CITIZENSHIP SPECIFIES who is a member of the polity. It is axiomatic among us that only “Whites” (in some sense, which must be carefully and explicitly defined) can be citizens, whereas non-Whites cannot and should not be. It is this aspect of citizenship that demands the most careful attention.
Citizenship establishes the baseline or minimal condition specifying Who Belongs to the community or political family. Current circumstances dictate that it be race-based.
But citizenship is complex. Historically, in the U.S., not all citizens were equal before the law. Nor need they be in theory.
Because citizens even in racially homogeneous communities will inevitably be unequal, one can picture citizenship as a status hierarchy, with some citizens possessing superior status in relation to others. I am referring to formal citizenship, not status that varies according to economic, occupational, market, political, or social outcomes, which also exists in every society.
But perhaps a better way of conceptualizing citizenship is as a bundle of legal rights, with rights varying between individuals and groups.
It is advisable to make the idea of unequal citizenship explicit for two reasons.
One is that inequality is inevitable. An easy example to point to is age restrictions on voting or holding office.
The U.S. Constitution had to be amended in order to compel States, localities, and the Federal government to extend the vote to 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds (the 26th Amendment in 1971).
To hold public office (a different thing from voting), a person must be at least 35 (and not foreign born) to serve as President or Vice President, 30 for the U.S. Senate, and 25 for the House of Representatives.
Most States establish their own age requirements for the offices of Governor, State Senator, and State Representative. Some specify a minimum age (usually 21 or 18) for any elective office.
Even service on a jury can be limited to people 21 years of age or older, depending on the State.
In other words, children and adults below certain ages are unquestionably citizens, yet lack certain rights or opportunities that other citizens possess.
Another reason for making unequal citizenship explicit is that most White racialists, like their Jewish counterparts, are fervent elitists. They believe some Whites are superior to others (which is unquestionably true) and seek to deliberately remake mankind in radical ways that will maximize superior qualities and minimize inferior ones.
Such advocates are confident that they, personally, will belong to the favored in-group(s) of the future, that a new social hierarchy emerging from chaotic societal collapse, devolution, or struggle will embody their particular vision of what a good hierarchy should be, and that highly complex medical and genetic interventions, social programs, and planned societies are relatively easy to design and implement, and will function as envisioned.
Any within-group legal differentiation by sex, IQ, property ownership, party membership, marital status, reproduction, eugenics, etc., if enacted, would create dissimilar bundles of citizenship rights between groups and individuals of the same race.
Many real-world examples of unequal citizenship can be found in U.S. history. Though somewhat “messy” from an organic point of view, many disparate experiments conducted over several centuries in colonies, States, Territories, and the three branches of the Federal government offer useful lessons.
For example, in the Northwest Territory, and the many Territories modeled after it, to serve in the Territorial legislature a man (only men could serve) had to own at least 200 acres of land in the district he sought to represent.
But let’s focus on the right to vote, because today voting is considered intrinsic to citizenship. This was not always the case.
The vast majority of Blacks and Indians were not citizens and could not vote.
The 13th Amendment (1865) permanently emancipated the slaves and abolished slavery as an institution. But it did not make Blacks citizens.
The 14th Amendment (1868) made them citizens of the United States (thereby nullifying the Supreme Court’s 1857 decision in Dred Scott), and of the States they resided in. But, though citizens, they still did not conclusively have a right to vote.
Finally, the 15th Amendment (1870) gave all male citizens the right to vote, regardless of race or previous slave status.
Thus, the Constitution had to be amended three times, in stages, to arrive at the point where Black males (but not females) unequivocally had the right to vote.
Until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924, forty-two percent of Indians were not U.S. citizens. (Fifty-eight percent had been granted citizenship status piecemeal.) But, once again, citizenship did not unambiguously guarantee the right to vote. Several States, for good and sufficient reasons, denied members of Indian tribes the ability to vote until 1948.
Women are another major exception. The first time women voted in Federal elections was November 2, 1920. In 1875 the Supreme Court had explicitly upheld customary practice: voting, it ruled, was not one of the privileges belonging to citizens of the United States. Minor v. Happersett.
In order to impose female suffrage on the States and the Federal government, the U.S. Constitution was rewritten by the 19th Amendment in 1920. Highlighting the perniciousness of the Reconstruction Amendments unconstitutionally imposed on the nation by a rump Congress of Radical Republicans and their corrupt, criminal emissaries in the Southern States, the author of the 19th Amendment recycled the language of the 15th Amendment with a single modification: he substituted “on account of sex” for the phrase “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” (California Senator Aaron Sargent’s wife was a suffragette; on the plus side, he actively supported Chinese exclusion.)
Citizenship rights could be apportioned in innumerable ways in a White society. But our most urgent task is to restrict citizenship to Whites only, completely excluding non-Whites from the territories we occupy.
Inequality and the Left
So as not to mislead, the existing Establishment is not equalitarian, either. Equality is a lie. Nobody—I mean nobody—believes in it or practices it. It is a tool used by Leftist thugs to beat the brains out of those they hate. It is destructive, a social dissolvent.
The United States and other “Western” governments are inflexibly anti-White, anti-male, and anti-heterosexual. They systematically deny legal rights, occupational opportunities, and the right to think, speak, and associate freely.
Affirmative action means state-mandated and enforced discrimination against Whites.
We are an equal opportunity employer means “We systematically discriminate against Whites, especially White men and heterosexuals.”
Racial discrimination pervades the “private” sector as well as international, national, state, and local governments.
Hate speech reaching billions of people spews from the media, academia, and corporations every minute of every day, openly inciting hatred, discrimination, violence, murder, and genocide.
This is a highly effective method to fatally harm a dispossessed and hated group that the power structure prevents from hitting back or defending itself.
Instead of restricting the franchise openly, by law, the political process is controlled by extreme limitations on freedom of speech, heavy-handed manipulation by media and oligarchs, control of the nomination process, ballot access, defamation, widespread voter fraud, and countless other tricks. In many “democracies” peaceful parties are subverted by the secret police or simply outlawed.
* * *