

The authors of The Federalist spoke with admiration about the people possessing an exclusive ancestral identity that should be jealously guarded. Thus, Americans were one race, the White race. (Blacks and Indians were not true Americans in the sense that the founders used the word.) Moreover, they believed as Alexander Hamilton wrote, “[H]uman nature . . . that its affections are commonly weak in proportion to the distance or diffusiveness of the object;” (The Federalist No. 17.), and thus, “a man is more attached to his family than to his neighborhood, to his neighborhood than to the community at large.” (The Federalist No. 2.)

Another supporter of the Constitution, John Dickinson, remarked, “[T]he people were so drawn together by religion, blood, language, manners and customs, undisturbed by former feuds or prejudices.”

Damsky writes, “In the debate over the slave trade during the constitutional convention of 1787, Roger Sherman opposed the introduction of African slaves into the United States on the grounds that Black slaves ‘prevent the emigration of whites, who really enrich and strengthen a country.’”

In the 1821 congressional debate on the Missouri compromise, Charles Pinckney, who wrote the Privileges and Immunities clause of the US Constitution, stated that “at the time I drew that constitution, I perfectly knew that there did not then exist such a thing in the Union as a black or colored citizen, nor could I then have conceived it possible such a thing could ever have existed in it; nor . . . do I now believe one does exist in it. . . .” Then, he explained “that belonging to the White race was an enduring prerequisite for becoming an American citizen.”

Although he supported abolition, Thomas Jefferson “believed that Blacks could not be made citizens due to the risk of interracial conflict and miscegenation.” Further, he dreamed that the United States would “cover the whole Northern, if not the Southern continent with a people speaking the same language, governed in similar forms, & by similar laws.” Additionally, he could not “contemplate, with satisfaction, either blot or mixture on that surface.”

Thus, the authors of The Federalist and other supporters of the Constitution were clear that the Constitution was written for one people, i.e., one nationality, i.e., one race. That intent is expressed in the Preamble. When the drafters wrote in the Preamble “‘ourselves and our Posterity’ (with ‘ourselves’ plainly being synonymous with ‘the People’ and ‘our Posterity’ being the posterity of ‘the People’), they conceived of the Constitution applying only to their race, the White race. To them, preserving as a racial matter, a common ancestry and the blood of the People was of great importance. Consequently, the Constitution was drafted and ratified by and for Whites and only for Whites. (Also, see “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?” by Thomas Allen.)

The great importance that the founding fathers placed on race is shown in the Naturalization Act of 1790 and the immigration law of 1803. They placed great importance on Americans sharing a common ancestral heritage, i.e., a common race.  Furthermore, they desired that Americans continue to share that common heritage. 

The first naturalization act passed by Congress enshrined this goal. The Naturalization Act of 1790, which the first Congress passed, limited naturalization to “any alien, being a free white person, who . . . is a person of good character” upon their “taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States.” It was well understood by the members of the Constitutional Convention that a “uniform Rule of Naturalization” would be tied to race. “Thus, the 1790 Naturalization Act ‘discouraged the immigration of non-White people from other countries by creating legal barriers to their economic and political participation.’”

Similarly, the first permanent federal regulation of immigration, which passed in 1803, punished the importation of “any . . . person of colour . . . into any port or place of the United States, which port or place shall be situated in any state which by law has prohibited or shall prohibit the admission or importation of such . . . person of colour.”

Regardless of their support for slavery, most of the founding fathers “unambiguously conceived of the United States as a White country.” Thus, the views of the leaders of the founding generation can safely be assumed to reflect the views of their constituents. Consequently, the original meaning and original intent of “the People” and “posterity” refer to Whites and only to Whites.

Damsky shows that “The People” is synonymous with “nation.” A “nation” or “nationality” is a people who have a common genetic ancestry (of the same biological race [species]), culture, language, and history; who have common traditions and customs; and who are capable of forming or constituting an independent country or nation-state.

(Damsky seems to imply there was only one “We the People” when the Constitution of 1788 was ratified. If that is what he meant, he errs. Then, there were 13 “We the People.” Each State was a “We the People.” The Fourteenth Amendment, which brought Lincoln’s constitution into effect, consolidated the 37 “We the People” in 1869 into one “We the People.” More egregiously, it transferred the sovereignty of the 37 “We the People” to those who controlled the federal government, which was not and still is not “We the People” in the aggregate. For more on “We the People,” see “Meaning of 'We the People'” by Thomas Allen.)

The Fourteenth Amendment

Furthermore, Damsky reasons that the Fourteenth Amendment is unconstitutional because it is incongruent with fundamental principles of the Constitution that it amended. By changing the Constitution from being monoracial to being multiracial by making Negroes citizens, it fundamentally altered the Constitution. Moreover, it was ratified illegally and unlawfully (see “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen).

Because of the Fourteenth Amendment, the United States were changed from a White country for Whites only to a multiracial country. Moreover, it usurped the sovereignty of the people of each State and gave it to those who controlled the federal government.

(Although Damsky does not discuss it, another aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment that makes it incompatible with the Constitution is that it changed the fundamental principle of citizenship. Before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, people were citizens of the United States by virtue of being citizens of a State. After the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, people were citizens of a State by virtue of being citizens of the United States.)

Furthermore, because it is contrary to the fundamental intent of the Constitution of 1788, the Fifteenth Amendment, which gave Black males the vote, is also unconstitutional. It supports the Fourteenth Amendment in converting the United States from a monoracial White country to a multiracial country.

Thus, these two amendments dismember the Constitution, and are, therefore, incompatible with its existing framework because they seek to achieve a conflicting purpose. Also, Article V authorizes the amendment of the Constitution; it does not authorize fundamentally changing it, as do the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. As noted above, they changed the United States from a White country to a multiracial country. The United States were founded as a race-based country “for the preservation and betterment of White Americans (the People).” This objective is clearly stated in the Preamble and revealed by the country’s history. Therefore, it is difficult to see how the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments “do not amount to unconstitutional, revolutionary usurpations by the constituted government power.”

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Traditional American Conservatism

Traditional American Conservatism

Thomas Allen

What are the underlying principles of traditional American conservatism? They are the protection and promotion of traditions, heritage, religious values, traditional sexual roles, strong nuclear families, native fertility above replacement levels, racial integrity, strong borders, immigration restricted to the native race, and a common national identity. That is the preservation of the nation in the true senses and its culture, civilization, and way of life. (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.) Upon this foundation can be built such values as freedom of speech, a free-market economy, and private ownership of weapons sufficient for the people to defend themselves from a tyrannical government.

Conservatism is not a dedication to abstract propositions, such as “democracy” or “all men are created equal.” Such conservatism is a pseudo-conservatism. Pseudo-conservatism includes neoconservatism, establishment conservatism, progressive conservatism, compassionate conservatism, national conservatism, and other types of conservatism that accept big government managerial liberalism (the welfare state, warfare state, governmental oversight and management of the economy, and homogenization including integration and amalgamation), i.e., the managerial liberal state — all these types of conservatism fit under the umbrella of big government conservatism. (Further discussion of big government conservatism is below.)

Unlike wokesters, progressives, liberals, libertarians, and most big government conservatives, traditional American conservatives do not condone the depravity of the reprobate mind. Thus, they do not accept the public display and promotion of homosexual activity, transgenderism, and other sexual perversions including interracial sexual activity, which the Bible condemns. Transgenders are mentally ill and should be treated as such. Homosexuals and transgenders should receive no special privileges as they do today in the Western World.

Furthermore, feminism and the effemination of men are detrimental to strong nuclear families and, therefore, should be opposed. (Today, most conservatives find sexual perversion, transgenderism, feminism, and the effemination of men acceptable or at least not worthy of opposition.) Traditional American conservatives promote masculinity and strength.

Moreover, traditional American conservatives are racial preservationists and abhor racial supremacy (the desire to rule other races) and especially racial nihilism. On the other hand, nearly all big government conservatives are racial nihilists.

Also, traditional American conservatives reject the notion of equality including equality of opportunity (equality of opportunity can only be proven by equality of outcome). They know that equality is a lie, and to strive for it leads to despotism. People differ in build, strength, beauty, health, intelligence, character, personality, disposition, temperament, etc. — all of which genetics causes to some degree. Since men and women differ significantly, they cannot be equal. Moreover, people who are born into wealthy families have advantages and, therefore, opportunities that people who are born into poor families do not have. Consequently, these differences prevent equality including equality of opportunity. Differences mean inequality. Consequently, equality is a chimera. 

Thus, what passes for conservatism today in the United States is not traditional American conservatism. It is big government conservatism, which is as destructive as progressivism and liberalism.

Big Government Conservatism

Big government conservatives do not seek to roll back the managerial liberal state; they seek to make it more efficient. Now, conservatism is little more than an accounting department for the managerial state. These conservatives prefer to make government more efficient and, by that, a greater threat to liberty, than to reduce the size and reach of government.

For the most part, big government conservatives are the progressives from a decade ago. That is, they have adopted the policies and philosophy that progressives had about a decade ago. The acceptances of homosexuals and homosexual marriages are good examples of this phenomenon. Moreover, within ten years, big government conservatives will accept drag queens performing before school children. Thus, big government conservatives do not stand for any moral principles or any principles that they consider worth fighting for. They definitely disagree with John C. Calhoun, who said “I hold concession or compromise to be fatal.” Big government conservatives are always ready to compromise and concede; for them, that is a success.

Like progressives, liberals, and libertarians,  big government conservatives deny the importance of genetics. Consequently, the environment causes all differences, and the government is responsible for leveling or equalizing the environment to make all people equal whether equal in opportunity or equal in outcome. 

Moreover, big government conservatives strive to appease the leaders of the left. Consequently, they accept liberal pluralism of diversity, inclusiveness, multiculturalism, multiracialism, etc., or at least they do not aggressively oppose liberal pluralism. On the contrary, they vigorously accept and promote multiracialism and often brag about accepting the other aspects of liberal pluralism.

Unlike traditional American conservatives, big government conservatives do not want to dismantle the managerial liberal state. Instead, they want to capture it and use it for their own purposes.

References

Henderson, Ian. “Why Russia and China Are More Conservative Than the West.”  Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. July 2022. Pages 14-17.

Francis, Samuel. “The Managerial Revolution: A Reformation.” “The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.” December 1992.

The Z Man. “Conservatism: The Total Failure of Conservatives.”  February 7, 2022. Accessed February 9, 2022. <https://www.takimag.com/article/the-total-failure-of-conservatism/>

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

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.

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. 

The Conservative Threat to the White Race

The Conservative Threat to the White Race

Thomas Allen

    Perhaps, the greatest threat that the White race faces today is the so-called White conservative spokesmen and leaders because their attack is unsuspected. They are Trojan horses.
    With rare exception, conservative leaders promote, or at least accept without protest, conditions that will genocide the White race. Sadly, most do not even know that which they condone leads to genocide. However, their ignorance does not lessen the genocide; most likely, it makes it more certain. Unfortunately, even if they know, most probably would not object to these conditions.
    Moreover, these conservative leaders do not even realize that the Black race and what little remains of the American Indian will be destroyed with the genocide of the White race. Blacks and other non-Whites are the tools of genocide. This is especially true since many of these conservatives do not oppose flooding the country with Indians and mestizos from Latin America and Melanochroi and Turanians from Asia, who are also being used to genocide the White race.
    A major cause of this problem is that most conservative live in fear of the “R” word — “racist” — although they are by definition racist (all Whites are racist by definition). They need to get over this fear. With more than 280 definitions, “racist” has become a meaningless word whose sole purpose is to smear the person against whom it is hurled.
    Furthermore, many conservatives have fallen in love with “diversity,” so much so, that distinguishing their worship of diversity from that of a liberal is often difficult. However, few acknowledge that integration and amalgamation destroy diversity. Real diversity can only be achieved with segregation and separation. Unfortunately, most of the conservatives who oppose diversity want to replace it with amalgamation, the melting pot. Amalgamation is nothing more than racial suicide, i.e., genocide.
    Another cause is that most conservatives do not know what a nation is. They believe that a nation can be multiracial and multiethnic. However, they confuse “nation” (a people) with “territory” (a country).  A nation or nationality is a people of the same biological race (species) who have a common origin, culture, language, and history and who have common traditions and customs. A country can be multiracial, multiethnic, and multicultural, but a nation cannot. When in their praise of nationalism, they imply or even state that a nation can be multiracial, they are covertly supporting genocide.
    Also, many conservatives show an inability to distinguish between a biological race and ethnicity or between a biological race and a nation. For example, Danes are an ethnicity and a nation of the White or Aryan race, while Zulus are an ethnicity and a nation of the Black or Negro race within the country of South Africa. Both Poles and Portuguese are ethnicities and nations of the Aryan race. Catalans and Basques are ethnicities of the Aryan race who live in the multiethnic country of Spain.
    What is the genocide that these conservative leaders condone? It is amalgamation through miscegenation. When two or more races interbreed, they are destroyed, which is genocide, i.e., the systematic annihilation of a race.
    Besides the fear of being smeared as “racist,” another reason that these conservatives fail to condemn miscegenation as genocide is ignorance. Most fail to realize that interracial mating is genocide because it is subtle and slow. This is ignorance that kills.
    Regrettably, others promote this genocide for the nefarious reason that they are agents of the ruling elite, who seek to annihilate the White race for satanic reasons (it is the race created in the image of God).
    These conservative leaders and spokesmen are much more dangerous to the White race than liberals. Their conservative followers know the hatred of liberals for Whites and their desire to destroy them. However, because of the conservative credentials of these conservative leaders, their followers give less attention to, or even ignore, the hostilities that these conservative leaders have toward the White race. Often, these leaders conceal their animus by praising Whites, expressing a desire to preserve or protect Whites, and protesting discrimination against Whites.
    Beware, if a conservative leader or spokesman (1) continuously or vigorously insists that he is not a racist, (2) praises Martin Luther King, (3) believes that a nation can be multiracial, (4) responds to racial diversity with amalgamation, which he calls assimilation, i.e., the “melting pot” principle, (5) does not object to interracial marriages, (6) gives the impression that the Black man is the same as the White man except that his skin contains more melanin and his hair is curlier,  (7) claims there is only one race: the human race, and (8) objects to aliens illegally entering the country, but expresses no concern about non-Whites entering if they do it legally, he may be an agent of the ruling elite, a coward, or an ignoramus. In any event, conservatives who value the White race need to jettison these traitorous conservative leaders. Such conservatives apparently place little or no value on the White race, the White gene pool. Any person who does not advocate the preservation of his own race and nation (ethnicity) — his gene pool — is a traitor to his people.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Immigrants or Colonists

Immigrants or Colonists

Thomas Allen

    It is often said that the United States are a country of immigrants. However, that is not exactly true. The early European arrivals did not come as immigrants. They came as colonists. They came to build a country with no intention to assimilate with the indigenous population. To the contrary, they came to supplant them.
    Only after the early nineteenth century did Europeans come as immigrants. By then, much of the country had been established. These Europeans came to add their labor and intellect to what was already built.
    Unfortunately, except for the Puritan-Yankee and their descendants, philosophically and biologically, the progressive, liberal democrat, the radicals of the failed Revolution of 1848 also came. Soon, they aligned themselves with the Puritan-Yankee to suppress Southern independence in Lincoln’s War. Radicalism and Marxism were their only contribution to the United States.
    Likewise, the Chinese and, later, the Japanese came as immigrants. However, their immigration became greatly restricted.
    In 1924, Congress enacted an immigration law to preserve the ethnic makeup of the United States. In 1965, Congress changed the immigration law to favor heavily anyone who was not European, i.e., of the White race, Aryan, Homo albus. As a result, non-Whites flooded the country.
    Most of the people who moved to the United States before1965 came as true immigrants. They sought to fit in. Consequently, they learned English and tried to assimilate.
    However, after 1965, most people who moved to the United States came as colonists. They came to make a new country. Many of them failed to learn English, and even fewer attempted to assimilate. Like the earlier colonists, these latter-day colonists came not to assimilate, but to supplant.[1]
    Nevertheless, these latter-day colonists differed greatly from the earlier colonists. Unlike the earlier colonists, who came to build a country, these colonists came to drain wealth from a well-established country. Thus, they were more like parasites.  As the parasite grows, the host shrivels and eventually dies. Will these new parasitic colonists survive their host and supplant it?
    Also, a major and highly important difference existed between the people who came to live in the United States before 1965 and after 1965. Before 1965, they were Europeans, except for East Asians whose immigration became highly restricted and Africans, whom the slave traders, of whom many were Yankees and none were Southerners, brought here. True Europeans are the same biological race, species: They are Aryans, Whites, Homo albus. Also, although they consisted of many nations or nationalities,[2] whose languages and customs differed, they were all from the same major culture of Western Civilization. For the most part, they were Christians, although their brand of Christianity differed. Consequently, they were more alike than different and, therefore, assimilation was much easier.
    After 1965, most of the people who came to settle in the United States were not Aryans. For the most part, they were Turanians, Homo luridus, from Asia and Turanians and mestizos from Latin America and Melanochroi, Homo brunus, from India, Pakistan, and the Horn of Africa. Being of a different biological race than the vast majority of the pre-1965 population, they could not truly and fully assimilate without destroying themselves biologically. Moreover, most were from alien cultures, which made assimilation more difficult. Also, except those from Latin America, few were Christian, if one could call Marxist Liberation Catholics Christians. Consequently, for them to assimilate truly and fully, they would have had to abandon much of their culture and convert to Christianity.
    However, since they came in such large numbers, they did not have to assimilate. They established colonies where they could live with people of their nationality, who shared their race, culture, religion, and language. Thus, they came as colonists and established colonists within the United States.
    Moreover, the Illuminists, who controlled the US government and, by that, the State governments, aided them in their alien colonization within the United States. With the welfare state, the Illuminists forced the Aryan taxpayers to support their own death by giving these alien colonists free or heavily subsidized schooling, medical care, housing, groceries, etc. (Illuminists are also known as the Establishment, Insiders, Globalists, and the Powers That Be.)
    What is the ultimate objective of flooding the United States with non-Whites with their alien cultures and religions? It is the Satanic goal to bring down and destroy the United States, and by that, to annihilate Western Civilization, to corrupt Christianity beyond repair, and to genocide the White race. (The same thing is occurring in Europe.) Even if this is not the goal, this is the result.

Endnotes
1. Mexicans have admitted that they come as colonists. They seek to overwhelm the States of the Southwest in such numbers that they will drive out the native Whites, Blacks, and other undesirables and joined the Southwest with Mexico. Thus, they seek to colonize and supplant the native population instead of assimilating.

2. A nation or nationality is a people of the same biological race (species) who have a common origin, culture, language, and history and who have common traditions and customs. A nation may or, more common, may not have its own country. Denmark is an example of a nation having its own country. Most nations have no country of their own. An example of a nation divided among several countries is the Alsatian, who resides in France, Switzerland, and Germany. Today, most countries consist of several nations. For example, Germany consists of the Bayuvar (Austro-Bavarian), Alsatian, Franconian (Upper German), German  (Middle German), Brandenburgian, and Plattdeutsch.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Why Can’t We All Get Along?

Why Can’t We All Get Along?

Thomas Allen

    People often ask, “Why can’t we all just get along with each other?  Why can’t people just join hands and sing ‘Kumbaya’? Why is there such a great divide in the country — a divide that has not been seen since the War for Southern Independence?”
    The answer is simple. There are three groups of people: (1) the go-with-the-flow or go-along-to-get-along group, (2) the want-to-be-left-alone group, and (3) the determined-not-to-leave-them-alone group. As long as both of the last two groups exist, peace and harmony cannot exist. One or the other has to cease to exist before peace and harmony can exist.
    The go-with-the-flow group is by far the largest and is irrelevant. People in this group have taken the blue pill and remain in the Matrix. These people will march off to the concentration camps with hardly a grumble. They are the sheeple. No more needs to be said about this group.
    People in the want-to-be-left-alone group just want to live their lives and enjoy the fruits of their labor and their family and friends. People in the determined-not-to-leave-them-alone group are determined not to leave them alone or let them enjoy the fruits of their labor.
    Here is a short list, in no particular order, of what wearies people who just want to be left alone:
    –    They are tired of policies and programs being imposed on them that deliberately destroy their country (geographical territory) and nation (a people of common ancestry, origin, and heritage who have a common language, religion, and culture).
    –    They are tired of others telling them with the force of law how to use their property instead of allowing them to use their property as they see fit as long as they do not trespass against another.
    –    They are tired of the meddlers trying to disarm them so that they cannot resist the programs of the meddlers.
    –    They are tired of being forcibly medicated (water fluoridation, forced vaccination, etc.).
    –    They are tired of being denied medical treatment that the government does not approve even when these treatments have been shown to be superior to those approved by the government.
    –    They are tired of bureaucrats, who risk nothing, dictating to them how to operate their businesses, farms, etc.
    –    They are tired of being labeled “terrorists” because they love liberty.
    –    They are tired of being treated like criminals in order to fly and having their children molested so that they can board an airplane.
    –    They are tired of having the fruits of their labor taken from them via excessive taxation — especially when the revenue is used to control their lives, to impose on them agendas and dogmas to which they object, and to destroy what they value.
    –    They are tired of being forced to support programs with which they vehemently disagree — most of which they find inimical and detrimental to their welfare.
    –    They are tired of incompetent government agencies being rewarded for incompetence by increasing their budget when they fail to do their job, or, perhaps worse, agencies deliberately failing to do their job being rewarded with budget increases.
    –    They are tired of governments and big businesses spying on them.
    –    They are tired of their country and its people and resources being sacrificed for the benefit of other countries and multinational corporations.
    –    They are tired of governmental programs, policies, and agendas designed to reduce their standard of living — these programs and policies have been highly effective at doing this.
    –    They are tired of illegal aliens having more rights and privileges than they themselves have.
    –    They are tired of being forced to pay for a school system that propagandizes and indoctrinates the ruling elite’s dogmas and agendas instead of educating and teaching critical thinking.
    –    They are tired of judges, governmental agencies (usually child protection agencies), and the medical industry taking children from their homes because they disagree with the religion, politics, or medical decisions of the parents or because they merely disagree with the parents.
    –    They are tired of their language being corrupted in the name of political correctness.
    –    They are tired of being forced to take so-called tolerance-diversity courses where they are indoctrinated with the dogmas that people like them cannot be tolerated.
    –    They are tired of being indoctrinated with programs to effeminize men and destroy women with feminist dogma.
    –    They are tired of governments enforcing programs and policies against common sense and decency.
    –    They are tired of having a code of morality (immorality) forced upon them with which they not only disagree, but also find extremely noxious and destructive (a code of morality covers much more than sexual relations; it includes things like theft, murder, fraud, and lying).
    –    They are tired of being forced to participate in the delusions of mentally ill people.
    –    They are tired of being obligated for debts, especially without their consent, that because of their size can never be repaid and that will eventually destroy their country.
    –    They are tired of being laden with ever-increasing regulations and laws designed to control them.
    –    They are tired of governments and politicians lying to them.
    –    They are tired of governments siding with multinational corporations to oppress them.
    –    They are tired of governments serving shysters and special interests instead of the people in general.
    –    They are tired of the US Constitution being replaced with tyranny.
    In short, people who want to be left alone have become extremely weary of Washington bureaucrats and politicians and their owners and their toadies and lackeys in State and local governments imposing their agendas on them. They object to others, i.e., the people who are determined not to leave them alone, claiming that they (the others) know how the want-to-be-left-alone people ought to live their lives and then imposing that lifestyle on them.
    The do-not-want-to-leave-them-alone people have been coercing every item in the above list and much more. Moreover, they are determined to continue to impose these and more.
    To use the Matrix as a metaphor, people who want to be left alone are like Neo and Morpheus. People who are determined not to leave them alone are like Agent Smith; like him, they are driven to cleanse the world of the likes of Neo and Morpheus.
    Many people support Donald Trump because they see him as speaking for and defending people who just want to be left alone. They also see Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders as not wanting to leave them alone. They see these two only continuing and expanding control of their lives. Most supporters of Clinton and Sanders have the same view of Trump, Clinton, and Sanders.
    As long as these two antagonistic groups, i.e., people who want to be left alone and people who are determined not to leave them alone, exist, peace and harmony cannot exist. One of these two groups has to perish to achieve peace and harmony.

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

More articles on politics.

Nationalism and Imperialism

Nationalism and Imperialism

 Thomas Allen

    Nationalism is often accused of being the cause of many wars. It has been accused of aggressive war-making. It has been accused of causing one nationality to impose its will on another nationality. Nationalism has been falsely maligned. Much of what is blamed on nationalism should be placed on imperialism.

    Before proceeding, a distinction needs to be made between a “nation” and a “country.” A “nation” is a community of people of the same race having a common origin and language and with common traditions, culture, economy, etc. that is capable of forming a nation-state, i.e., a politically organized relatively homogenous people inhabiting a sovereign state. A country is the territory that a political state governs. A nation is the people, and a country is the land.

    Much confusion exists between nationalism and imperialism. Nationalism seeks to preserve a nationality. It seeks to preserve a nation (not to be confused with a country, most of which today are empires) and its culture, language, race, laws, economy, etc. On the other hand, imperialism seeks to impose the culture, laws, economy, etc. of one nationality on another nationality. Nationalism is essentially the opposite of imperialism.

    Nationalism acquired its belligerent reputation in the nineteenth century when various nations attempted to secede from various European and American Empires. The Irish attempted to secede from the British Empire. Several nations of the Austrian Empire attempted to secede. They were unsuccessful. However, Hungry did manage to obtain parity with Austria; hence, Austria-Hungry was born. Secession from the Turkish Empire was more successful as Greeks, Serbians, Romanians, Bulgarians, and Albanians won their independence. In North America, the Southern States failed in their attempt to secede from the American Empire.

    Many historians agree that the fundamental cause of World War I was imperialistic in nature. Few blame nationalism for the war. As destructive as that war was, it did advance the cause of nationalism — at least in Europe.

    The Irish gained independence although the status of Ulster has yet to be satisfactorily resolved.

    The Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed into several nations. Although they lost part of their nation (part of Tirol) to Italy and were not united with the Bavarian provinces of Bavaria, the Bayuvar (or Austro-Bavarians) formed a new Austria. Although they lost part of their nation (Vojvodina) to Serbia, the Hungarians formed a new Hungary. The Czechs gained their independence although they held the Slovaks in subjection until 1992 when the Slovaks gained their independence and the Ruthenians until the end of World War II when they were transferred to the Soviet Union. In the south, the Croats, Dalmatians, Slovenes, Bosnians, and Herzegovinians were not so fortunate. They were merged into the Serbian Empire (commonly called Yugoslavia) along with the Montenegrins and Macedonians until the collapse of the Soviet Empire precipitated the collapse of the Serbian Empire. (However, the Montenegrins remained under Serbian rule, and the Dalmatians remained under Croat rule.)

    Out of the fall of the Russian Empire came homelands for nations of the Finns, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Kashubians in Gdansk, and Poles. The Byelorussians were divided between Poland and Russia.

    Germany’s African and Asian colonies were transferred to England, France, and Japan. The Alemanni of Alsace and the French of Lorraine were placed under French rule. Much of the German Empire that was Polish became part of Poland.

    The French replaced the Turks as the rulers of the Syrians, Druzes, and Christian Lebanese. The English replaced the Turks as the rulers of the Palestinians, the Arabs of Amman, and the Shiite Arabs of Baghdad and Basra.

    World War II is what really caused the undeserving reputation of nationalism as the cause of aggressive belligerence. The fascist movements in Italy and Germany claimed to be nationalistic, and the gullible, who included just about everyone in academia in the West, believed the fascists and still do. Hitler went so far in this deception that he named his movement National Socialism. Both Germany and Italy were imperialistic, not nationalistic. They sought to conquer other nations and to impose their values, ideology, economy, laws, etc. on these conquered nations.

    Germany and Italy could not have been acting in a nationalistic spirit because both were, and still are, an empire of nations. Germany consisted of at least eight nations: the Bayuvars, Alemanni (who were, and still are, divided among Germany, Switzerland, and France), Franconians (or Upper Germans), Germans (or Middle Germans), Brandenburgians, Plattdeutsch, Wends (a Slavonic people), and Prussians (who lost their homeland to the Poles as a result of World War II). Italy consisted of at least thirteen nations: the Piedmontese, Gallo-Italians, Venetians, Tuscans, Latins, Neapolitans, Sicilians, Sardinians, Friulians, Ladins, Bayuvars in Tirol, Savoyards in the northwest (the remainder of whom live under French rule) and Slovenes in Istria (who were reunited with their kindred after World War II in the Serbian Empire).

    Following World War II the map of Europe again changed. The Soviet Union absorbed the Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians. The eastern boundary of Poland was redrawn, and all of the Byelorussians and Volhynians (whom the Ukrainians now rule) were placed under Russian rule. The Ruthenians (whom the Ukrainians now rule) traded their Czech rulers for Russian rulers, and the Lemks and Boyks (whom the Ukrainians now rule) traded their Polish rulers for Russian rulers. The Rumanians of Bessarabia were also absorbed into the Soviet Union.

    The Prussian states (Prussian, Pomerelia, and Pomerania) were absorbed into Poland, and the Prussians for the most part were driven from their homeland. The eastern portion of Brandenburg also became part of Poland as did Gdansk (Danzig) with the resulting loss of autonomy for the Kashubians.

    At least in Europe, World War II was not nationalistic in nature but was imperialistic. Because of the war, several nations lost their countries, and no nation gained independence. However, in Asia and Africa, things were different. The European colonial empires collapsed. Many new countries were born. Unfortunately, for the most part, these new countries were not nations in the true sense but were a conglomeration of nations.

    One new country that was a nation born following World War II was the Jewish nation of Israel. However, this nation soon shifted from nationalism to imperialism as it conquered and imposed its rule on the Palestinians.

    Between the end of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet Empire, several nations have cried out for independence — some even to the point of armed insurrection. Some of these nations are the Punjabi in India, the Kurds in Iran, Iraq, and Turkey, the Palestinians in Israel, the Boers in South Africa, the Corsicans and Bretons in France, the Basque in France and Spain, the Welsh and Scotts in Great Britain, the Quebeckers in Canada, and the Southern Americans in the United States.

    The collapse of the Soviet Empire brought nationalism to the forefront and has caused imperialism to retreat. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the puppet governments in Eastern Europe, many new countries, most of which are true nations, came into being. Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are again independent. Byelorussians now have an independent homeland for the first time in history. Ukraine is an independent country although it continues to contain several nations along with the Ukrainians. The Rumanians of Moldavia (Bessarabia) have gained independence. In the Caucasian region, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaidzhan are independent. Georgia still consists of four different nations. Armenia’s union with the Armenians of Erzenrum in Turkey remains. Also, remaining is the union of the Azeris of Azerbaidzhan with the Azeris of Iran. In Central Asia, the Tajik now have an independent homeland in Tajikistan. The Turanian countries of Kazakh, Turkmen, Uzbek, and Kirghiz have also gained independence.

    In Eastern Europe outside the old Soviet Union, several new countries, which for the most part consist predominately of one nation, have been born. Czechoslovakia has divided. The Czechs (Bohemians) have their homeland, and the Slovaks have theirs. Yugoslavia has divided. The Slovenes, Croats, and Macedonians have their independent homelands.

    Although the growth of modern-day nationalism began long before World War I, it really began to bear fruit with the collapse of Turkey’s European empire that began several decades before that war with the creation of several new countries that were true nations. Then nationalism was driven back as imperialism reared its ugly head as the Italian, German, Russian, and Japanese empires began expansion. Imperialism peaked with World War II. Since the conquests of the Soviet Union at the conclusion of World War II, imperialism has been retreating, and nationalism has been advancing. Empires have collapsed, and none have risen to take their place although the United States have been striving to establish an empire of puppet states throughout the world.


Copyright © 1994, 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on politics.

Biblical Principles of a Quality Leader

 Biblical Principles of a Quality Leader

 Thomas Allen

    America and the rest of the Western world have been cursed with incompetent, treacherous, unscrupulous, unprincipled, despotic and even traitorous scoundrels as leaders for much of the twentieth century. Such leaders have not only dominated government, but they have also dominated business, labor, entertainment, religion, and education. They have become the Establishment of the Western world. Why is it that good men seldom achieve important or powerful leadership positions? The answer is that the basic Biblical principles for a leader are being violated.

    The Bible provides basic principles that must be followed if acceptable quality leaders are to be obtained. A nation is to “provide out of all the people [of that nation] able men, such as fear Yahweh, men of truth, hating covetousness” (Exodus 18:21). The nation is told not to “set a Stranger over thee, which is not thy brother” (Deuteronomy 17:15). (Nation means a people having a common origin, i.e., of the same race, language, and tradition and capable of forming or constituting a nation-state.) A good leader must meet these basic qualifications. The people should not accept or allow leaders who fail to meet them to rule over them in government, business, labor, religion, education, or any other organization. In the United States, the people have elected a president who violates every one of these principles.

    “Able men” means the ability to govern the people according to the laws of God as revealed in the Bible. Anyone who does not oppose such sins as abortion, adultery, and sodomy does not govern according to God’s law and is not an able man. Anyone who deliberately deceives the people, as do most politicians, by promising what they know that they cannot deliver, such as ever-expanding entitlement programs, is a liar and not fit for office. Likewise, those who tell the voters what they want to hear to get their votes, but who governs or votes consistently contrary to his campaign promises, is a liar and not fit for office.

    Not only has the President (Clinton was president when this was written; it is also applicable to those who followed him) not opposed abortion or sodomy, he has used the power of his office to advance them. Not only has he failed to condemn adultery, he has a reputation for being a practicing adulterer. He has promised ever-expanding entitlement programs and has used such promises as a vote-buying scheme. He campaigns as a new moderate Democrat but advocates old-time liberal Democratic programs.

    “Such as fear Yahweh” means reverential trust in God, the Father of Jesus. Hence, only Christians are qualified to rule over Christians. John describes the type of person who fears God: “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.” (1 John 2:22-23). “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John 9-11). Thus, a Christian, one who possesses reverential trust in God, acknowledges Jesus as his Lord and Savior (2 Peter 1:11, 1 John 4:14) and as the only begotten Son of God (John 3:18). He strives to live by the teachings of Jesus.

    If the President fears God, he has done a good job of concealing the fact. His actions of supporting abortion (even partial-birth abortion, which is virtually infanticide) and catering to homosexuals are contrary to the teaching of Jesus. Based on his actions, he is not fit to govern Christians.

    “Men of truth” means an honest, truthful person. When he speaks, he speaks frankly. He “tells it like it is.” He does not use evasive double talk. The positions he takes are on the side of truth, i.e., according to God’s law.

    As pointed out above, the President is not a man of truth. (Some people believe that he is incapable of knowing the difference between the truth and a lie.) Again he fails to meet God’s criteria for a good leader.

    “Hating covetousness” means despising covetousness, greed, and envy. It means, “Honest men who scorn unjust profits.” — Moffatt. It means, “Honest men, with an aversion to improper gain.” — Smith and Goodspeed. Anyone who preaches covetousness or envy to gain office does not hate covetousness. Anyone who promises to use or does use the public treasury to gain office does not hate covetousness. Such people are not fit for leadership positions.

    The President certainly does not hate covetousness. He adores covetousness and envy. They are the backbone of his campaign and policies. He does not shy from using the public treasury to buy votes.

    Most conservatives would agree that a high-quality leader must be an able man (although many would fear or abhor using God’s law to decide who is an able man), a man of truth, and a hater of covetousness. However, rare is the conservative who would include reverential trust in God. Even rarer still are conservatives who claim that this God in whom reverential trust is placed is the Father of Jesus, so great is their fear of being accused of anti-Semitism. As small as this number is, it towers over the minuscule number of conservatives who would openly support the fifth principle: Only Whites should rule Whites. They possess an immeasurable and uncontrollable fear of being called a racist. To be politically correct is better than to be scripturally correct.

    “Not a stranger” means “not of another race.” Stranger means a person of foreign extraction, i.e., a person of a different race. It does not mean a foreigner in the sense of a person who is a citizen or subject of a foreign country who is visiting or temporarily residing in this country. It refers to a person residing permanently in this country who is of a different race, i.e., for the United States, a non-White. For Whites to be ruled by non-Whites is a curse and results from violating God’s laws: “But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of Yahweh thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee: The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low. . . . he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.” (Deuteronomy 28:15,43,44). Any White person who sacrifices the interest and welfare of his race to that of an alien race violates this principle. He is a traitor and his rule is worse than that of an alien, who at least remains loyal to his own race.

    The current President follows the path blazed by every president since Hoover of scarifying the White race to the non-White races. Prime examples are the various “civil right” laws and affirmative action programs. No one who would sacrifice his own race for the benefit of another race should be allowed to rule.

    A White Christian should never vote for or support anyone who does not meet these five criteria. He should only vote for or support candidates for public office who show the ability to govern people according to God’s law. who are Christians (they have shown their Christianity by their deeds, but they do not boast about their deeds), who are honest and truthful and openly stand for the truth as taught by the Bible, who abhor covetousness, greed, envy, and vote buying, especially with the public treasury, and who is White and does not betray the White race. A White Christian should not vote for or support the lesser of evils. To do so is to support and promote evil. If his only choice is between “the lesser of two evils,” he should abstain. (Perhaps this explains the decline in voter turnout. When the voters are offered the choice between the lesser of evils, why bother to vote? The result will only be evil. Abstaining is better.)

    The violation of these five basic criteria by those in leadership explains the decline of America and the rest of the Western world. It explains the moral and spiritual decay. It explains why although parties and leaders change not much else changes. Civilization continues to decline. Only when enough of God’s people cease supporting leaders who do not abide by these five basic principles will things improve. Only then will people who do abide by them will rise to a position of leadership.

Copyright © 1999 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

 More articles on religion.