- Counter-Currents - https://counter-currents.com -

The Moral High Ground:
A Reply to Andrew Hamilton’s “On Deportation”

1,260 words

ruins_of_detroit_29 [1]

Detroit today

I do not intend to minimize the existential threat we whites face as a race. Whites are not merely being exploited, dispossessed, and victimized in order to support a growing non-white population. Our enemies, the anti-whites, are deliberately inflicting on our race conditions of life calculated to bring about our physical destruction. Their policy is genocide. 

This policy is not implemented through money and power alone but through moral subversion. Anti-whites point to the injustices that whites have inflicted on non-whites in the past in order to justify the genocide of whites today. The anti-whites won’t talk about genocide even amongst themselves, they just proceed with it. If they did admit to it, then all their stored up moral capital would vanish in a puff of smoke.  However, every now and then even the most professional anti-white will let their emotions get the better of them and let slip their real agenda.

Our movement is in competition with anti-whites for the loyalty and support of whites. We cannot offer them money, power, or status as our enemies might, but we can compete with them morally. By consistently pointing to this genocide (the most monstrous act of racial discrimination) we can seize the moral high ground and encourage idealistic whites to reject the thirty pieces of silver the anti-white system offers and get them to join our struggle because it is the right thing to do.

Whites are an innately low ethnocentric people with a tendency to conceive morality in universal terms. In dealing with other races we do not ask “Is it good for whites?” We ask “Is it just?” Whites are not inclined to support the ethnostate ideal merely because it would be good for them in particular, but because it is fair and just for all races to have them. If it is fair for whites to create their own ethnostate then the means of achieving it must be fair to non-whites who are going to be affected by its creation. This is sometimes forgotten in the movement as it draws disproportionately from whites who are highly ethnocentric and only ask the question “Is it good for whites?”  This is moral shorthand for the idea that might makes right.

There are two methods of separation available in forming an ethnostate: One is transferring the non-white population [2] outside the borders of an existing multi-racial state, and the second is breaking up the multi-racial state and redrawing the borders of the ethnostate around existing white enclaves. These methods are not exclusive of each other as an ethnostate could be set-up in a corner of the United States where whites remain the majority and at the same time transfer the minority non-white population over to the remaining rump of the United States.

But what of the justice involved in these population transfers? We are certainly justified in forcibly deporting immigrants regardless of whether their papers are in order; they made the choice to immigrate and profit from our genocide. Immigrants, however, constitute only a proportion of the non-whites, many more have been born and raised to adulthood in white countries and never lived anywhere else.  If we hold them collectively responsible for the actions of their parents then we are legitimizing the moral claims of the anti-whites who hold that our genocide is a justifiable punishment of whites for the sins of slavery, colonialism, and the holocaust. If we claim that whites today should not have to pay for historical crimes, then we are not justified in expelling non-whites born in a white country.

In our treatment of non-whites, we ought to simply apply the golden rule and treat them how we whites expect to be treated by non-whites. Although forced deportation of immigrants would be entirely justified we should not use any compulsion on non-whites who were born in the West. They like us possess a birth right to the land that they currently live on. All of us have the right of freedom of association and self-determination and whites ought to exercise these rights to politically separate our neighborhoods from their neighborhoods and in doing so carve out ethno-states in the areas where we remain the overwhelming majority. We ought to honor existing contracts with the remaining non-white minorities but make no new ones. This would mean that over time all access to employment, housing, and credit would dry up and out of simple economic self-interest these remaining non-whites would then self-deport to the newly created Bantustans.

Strict border security would prevent the non-white populace of these Bantustans from entering the ethnostate. Unable to freeload off whites these Bantustans would increasingly reflect the third world origins of its inhabitants leading to stagnation and regression. Detroit is a postindustrial wasteland despite massive federal and state subsidies: without regular infusions of white money it would decline even more rapidly.

The property values inside the Bantustans would decline relatively and absolutely in comparison with the property values inside the ethnostate. Such a mismatch in property values between the ethnostates and the Bantustans would create market incentives for real estate developers to buy property within these Bantustans and re-develop them for whites. We can see this process of gentrification taking place today as white flight to the suburbs, spurred on by non-white crime and integrated schools, caused property values to crash in cities such as Atlanta and Washington DC. A few decades later real estate developers started buying up choice neighborhoods in these cities and moved in new white tenants replacing old black tenants with the result that the cities are whiter than they were a few decades ago.

There is no reason why we cannot expect a process of white gentrification to take place within the Bantustans where the low property values would encourage pioneering whites to establish gated communities just inside the borders of these Bantustans. The decision to admit these white pioneers would be at the discretion of the non-white political leadership of these Bantustans who may exercise their sovereign right to refuse, however, like the historical Bantustans of South Africa we can expect that they would be economically dependent on the ethnostate, which could use its aid and trade policy as leverage to assist the gentrification of these Bantustans.

The speed and extent of this gentrification process would depend upon the demographic expansion and will of the white population.  It could potentially take several generations for all these Bantustans to be gentrified out of existence. Rome was not built in a day and the scars of genocide will not disappear in a day either. The scars may never disappear completely and whites may just have to learn to live with it.

We whites hold a historical grudge for all the lives and territory we have lost, but every race and tribe nurses their own historical grudges. We rightly dismiss the historical grudges of non-whites as morally irrelevant to the situation today. If Native Americans have no justification in forcing modern day white Americans back into the sea then we ought to reciprocate and accept that we have no moral right to expel the descendants of non-white immigrants from their own territory. The anti-whites are evil but they are not stupid and whenever cornered on the issue of white genocide they will focus on the immorality of the solution in order to wrestle back the moral high ground they have just lost. They will no longer have this escape hatch if we sincerely apply the golden rule in our dealings with non-whites.