Immigration and its Social Order Consequence

“Immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighborhoods residents of all races tend to `hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.”

Robert Putnam
E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century
The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture

By saying that “immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital,” what Putnam is getting at here is that ethnic harmony produces stability.  This obvious truth is controversial and the articulation of it threatens careers in a time where there is a mania about denying the obvious.

The obviousness that ethnic harmony produces stability while ethnic diversity reduces social solidarity and social capital is even seen in the historic definition of the word nation, which stems from the Latin “nasci.” Webster’s 1828 dictionary gives us the definition of “nation,”

“nation as its etymology imports, originally denoted a family or race of men descended from a common progenitor, like tribe.”

Of course, this flies in the face of the modern insistence that America particularly is a “propositional nation.” The idea contained in that phrase is that America was never intended to be a nation of common blood and ancestry, but instead, America has always been a place that found its union in the idea that a governed people find their unity in a shared commitment to a shared set of ideological truisms.

That this is historical revisionism is seen by just a few quotes, In The Federalist Papers, John Jay emphasized ethnic unity and religious unity as the source of American strength, saying that,

“Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, 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….”

A lesser-known Founding Father John Dickinson in his “Observations on the Constitution Proposed by the Federal Convention” likewise wrote,

“Where was there ever a confederacy of republics united as these states are…or, in which the people were so drawn together by religion, blood, language, manners, and customs?”

One can find other sentiments like the above throughout US History. John Calvin Coolidge, when Vice President echoing Robert Putnam above, wrote,

“There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend…. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.”

Dr. Joel McDurmon captured some of this sentiment when he wrote in his,  “Preventing the Warfare State: the biblical laws for kings,”

“The U.S. Constitution returned to the pre-1066 Anglo-Danish standard of “kith and kin.” The word “King” is related to the English “kin” which has an ethnic reference. “Kith and kin” means “same country and family.” Without this quality among a leader, there cannot be any true loyalty to the people. And while this sounds like a side matter, it is not: a ruler who identifies with the people almost as a family will fight to defend them and their liberties. A ruler, however, without that loyalty will more likely be less interested in defense. It’s the difference which Jesus taught between the shepherd and the hireling.”

All of this to say that the strength of a nation is found in ancestral roots which form a common ethnic bond. These roots provide the organic, interwoven connections among kith and kin who have lived cheek by jowl for generations in shared communities. What immigration does as it comes from nations that share no blood, religion, manners, history, and language with the White Anglo Saxon Christian origins of this nation is that it destroys the organic community roots by snapping off the shared plausibility structures, destroying the shared common way of life, and poisoning the well where the waters of common culture are drawn.  Where harmony of interests existed what is interjected by way of alien immigration is an instant conflict of interest driven by placing contradictory religions, ideologies, and theologies in the same proximate space. Where shared interests and values once existed as the glue that holds cultures together now room must be made for polygamy, clitorectomy, jihads and who knows what other foreign interest and value. Where community had been the coin of the realm, now balkanization is hegemonic.

Immigration is better called “recolonization,” and when practiced with passion, “genocide.” What is lost when mindless immigration is practiced is something of greater value than stock dividends and an ever-ballooning Gross Domestic Product. What is lost is a sense of identity, generational history, and belongingness to a particular people in favor of an egalitarian cosmopolitanism that atomizes the individual with the consequence that the only possible identity comes from identifying with the State which becomes both the destroyer and the pretended protector of the original stock.

In the end, the simple truism that “proximity + diversity = war” is indeed accurate. World history testifies to that truthfulness. Whether one looks at the Muslim conquest of the Northern African Littoral, or the Norman conquest of the Anglo-Saxons, or Stalin’s population transfers, or the Austro-Hungarian Empire, or former Yugoslavia repeatedly it is found that pronounced diversity in one geographic area is a recipe for significant cultural conflict. The vacuous and jejune egalitarian idea that “diversity is our strength” is just stupidity on steroids and no amount of reciting that mantra is going to make it become true. Not even when one sprinkles it with Christian pietistic sparkles. Similarly, the ubiquitous and now tired habit to use the cultural Marxist magic hex word “racism” in order to sublimate the reality that immigration and ethnic diversity is a bad thing sure to create conflict has become tantamount to peeing in a stiff breeze. It may make someone feel better short term but it only results in getting all wet.

The result of all this will either be genocide if the host culture surrenders or if the host culture does not surrender the result will be a Hobbesian war of all against all which will make the Lebanese civil war look like Red Sox vs. Yankees Baseball game.

In the former Christendom (The West) we are now absorbing the largest immigration movement in World history. Much of the visible church mindlessly blather about how God is bringing the world to us in order to be converted. Hearing the visible Church leadership exult in this mass migration is like being present to hear  Montezuma and the Aztec leadership rejoice with the arrival of Cortez. Those with eyes to see know that it is not the immigrant world that is being assimilated to Christianity but rather it is Christianity that is being assimilated and redefined in a non-Christian direction. When we rejoice with the entry of the third world into the West we are rejoicing at the death of Christianity and the death of that ethnic group that God has pleased, by His grace alone, to make the primary civilizational carrier of Christianity.

All of this is why Enoch Powell as the canary in the coal mine could lament 50 years ago

“Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.” 

Calvin on Social Hierarchy and Inequality as Christian Doctrines


When he says that there is no difference between the man and the woman, he is treating of Christ’s spiritual kingdom, in which individual distinctions are not regarded, or made any account of; for it has nothing to do with the body, and has nothing to do with the outward relationships of mankind, but has to do solely with the mind — on which account he declares that there is no difference, even between bond and free. In the meantime, however, he does not disturb civil order or honorary distinctions, which cannot be dispensed with in ordinary life. Here, on the other hand, he reasons respecting outward propriety and decorum — which is a part of ecclesiastical polity. 

John Calvin
(Commentary on 1 Cor. 11:3)

The last things to be observed is, that the Lord enjoins every one of us, in all the actions of life, to have respect to our own calling. He knows the boiling restlessness of the human mind, the fickleness with which it is borne hither and thither, its eagerness to hold opposites at one time in its grasp, its ambition. Therefore, lest all things should be thrown into confusion by our folly and rashness, he has assigned distinct duties to each in the different modes of life. And that no one may presume to overstep his proper limits, he has distinguished the different modes of life by the name of callings. Every man’s mode of life, therefore, is a kind of station assigned him by the Lord, that he may not be always driven about at random. (Institutes III.x.6)

No one will ever devote himself to doing what belongs to his place [in society or the social organism], until we have learned that we were not created for ourselves, and also that we cannot be sustained, unless others extend us a helping hand. And, once we have learned this, we must still come back to what we observed before: this natural order did not come about by chance; rather God reveals His will by it, and means to test our obedience to see if we will submit to Him. Without this reverence, we will only cooperate begrudgingly, and will always be enraged when it comes to serving our neighbors. When, however, we perceive that it is God who yokes us together, teaching us that it is not without reason that he has been pleased to join us together in this way, then we should be disposed to receive the yoke He sets upon our neck, and willingly serve them whom He obligate us to serve.

John Calvin
(Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:14).

How Genocide Happens

Although new minorities and immigrants are driving the increases in the younger and labor force–age populations, the growth of the senior population is driven by the mostly white baby boomers. The result is a potential for conflict. There is no question that the primary concern of working-age Hispanics—and to a lesser extent Asians and blacks—will be their children rather than the older dependent population.

2014 New Republic Article

“Thus did the Western White Christian decide to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, himself blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down, and having convinced himself that he was too numerous, labored with pill and scalpel and syringe and open borders to make himself fewer. Until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over–a weary, battered old brontosaurus–and became extinct.”

Paraphrasing Malcolm Muggeridge
Vintage Muggeridge: Religion and Society

Who We Once Were

One need not believe that one’s own ethnic group, or any ethnic group, is superior to others…in order to wish one’s country to continue to be made up of the same ethnic strains in the same proportions as before. And, conversely, the wish not to see one’s country overrun by groups one regards as alien need not be based on feelings of superiority or ‘racism’… the wish to preserve one’s identity and the identity of one’s nation requires no justification…any more than the wish to have one’s own children, and to continue one’s family through them needs to be justified or rationalized by a belief that they are superior to the children of others.

Ernest van den Haag 
National Review — 1965

There was a time when this view was not particularly controversial. Indeed so normal was this view that when proposals arrived to change the immigration laws in 1965 politicians scurried to the microphones to promise that the country would not be overrun by groups Americans regarded as alien.

“Out of deference to the critics, I want to comment on … what the bill will not do.  … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S.500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think. Thirdly, the bill will not permit the entry of subversive persons, criminals, illiterates, or those with contagious disease or serious mental illness. As I noted a moment ago, no immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge … the charges I have mentioned are highly emotional, irrational, and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage.”(Senate Part 1, Book 1, pp. 1-3)

Sen. Edward Kennedy
Democrat Massachusetts

“… the notion was created that somehow or another, 190 million [the population of the U.S. in 1965] is going to be swallowed up. None of us would want that, this bill does not seek to do it and the bill could not do it.”(Senate Part 1, Book 1, p.29)

Senator Philip Hart
Democrat — Michigan

These two quotes are just two fo many quotes from politicians of the time insisting, in order to calm the nerves of jittery Americans, that the 1965 Immigration and Nationality act would not upset the ethnic and racial composition of these united States. The politicians then understood how normal it was for a nation to desire to remain a nation and so they beat a path to the press to insist that this common desire had become an irrational fear in light of the proposed legislation.

53 years later and now we are told from all quarters, including the Church, that this desire to retain a White European identity as a nation is a sin. Of course, this is not surprising. In those 53 years America has gone from being 85% white to being now 63% white. The numbers alone have moved the proposition that desiring to retain White European Christian ethnicity identity is normal to the proposition that desiring to retain White European Christian ethnicity is a sign of grossly aberrant thinking. As the years continue to unwind any thought that is harmonious with the opening quote from van den Hegg will very likely be seen as criminal.

The cry for “Tolerance,” was in 1965 the cry of those who were then seeking to overturn the then present social order in favor of their preferred social order. Tolerance thus became a stalling mechanism that allowed those in the minority time to build their numbers so that they could be where they are now in the ascendancy. Now in the ascendancy, you can be sure there will no “tolerance”  allowed by the multicultists to their nationalist enemies. The demand for tolerance was in 1965 a stalling action to allow time to build up numbers against the van den Hegg type enemies. Tolerance thus was a bridge between the then current minority status to a future where the then current minority makeup can now crush its van de Hegg opposition.

However, as van de Hegg notes in the opening quote there is no necessity for hatred of the other to be present in the desire for ethnic stability. All that is necessary is the desire to honor the generations that have gone before by having children who look and act like their sires and who worship the same God as their forebears.

Of course, that has largely already been lost in the West. The work of mass migration has done its work. A few countries like Hungary and Poland hold out but the West has successfully committed both religiocide and ethnocide. It may take a few decades more to work itself out but barring a remarkable providence the West as a Christian and European civilization in the short term is dead.

Some people will rejoice in that.

I am not one of them.

Is God Still the God of Nations?

In the Patriarchal narratives, God’s focus narrows. Taking on the role of a tribal deity, He concerns Himself with a singular family, by providing security, opening barren wombs, playing matchmaker, and dealing with other familial matters. However, in the book of Exodus, God’s role changes significantly. Coincident with the revelation of the meaning and significance of His personal name as I AM, God takes on the status of a national deity with roles of deliverer, guide, provider, protector, and warrior.

Bruce Waltke 
An OT Theology — pg. 393

1.) We shouldn’t miss the simple fact that Scripture transitions from God being a tribal deity in Genesis to being a national deity in Exodus for the simple fact that the tribe that God is the God of has become a nation by Exodus thanks to God’s grace in providing security, opening barren wombs, playing matchmaker and dealing with familial matters.

2.) God never ceases being a God who is a God of nations. The arrival of Christ did not end God’s status of a national deity. However, in the New Testament God is no longer uniquely the God of the Hebrew Nation. In the New Testament God is seen as the God of many nations as nations. This was foretold in the Old Testament prophecy,

Isaiah 2:2 Now it will come about that In the last days The mountain of the house of the LORD Will be established as the chief of the mountains, And will be raised above the hills; And all the nations will stream to it.

Micah 4:1 And it will come about in the last days That the mountain of the house of the LORD Will be established as the chief of the mountains. It will be raised above the hills, And the peoples will stream to it. 2Many nations will come and say, “Come and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD And to the house of the God of Jacob, That He may teach us about His ways And that we may walk in His paths.” For from Zion will go forth the law, Even the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.…

Isaiah 19:21 And the Lord shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the Lord, and perform it. 22 And the Lord shall smite Egypt: he shall smite and heal it: and they shall return even to the Lord, and he shall be intreated of them, and shall heal them. 23 In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians. 24 In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land: 25 Whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.

The import of this is that any attempt to suggest that God was a God of a nation in the Old Testament (Israel) but with the coming of Jesus God no longer deals with people in their nations but instead God deals with people just as individuals is not a Biblical reading of Scripture. God is still a God of nations. God still enters into covenant with nations to be their God. Yes, God builds the Church out of people from every tribe, tongue, and nation, but it is a Church that is gathered as tribes, tongues, and nations.

This also ruins any idea that Christianity foresees a time where God rules over a United Nations Babel-like Christian Church. God is decidedly not a one worlder. Dr. Geerhardus Vos teaches this when he wrote on Romans 11:17, 19,

(The) “branches broken off” metaphor has frequently been viewed as proof of the relativity and changeability of election, and it is pointed out that at the end of vs. 23, the Gentile Christians are threatened with being cut off in case they do not continue in the kindness of God. But wrongly. Already this image of engrafting should have restrained such an explanation. This image is nowhere and never used of the implanting of an individual Christian, into the mystical body of Christ by regeneration. Rather, it signifies the reception of a racial line or national line into the dispensation of the covenant or their exclusion from it. This reception, of course, occurs by faith in the preached word, and to that extent, with this engrafting of a race or a nation, there is also connected the implanting of individuals into the body of Christ. The cutting off, of course, occurs by unbelief; not, however, by the unbelief of person who first believed, but solely by the remaining in unbelief of those who, by virtue of their belonging to the racial line, should have believed and were reckoned as believers. So, a rejection ( = multiple rejections) of an elect race is possible, without it being connected to a reprobation of elect believers. Certainly, however, the rejection of a race or nation involves at the same time the personal reprobation of a sequence of people. Nearly all the Israelites who are born and die between the rejection of Israel as a nation and the reception of Israel at the end times appear to belong to those reprobated. And the thread of Romans 9:22 (of being broken off) is not directed to the Gentile Christians as individual believers but to them considered racially.”

Geerhardus Vos
Dogmatic Theology Vol. 1 — 118

God still deals with people as being members of nations, peoples, and races. This is a very unsavory truth for the modern Evangelical with their love affair for the erasure of all the creation distinctions God created us with. God has not given up on Nations which is why when the Lord Christ was entrusted with all authority in heaven and earth by the Father the commission He gave His people was to go and teach the nations to observe all things he has commanded. Because of God’s purposes to still deal with nations as nations, the Church can be spoken of as a confederated nation of nations.

God did not inspire John Lenon to write and sing “imagine their’s no nations.”