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.

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.

Diversity

Diversity
Thomas Allen

People typically view diversity in two diametric ways. One group considers diversity highly desirable. The other considers it highly undesirable. Both groups can be divided into integrationists and segregationists.

As we will see, segregation preserves diversity. Integration destroys diversity.

Let’s look at the pro-diversity integrationists first. They claim that strength is achieved through diversity. Therefore, various diverse races and ethnic groups (nationalities[1]) need to be integrated. Are these people ignorant or hypocrites, or do they knowingly promote covert genocide?

Whenever diverse groups integrate, they amalgamate. They lose their distinctiveness and become indistinguishable from one another. Integration is the systematic destruction of the races and ethnic groups involved. The systematic destruction of a race or nationality is genocide. How it is done is immaterial.

The following example illustrates the destructiveness of integration. Take three jars of water. Put a red dye in one and a yellow dye in another. Integrate (mix) the jar of colorless water with the jar of red water. Uniformity is the consequence of this integration. Pale red water results. Now integrate the yellow water with the pale red water. Again uniformity results. The water is now a pale orange.

Integration has destroyed diversity. Before integration, we had three distinct jars of water: colorless, red, and yellow. After integration, we have one color of water: pale orange. Thus, integration destroys diversity.

If diversity is worth preserving, integration has to be avoided.

Those who know that integration destroys diversity and still insists on integration really hate diversity. Or they hate one or more of the groups being integrated so much that they are willing to destroy other groups to destroy the hated group. These people are promoters of genocide, but who want to conceal their genocide.

Segregationists who despise diversity usually object to their self-destruction. Being unwilling to destroy themselves to destroy diverse groups, they must abandon the covert genocide of integration and adopt some form of overt genocide. Otherwise, they must separate the diverse groups, which maintains diversity.

People who dislike the hyphenated American, e.g., Afro-American and Chinese-American, must either adopt some form of genocide or segregation of or separation from the hyphenated Americans. Most seem to have adopted covert genocide through integration. Few openly promote segregation or geographical separation.

Let’s return to our example. We have three diverse jars of water: colorless, red, and yellow. As long as we keep them separate, we maintain their diversity. They remain colorless, red, and yellow. Once we integrate them, they amalgamate and lose their diversity.

Thus, segregation and separation preserve diversity. If the objective is to save diversity and to preserve our strength through diversity, then segregation is the route to choose. If the objective is to destroy diversity, integration is the choice.

Actions that lead to the destruction of diversity must be avoided if diversity is highly desirable. Diversity should be preserved if strength is achieved through diversity. Conditions must be created to prevent various races and ethnic groups (nationalities) from destroying themselves. Only under conditions where their amalgamation is prevented can diversity be preserved.

Segregation and geographical separation preserve diversity. When diverse groups separate, they can preserve and grow their uniqueness.

One can have diversity. One can have integration. However, one can never have both. People need to decide which is more important: diversity or integration. If they choose diversity, then they must choose segregation and preferably physical separation. (Physical separation is superior to segregation at maintaining diversity.)

Endnote
1. Nationality refers to a people of a common race with a common origin, traditions, culture, and language who are capable of forming or actually have formed a nation-state. When people of one nationality live in a country of another nationality, they are commonly called an ethnic group. For example, Cherokees and Japanese-Americans are ethnic groups in the United States.

Copyright © 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on social issues.