Citizenship: The Final Word

Chapter II


The world-city means cosmopolitanism in place of “home” . . . To the world-city belongs not a folk but a mob. Its uncomprehending hostility to all the traditions representative of the culture (nobility, church, privileges, dynasties, convention in art and limits of knowledge in science), the keen and cold intelligence that confounds the wisdom of the peasant, the new- fashioned naturalism that in relation to all matters of sex and society goes back far to quite primitive instincts and conditions, the reappearance of the panem et circenses in the form of wage-disputes and sports stadia–all these things betoken the definite closing down of the Culture and the opening of a quite new phase of human existence–anti-provincial, late, futureless, but quite inevitable.

Oswald Spengler

Frank L. DeSilva

Word Count 6,447


Adolf Wissel Peasant Family ~ 1939

A City is made up of individuals who, like cities, states, and nations have a rhythmic cycle in which their lives and fortunes are inextricably bound: Birth, Life, and senility, and in just this order. Individuals, those basic building blocs which are the elementary source and strength of any social dynamic, which envisions the socialization of its unique tribal acquaintances, are, so called, ‘fellow citizens’. Up until recent times, these tribal acquaintances were, as the word ‘tribal’ implies, of the same racial stock, and was duly understood to mean that, each in turn, were part of an extended family, and basked in the sacred fraternity of citizenship, the gift which organized city-states inferred upon its fellows to mark them unique, and empowered with special privileges as compared to the dark and abysmal counterparts which, in ancient times, were considered barbarians. This marked a complicated and natural aversion to ‘outsiders’, and invoked the enmity of opposites.

It is said that opposites attract.

In this regard, as a simple matter which is axiomatic, the pull between light and dark, good and evil, small or large is a natural phenomenon which signifies either a lesser or greater degree of acceptance or rejection. In the first case, it is amity, friendship, and social intercourse which benefits the individual person or group; to reject a thing, person, or idea, as in the second case, is to utilize a proportionate sense of discretion, of discrimination. This is a person’s, or people’s sense of beauty, right or wrong; in short, their sense of what belongs to them by right of affinity, of personal desire. With time, and through the extension of biological groupings, this becomes the social mores of the social acceptance of what is good for the group, or what is bad for the group. This is the true meaning of discrimination.

To be a ‘citizen’, by definition, is to discriminate from persons who are not citizens. We, here in America, are citizens of villages, towns, States, and belong thereby, to a Nation. When we were first empowered with ‘american’ citizenship, it was through the right of conquest, the right of being empowered by military supremacy: Once the revolutionary dictum of victory imposed a new set of standards by which peers could demonstrate the fact that the English Monarchy no longer ruled and, hence, ‘subjects’ of the Crown were no more, a new set of standards became the law of the land. We were, after the departure of the English military occupation, citizens of a new commonwealth, a new sense of natural and legal definition of just who they had become. The term ‘citizen’ of the United States implied not only legal status, but naturalized status as well – being a part of a larger, connected people, a people connected by long-standing traditions, both in Law and ‘common law’ which allowed the disparate qualities of religion, ethnic sub-divisions, and familial interactions to merge, graft themselves, and finalize their aspirations into a voluntary assembly of persons in which the term Citizen became the nomenclature which described the totality of a People. Citizenship, not only by definition, but by inference as well, was a racial designation.

How far the Modern has taken us!

Citizenship has, since then, gone through quite an evolutionary morphology.

In this regard, Naturalization is the acquisition of citizenship and nationality by somebody who was not a citizen or national of that country when he or she was born, and has begun, once again, to make its rounds within the halls of government for many a convoluted agenda and social purpose. After all, in a democracy, the ‘voting tallies’ number the success or failure of both economic and social experiments in this new post-traditional America.

In general, basic requirements for naturalization are that the applicant hold a legal status as a full-time resident for a minimum period of time and that the applicant promise to obey and uphold that country’s laws, to which an oath or pledge of allegiance is sometimes added. Some countries also require that a naturalized national must renounce any other citizenship that they currently hold, forbidding dual citizenship, but whether this renunciation actually causes loss of the person’s original citizenship will again depend on the laws of the countries involved.

Nationality is, traditionally, based either on jus soli (“right of the territory”) or on jus sanguinis (“right of blood”), although it now usually invokes both with the same meaning. Whatever the case, the massive increase in population flux due to globalization and the sharp increase in the numbers of refugees following World War I created an important class of non-citizens, sometimes called denizens. In some rare cases, procedures of mass naturalization were passed (Greece in 1922, Armenian refugees or, more recently, Argentine people escaping their own economic crisis). As naturalization laws were created to deal with the rare case of people separated from their nation state because they lived abroad (expatriates), western ‘democracies’ were not ready to naturalize the massive influx of stateless people which followed massive denationalizations and the expulsion of their minorities in the first part of the 20th century — the two greatest such minorities after World War I were the Jews, and the Armenians, but they also counted the (mostly aristocratic) Russians who had escaped the 1917 October Revolution and the war which ushered in the period known as communism, and quickly to follow were the Spanish refugees. As Hannah Arendt pointed out, internment camps became the “only nation” of such stateless people, since they were often considered “undesirable” and were stuck in an illegal situation (i.e., their country had expelled them or deprived them of their nationality, and were not then naturalized, thus living in a judicial no man’s land).

After the Second war of Fratricide, the increase in international migrations created a new category of refugees, most of them economic refugees. For economic, political, humanitarian and pragmatic reasons, many states passed laws allowing a person to acquire their citizenship after birth (such as by marriage to a national – jus matrimonii – or by having ancestors who are nationals of that country), in order to reduce the scope of this category. However, in some countries this system still maintains a large part of the immigrated population in an illegal status, albeit some massive regularizations – in Spain by José Luis Zapatero’s government and in Italy by Berlusconi’s government.

There had always been a distinction in English law between the subjects of the monarch and aliens: the monarch’s subjects owed the monarch allegiance, and included those born in his or her dominions (natural-born subjects) and those who later gave him or her their allegiance (naturalized subjects). Such as was the original intent of the polity of the founders of the United States.

Congress is given the power to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, which was administered by state courts. There was some confusion about which courts could naturalize; the final ruling was that it could be done by any “court of record having common-law jurisdiction and a clerk (prothonotary) and seal.”

The Constitution also mentions “natural born citizen”. The first naturalization Act (drafted by Thomas Jefferson) used the phrases “natural born” and “native born” interchangeably. Until 1952, the Naturalization Acts written by Congress still allowed only white persons to become naturalized as citizens – except for two years in the 1870s which the Supreme Court declared to be a mistake.

Moreover, naturalization is also mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment. Before that Amendment, individual states set their own standards for citizenship. The Amendment states, “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof shall be citizens of the United States and of the State in which they reside.”

Note also that the Amendment is ambiguous on the issue of singular or plural United States. In the early days, the phrase “United States” was used as a singular or a plural according to the meaning. After the Civil War, it was generally always a singular. The Amendment does not say “its jurisdiction” or “their jurisdiction” but “the jurisdiction thereof”.

The Naturalization Act of 1795 set the initial parameters on naturalization: “free, White persons” who had been resident for five years or more. The Naturalization Act of 1798, part of the Alien and Sedition Acts, was passed by the Federalists and extended the residency requirement from five to fourteen years. It specifically targeted Irish and French immigrants who were involved in Democratic-Republican Party politics. It was repealed in 1802.

An 1862 law allowed honorably discharged Army veterans of any war to petition for naturalization, without having filed a declaration of intent, after only one year of residence in the United States. An 1894 law extended the same privilege to honorably discharged 5-year veterans of the Navy or Marine Corps. Over 192,000 aliens were naturalized between May 9, 1918, and June 30, 1919, under an act of May 9, 1918. Laws enacted in 1919, 1926, 1940, and 1952 continued preferential treatment provisions for veterans.

Passage of the Fourteenth Amendment meant that, in theory, all persons born in the U.S. are citizens regardless of race. Citizenship by birth in the United States, however, was not initially granted to Asians until 1898, when the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment did apply to Asians born in the United States in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

The enabling legislation for the naturalization aspects of the Fourteenth Amendment was the Naturalization Act of 1870, which allowed naturalization of “aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent”, but is silent about other races.

The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act banned Chinese workers and specifically barred them from naturalization. The Immigration Act of 1917, (Barred Zone Act) extended those restrictions to almost all Asians.

The 1922 Cable Act specified that women marrying aliens ineligible for naturalization lose their US citizenship. At the time, all Asians were ineligible for naturalization. The Immigration Act of 1924 barred entry of all those ineligible for naturalization, which again meant non-Filipino Asians.

Following the Spanish American War in 1898, Philippine residents were classified as US nationals. Moreover, the 1934 Tydings-McDuffie Act, or Philippine Independence Act, reclassified Filipinos as aliens, and set a quota of 50 immigrants per year, and otherwise applying the Immigration Act of 1924 to them. The quotas did not apply to Filipinos who served in the United States Navy, which actively recruited in the Philippines at that time.1

Asians were first permitted naturalization by the 1943 Magnuson Act, which repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act. India and the Philippines were allowed 100 annual immigrants under the 1946 Filipino Naturalization Act. The War Brides Act of 1945 permitted soldiers to bring back their foreign wives and established precedent in naturalization through marriage. This included quite a number of Asian wives.

The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (better known as the McCarran-Walter Act), lifted racial restrictions, but kept the quotas in place. The Immigration Act of 1965, following closely the internal reactions and social engineering foisted by many ‘progressive’ institutions, finally allowed Asians and all persons from all nations be given equal access to immigration and naturalization.

Moreover, illegal immigration has become a major issue in the US at both the end of the 20th century, and into the 21st. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, while tightening border controls, also provided the opportunity of naturalization for illegal aliens who had been in the country for at least four years. At present, the convolutions of political pandering and public postures, indicates a continuing of the same compromises, which have injured members of the West for more than a century and a half.

In this regard, the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 streamlined the naturalization process for children adopted internationally. A child under age 18 who is adopted by at least one U.S. citizen parent, and is in the custody of the citizen parent(s), is now automatically naturalized once admitted to the United States as an immigrant or when legally adopted in the United States, depending on the visa under which the child was admitted to the U.S., despite the lack of racial affinity with Western stock.

The following list is a short summary of the duration of legal residence before a national of a foreign state, without any cultural, historical, or marriage ties or connections to the state in question, can request citizenship under that state’s naturalization laws:

  • Argentina: 2 years continuous as a permanent resident immediately before the application (dual citizenship is allowed)
  • Denmark: 9 years continuous as a permanent resident immediately before the application (dual citizenship is not allowed)
  • Canada: 3 years continuous (1,095 days) as a permanent resident (dual citizenship is allowed)
  • Netherlands: 5 years continuous (dual citizenship allowed under specific circumstances, such as acquiring a spouse’s nationality, otherwise prohibited)
  • New Zealand: 5 years continuous (reside in NZ for at least 240 days in each of those 5 years, 1,350 days in total) as a permanent resident immediately before the application (dual citizenship is allowed)
  • Norway: 7 years out of the previous 10 (with out-of-realm vacations of up to 2 months per year) as a permanent resident immediately before the application (dual citizenship is permitted under certain conditions)
  • Belgium: 3 years continuous (dual citizenship is allowed)
  • Ireland: 5 years over the last 9 years, including at least 1 year before applying. Dual citizenship is allowed, however Irish citizenship can be revoked if a naturalized citizen obtains citizenship of another state (other than automatic citizenship by marriage) subsequent to naturalization or leaves the state for an extended period without periodically expressing their intention to return.
  • France: 5 years continuous. (dual citizenship is allowed)
  • Italy: 5 years continuous. (dual citizenship is allowed)
  • Germany: 5 years continuous. (dual citizenship is allowed only for other EU nationals)
  • A few rare massive naturalizations procedures have been implemented by nation states. In 1891, Brazil granted naturalization to all aliens living in the country. In 1922, Greece massively naturalized all the Greek refugees coming back from Turkey. The second massive naturalization procedure was in favor of Armenian refugees coming from Turkey, who went to Syria, Lebanon or other former Ottoman countries. Reciprocally, Turkey massively naturalized the refugees of Turkish descent or other ethnic backgrounds in Muslim ‘faiths’ from aforementioned countries during the redemption process.

Canada instituted a mass naturalization by Act of Parliament with the enactment of the Canadian Citizenship Act 1946.

After annexation of the territories east of the Curzon line by the Soviet Union in 1945, communists naturalized en masse all the inhabitants of those territories—including ethnic Poles, as well as its other citizens who had been deported into the Soviet Union, mainly to Kazakhstan. Those persons were forcibly naturalized as Soviet citizens. Later on, Germany granted to the ethnic German population in Russia and Kazakhstan full citizenship rights. Poland has a limited repatriation program in place.

The most recent massive naturalization case resulted from the Argentine economic crisis in the beginning of the 21st century. Existing or slightly updated Right of return laws in Spain and Italy allowed many of their diasporic descendants to obtain—in many cases to regain—naturalization in virtue of jus sanguinis [right of blood], as in the Greek case. Hence, many Argentineans and Latin Americans acquired European nationality.

Since the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants citizenship only to those “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof“, and the original United States Constitution only grants Congress the power of naturalization, it could be argued, and often is, that all acts of Congress that expand the right of citizenship are cases of ‘massive naturalization’. This includes the acts that extended U.S. citizenship to citizens of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, as well as the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 which made all Native Americans citizens (most of them were previously excluded under the “jurisdiction” clause of the 14th Amendment). The mass naturalization of native persons in occupied territories is illegal under the laws of war (Hague and Geneva Conventions). However, there have been many instances of such illegal mass naturalizations in the 20th century.

Denaturalization is the reverse of naturalization, when a state deprives one of its citizens of his or her citizenship. From the point of view of the individual, denaturalization means “revocation” or “loss” of citizenship. Denaturalization can be based, in part, on various legal justifications. The most severe form is the “stripping of citizenship” when denaturalization takes place as a penalty for actions considered criminal by the state, often only indirectly related to nationality, for instance, having served in a foreign military. In countries that enforce single citizenship, voluntary naturalization in another country will lead to an automatic loss of the original citizenship; the language of the law often refers to such cases as “giving up one’s citizenship” or (implicit) renunciation of citizenship. Another case, affecting only foreign-born citizens, denaturalization can refer to the loss of citizenship by an annulment of naturalization, also known as “administrative denaturalization” where the original act of naturalization is found to be invalid, for instance due to an administrative error or if it had been based on fraud (including bribery). In the US, the Bancroft Treaties in the 19th century regulated legislation concerning denaturalization.

Loss of U.S. citizenship was a consequence of foreign military service based on Section 349(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act until its provisions were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1967. Following the 1923 United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind Supreme Court decision, which held Indian-origin immigrants could not claim to be of Western stock (race-culture), and thus be given the privilege of US citizenship, A. K. Mozumdar, who had been naturalized ten years before, lost his nationality.

Yaser Esam Hamdi was a U.S. ‘citizen’ captured in Afghanistan in 2001. The U.S. government claimed that he was fighting against U.S. and Afghan Northern Alliance forces with the Taliban. He was named by the Bush administration as an “illegal enemy combatant”, and detained for almost three years without receiving any charges. On September 23, 2004, the United States Justice Department agreed to release Hamdi to Saudi Arabia on the condition that he gives up his U.S. citizenship, which was later revoked by the courts after his refusal to give it up.

Section 4 of the British Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 gave power to the Home Secretary to ‘deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person has done anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interests’ of the United Kingdom, except in the case where such might render the person stateless.

Before World War I, only a small number of countries had laws governing denaturalization that could be enforced against citizens guilty of “lacking patriotism”. Such denaturalized citizens became stateless persons. During and after the war, most European countries passed amendments to revoke naturalization.

In Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power or Bare Life (1998), philosopher Giorgio Agamben mentioned a number of denaturalization laws that were passed after World War I by most European countries:

It is important to note that starting with the period of World War I, many European states began to introduce laws, which permitted their own citizens to be denaturalized and denationalized. The first was France, in 1915, with regard to naturalized citizens of “enemy” origins; in 1922 the example was followed by Belgium, which revoked the naturalization of citizens who had committed “anti-national” acts during the war; in 1926 the Fascist regime in Italy passed a similar law concerning citizens who had shown themselves to be “unworthy of Italian citizenship”; in 1933 it was Austria’s turn, and so forth, until in 1935 the Nuremberg Laws divided German citizens into full citizens and citizens without political rights. These laws – and the mass statelessness that resulted – mark a decisive turning point in the life of the modern nation-state and its definitive emancipation from the naive notions of “people” and “citizen.”

The 1915 French denaturalization law applied only to naturalized citizens with “enemy origins” who had kept their original nationality. Later under Raymond Poincaré’s government, another law was passed in 1927, which entitled the government to denaturalize any new citizen who committed acts contrary to the national interest.

In 1916, Portugal passed a law, which automatically denaturalized all citizens born to a German father.

In 1922, Belgium enacted a law revoking the naturalization of persons accused of having committed “antinational acts” during the war; this was supplemented in 1934 by a new decree against people “in dereliction of their duties as Belgian citizens.”

After 1926 in Italy, people who were deemed not to deserve the Italian citizenship or who were considered to represent a threat to the public order could lose their naturalization.

Egypt in 1926 and Turkey in 1928 enacted laws authorizing denaturalization of any person threatening the public order. Austria passed a similar law in 1933 by which it could denaturalize any citizen who participated in a hostile action against the state. Russia also passed several similar decrees after 1921.

In 1933, national socialist Germany passed a law authorizing it to denaturalize any person “living abroad” and began restricting the citizenship rights of naturalized citizens of Jewish origin, followed in 1935 by ‘citizens by birth’ on the basis and structure of the Nuremberg laws.

During Vichy France, 15,000 persons, mostly Jews, were denaturalized (between June 1940 and August 1944), following the setting up, in July 1940, of a Commission charged of revision of these naturalizations since the 1927 reform of the nations nationality law.

In the United States, the proposed, but never ratified, Titles of Nobility amendment of 1810 would revoke the American citizenship of anyone who would “accept, claim, receive or retain, any title of nobility” or who would receive any gifts or honors from a foreign power.

All nations, it seems, have a unique and fundamental appreciation of just who is, and has a right too, citizenship.


In the beginning of all epilogues, nature, as the instrument of ‘accident’, purpose, or destiny, has been present at the first cries of every life, at every instant, of this great Epic we call Life; each cry, resounding off fur, thatch, or walls of mason and steel has also been witnessed by its own, unique and natural corresponding kinsmen: A Mother, Father, family (by extension both immediate bonds of blood, as well as common acquaintances, held in common by racial affinity), and others known to the community-at-large. That first breath, inhaled involuntarily, a hot rushing wind into the organisms which, for eighty years or more, will function, unfailingly, to support the ongoing existence of this new, precious person: the newest member of the nation-at-large. The die is cast, a new Life, a new Citizen has been thrust upon, and interwoven with, the great tapestry of its own unique, and corporate destiny, which encompasses the entire movement and dynamics of the earth itself.

The picture created above is, or will be said by some, to be romantic; thus it is. To think of life, in its pure state, and not be romantic in all its considerations, is to say that the person who is that hardened by the modern technics of life today, is a lesser individual, and hence, adds to an already complex and disinterested population which has lost its way. Romance, by definition, adds to the lusre of human contact, making the dark places submit to the light; making the heart beat faster, and fonder; allowing the memories of first light, new horizons, to live more vividly within the recesses of our minds. All this, to the person who never asked (that he or she is aware of) that this spectacle be awarded them.

Romance, however, is soon lost in the ever quickening pace of one’s environment and its various day-to-day habits and routines. It becomes the ever-present compulsion, which, in most cases, completely subsumes the individual and its innate personality. In the Modern’s age, idealism, real idealism, is passed into the deep pit of conformity, and mediocrity. Each one of us, especially those of the West become, at an ever increasing rate, ‘citizens of the world’ as seen through the eyes and ears of those who have lost their way; who would submit you and I, all of us, to the daily vagaries of mass man, demanding only that we ‘accept’ the status of citizen in a brave new world, replete with technics unimagined by our Fathers and Mothers of yesteryear. Citizen, in name, and in fact, but citizen with no raison d’être; no passion, nor reason to live.

To what end are the great devices, machines, and technology to be used? The overabundance of non-utilitarian technologies by the average person seems, to many, superfluous. It all becomes, in fact, simply production without direction; a complete arbitrary distraction which benefits no one excepting, perhaps, the manufacturer, the capitalist, the banker. In fact, these latter are over extended, and have forced the over-extension of the Western world, and who knows where this will all lead? Not the common man or woman, this is a certainty. Those who seek to rule, and are ruling will, seek ever more and more power, and will usher in upheavals which none, not even those in power, can imagine. They are prepared, however, to suppress, control, or dissuade by means of finance, political pressure, or death, those who do not accommodate their plans. As said in Rise of The West, all organisms seek their own survival.

The disparate individuals who now reside, for better or ill, with us, and within us, demand the same recognition, which we, those of the West, have declared ourselves, a unique and special people; they too, demand citizenship in the image of their makers. This demand however, seems unlikely to take shape in any voluntary fashion; in fact, its de facto acceptance, is already obvious but, without the full import being realistically understood, except by few in academia, the common folk, and fewer still, those of a demonstrable Nationalist perspective. The Modern has done, and is doing everything imaginable to force this upon the citizens of this Western colony; future ‘democratic’ elections on all levels will, without doubt, assure this. However, for the sake of discussion, let us continue with the facts needed for this understanding of our near and present future.


Immigration and Citizenship

The canard of ‘citizenship’ will, if left alone, continue to mollify and confuse, to the detriment of all, the decisions necessary to maintain and extend ourselves as a distinct and viable organism. We shall endeavor to cover, yet again, and there are truly magnificent studies which demand our attention yet, even these, erudite as they are, deny the passion, the need, the demand to have these issues heard; they are, for the most part, belonging to those conservative individuals who, in turn, allow their works to makes the conservative rounds, speaking at conservative gatherings, and aiding in turn, the same soft-spoken and dedicated individuals who will, as have all before, continue to wither and die on the political vine. Instead of dealing with Immigration, not alone, but with the corporate support of their very Folk, the common man and woman, in the venues of the street, for there is no other venue open to the People at this time, they often seem surprised when they are denied places to speak and are denied the very tenure necessary to earn a living. This is dawning on many of these sorts which, at this time, still command a certain degree of financial support, either through publishing or writing, being Corporate heads, or civil servants, with the common man and woman – most, however, continue to fleece or betray the common man or woman, just like they have for the past sixty years.

To develop a unique and abiding sovereignty, a corporate political state, is to assume a more aggressive and dominant role; this role may be organic, but it also assumes that political features known as political activism, political finance, and political revolutionaries will be supported, and this in turn, supports the active political designs of the nationalist corporate structure. Nationalism is the only conduit which is, or can be, revolutionary in scope, while gaining the greatest number of adherents, and consequently maintain any so-called legitimacy to the future programmes and institutional mechanisms necessary for the growth of any call whatever, for the protection and sustenance of the people; while also building the ability to enforce and create national policy regarding Immigration. To think otherwise, or encourage others to think in this fashion is racial treason, for it develops the old ‘tried and true’ wait-and-see mentality; a mentality which, as of today, has done little to reconcile the needs of Western stock, and the special needs of sovereignty. There is no middle ground, and there is no compromise. The jealousy’s, which have always plagued the conservative ‘movements’ will, very shortly, be wiped away by the revolutionary tenets of the burgeoning white Nationalist. This new individual will, without fear or favor, replace the conservative, and all those who favor them, without mercy, and develop those resources, which the conservatives have squandered for so long.

The lack of ‘support’ for those nationalistic spokesmen, those who, from youth onward, have showed such promise, yet allowed to die, literally in some cases, will not be allowed to continue; the slow, yielding voices of the past, will not be allowed to suffer any more apathy and cowardice from their erstwhile supporters. We have no time to waste.

The conservative approach has brought some to their senses; but this has, also, died on the vine:

The CCH FMLA-ADA Leave Advisor will walk you through the maze of federal leave law to help you navigate the process, make effective decisions, and know when to contact legal counsel. Learn More – While the AFL-CIO leadership remains committed to what an immigration reform group calls “a massive illegal alien amnesty program,” some rank and file workers and constituent locals are asserting that such a policy would do irreparable harm to American workers. The latest crack in the AFL-CIO’s support for amnesty is Pittsburgh Plumbers Local No. 27, which approved a resolution October 10 demanding that their union dues not be used for activities that support undocumented immigrants.

The resolution sharply criticizes the AFL-CIO leadership’s positions on dealing with illegal immigration. Local 27 “wants to express our outrage regarding the AFL-CIO’s stance on supporting millions of illegal aliens.” Illegal immigration is “harming our country,” and specifically the interests of working Americans, it states.

According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the plumbers’ resolution follows a similar position taken last month by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which represents some 750,000 building trades workers nationally. Earlier this summer, Teamster president James Hoffa expressed opposition to legalization for millions of illegal immigrants and called for an overhaul of U.S. immigration policies that he believes are detrimental to the interests of American workers.

“Americans from all walks of life at the grassroots are mobilizing to stop a massive illegal alien guest worker amnesty program being promoted by a disengaged elite,” said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. “Whether it is union members acting to protect their jobs and wages, or local governments acting to protect local residents from costs and crime associated with illegal immigration, Americans are making it clear that they will not sit quietly while their interests are being sold out.”

Both the AFL-CIO and its rival federation, Change to Win, have embraced immigrant workers’ rights. Recently the AFL-CIO announced a partnership with a national day laborers organization, which advocates for the rights of these workers, who are often undocumented immigrants.2

Resolutions like these, while well intended, have done nothing to reduce this threat. The majority of working-class men and women of Western stock continue to suffer as a consequence, having no one to demand that their ‘citizenship’ be enforced, without fear or favor, having been sold out by the very vested conservative elements which would have us ‘wait just a little longer for reprieve’, for the dissolution of hard-won workers rights.

As a White Nationalist, one must never submit to the compromise of corporate America; to do so, limits not only oneself, but that of your brothers and sisters which, on a daily basis, suffer the indignities of Institutions which have, long ago, left these individuals to fend for themselves. Nationalists, will never forget this betrayal. The monies which would have been realized by supporting the studious, the industrious, and fellow citizens of the West have, unfortunately, been discarded in favor of the promise of certain elites which, for a time, have bought and paid for the complicity of these paragons of finance and conservative principles. No more.

These same individuals have for far too long, avoided the coming apocalypse. All those of Western stock can see, clearly, the inevitable change and disastrous effects it is having on them, their children, and their nation.


The coming catastrophe is beginning to make itself known to all.

The betrayal of those who ‘speak’ for those of Western stock, those, who, for lucre’s sake, have sided with the ‘mob’, with canaille speaks for itself; for to do less, in their mind, is the end of their power, their position, and their desires; the modern ‘aristocrats’ of the political machine, having made their compromise, their back-room deals have, at the expense of their fellows, embraced the ebony hue of difference, as the logical end of democracy, which they, themselves, ushered in, and bowed to the majesty of numbers, of that great leveling.

Citizenship, that particular and privileged gift, given away for the meaningless chatter of the voting booth, wherein those who cast their ‘vote’, vote only for their own special interests, which is normal, but which confounds and annuls the vote of each and every Western man and woman. With the weight of various misadventures, jealousies, power-grabs, and outright betrayal, the members of the West are confused, misdirected, and sensing, but not fully understanding, the source of their predicament, have also chosen to be swayed by slick tongues, and the cannon of inevitability, and have sold their birthright to any and sundry who promise them security, protection, and compromise. Such have all decadent rulers, be they ‘systems’, ‘individuals’, or technics of ‘law’, finalized their sway over the mass of men. Only one thing stands in their way: the Nationalist.

For many, many years, nationalists, specifically and independently, until very recently, were the only ones demanding an end, and extrication of foreign illegal immigrants; the call did not end there, and the demand for repatriation of a majority, if not all, immigration from non-Western nations. The abuse levied against these stalwart individuals and groups has been profound, and has continued unabated since just after WW II by the very ‘victors’ who held the world in their hands, for better or for ill: The conservatives of the day, leading the charge with purveyors of ‘civil rights’, and progressive leanings. These individuals knew the outcome of these policies, and hastened its inevitable consequences. The late, not so great, William F. Buckley is the perfect picture of such traitors as this.

Patrick Buchanan, cut from the same cloth, yet finding his way in more demonstrable ways, nevertheless failed to champion the cause of his own people, no matter the thousands of articles in which he describes the plight of Western peoples, as he ran a african-american female, to be his presidential running mate, courting the multicultural voting bloc. This effort, like so many non-racial nationalists, is the blatant earmark of the conservative political hack, that specie of american lethargy, and political suicide who, nevertheless, declares:

Americans of European ancestry are also declining as a share of the U.S. population, down from near 90 percent into 1960 to 66 percent today. Anglos, as they are called now, are now minorities in our two largest states, Texas and California, and by 2040, will be a minority in the nation that people of British and European stock built.

Last month, the Census Bureau projected the U.S. population would grow by 167 million by 2060, to 468 million.

And immigrants and their children will constitute 105 million of that 167 million. That would be triple the 37.5 million legal and illegal immigrants here today, which is itself the largest cohort of foreigners any nation has ever taken in.

With the 45 million Hispanics here to rise to 102 million by 2050, the Southwest is likely to look and sound more like Mexico than America. Indeed, culturally, linguistically and ethnically, it will be a part of Mexico.3

This message has, dutifully, been preached to a certain conservative readership, yet the political action in real terms, has fallen much too short of the mark; the passive tendency to meekly submit what millions already know, and continue to ‘hope for the best’ has been the main impetus – for all enemies, foreign and domestic – seek ever to push their opponent to the limit, seeking the level by which will prove their advantage.

I, personally, am persuaded that Mr. Buchanan is a refined, cultured, and honorable man; the point here is, that he, truly, is no Nationalist, and his reticence regarding Race, knowing full well the imperative nature of this dynamic for at least the past 40 years, if not longer, and yet not even one time coming out in support of those men in support of the [white] nationalist positions held by many erudite, and passionate, men.

Yet, there is hope, as a new song has been written, it’s harmony and melody becoming all the more audible; the open Sea, awash in powerful tides and currents calling, as in ages past, those children of yesterday, those innocents of today, with the song of Albion.



1 This latter disposition has effects relative to the united states military of the present day, as the modern governmental technics of today, even as Caesar, seeks to extend the franchise to educated and itinerant immigrants alike, to bolster their lagging recruitment, showing the deracinated and short-sighted policies of expediency, at the expense and safety of the Western population. Civil wars, traditionally, presuppose dramatic changes in social constructs and evolution, as [racial] groups become independent and self-responsible for their own future will, of necessity, seek ever to protect and extend those privileges. FLS

2 Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) – EMPLOYMENT LAW — (Immigration reform group: rank and file union members break with AFL-CIO over immigration) 10/23/06.

3 Patrick J. Buchanan-Official Website – – The Decline of The Anglos, September18,2007.

One thought on “Citizenship: The Final Word

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s