White Nationalists believe that our race will become extinct unless we create homogeneously white homelands where our people can reproduce and fulfill our destiny, free from the interference of others. Yet even whites who find this idea appealing think that actually creating white homelands would be impossible or immoral. For the ethnostate requires ethnic cleansing. Borders must be redrawn, and tens of millions of people must pick up and move.
If Europe is to be preserved, every single African, Middle Eastern, and South or East Asian immigrant must leave, and all their descendants too. In the majority-white colonial nations of North and South America and the Antipodes, some provision should be made for the remnants of indigenous populations, and perhaps some territory should be set aside for the descendants of non-white slaves. Yet millions of recent immigrants and their families must still be repatriated.
But how is that even possible? And how can it be morally justified? Matters are not helped by the revolutionary fantasy literature of William Pierce and Harold Covington, who envision ethnic cleansing through terrorism and genocide.
Thus to persuade people to actually build ethnostates, I have to deal with four questions: Is ethnic cleansing possible? Can we live with it? Is it moral? Does it have to be icky?
Is it possible for millions of non-whites to leave white nations? I always answer this question with another question: Was it possible for them to come here? If it was possible for them to come, it is possible for them to leave, with all their children as well. With modern technology, it has never been easier for millions of people to move. Moreover, people are more rootless than ever. The average family today moves every few years. So most non-whites are moving anyway. We just want their next move to be outside of our homelands. So there is definitely a way to decolonize white homelands. We just need to have the will.
As for the question of will, two issues are relevant. First, can we live with ethnic cleansing? That is: Can we be comfortable with it? Can it become part of ordinary life? Second, there is the more specific question of whether it is moral.
People are forced to move all the time for economic reasons:
- Once one goes onto the job market, one must go where the jobs are.
- Once one has a job, one can be moved by one’s employer.
- When one loses a job, one again has to go where the jobs are.
- When the cost of living in a particular area rises, largely due to speculation in the housing market, many people whose incomes cannot keep up are forced to move to cheaper quarters.
White people seem to sleep quite well at night knowing that millions of people are forced to move for economic reasons, which all basically boil down to private greed. So white people can learn to live with forcing people to move for a much higher purpose: the creation of a better world in which all peoples have their own homelands.
Since most people have no problem with forcing people to move for economic reasons, a White Nationalist government can make those reasons work for us. We don’t have to be in a hurry. The next time a non-white family has to move for economic reasons, we will just make sure that they move outside our homelands.
Beyond that, whites are already living with ethnic cleansing for political reasons. But whites are the victims rather than the beneficiaries. For two or more generations now, whites have been subjected to mass ethnic cleansing in our homelands. Millions of whites have changed homes, schools, and jobs millions of times because of the end of racially segregated neighborhoods, schools, and businesses and the influx of millions of non-white immigrants, who have destroyed white neighborhoods, schools, and jobs, forcing white families to move elsewhere in search of “better” (i.e., whiter) places to live and work. Despite the enormous human and financial costs of this ethnic cleansing, whites have been “living with it” quite well. It seldom seems to intrude into their consciousness, much less into public expression, and hardly ever into political action and change.
So I think whites can live with themselves quite well if they imposed the same processes of ethnic cleansing on non-whites, and I think that non-whites could live with it as well.
For decades now, whites have found a way to “live with” a system in which we, as a race, have no future. Unless the present political, economic, and cultural system is destroyed, whites will become extinct in all of our homelands, and we will be replaced by non-whites. We are being subjected to a slow, cold process of genocide. Yet we’re managing to “live with it,” because we are narcotized and distracted by individualism, careerism, consumerism, hedonism, and all-round selfishness.
White Nationalists must wake our people up to the fact that we have no future in the present system. That awareness will make it impossible for whites to “live with” continued subjection to genocide. Then we will change that system.
To create white homelands, we must create a system where it is the non-whites who have no future in our homelands. In this case, however, “no future” is not some sort of mafia- or military-style euphemism for genocide, since non-whites have homelands all around the world, and we will make sure they get there. And if whites can live with a system in which we have no future at all, then surely non-whites can live with a system in which their people have a future in their own homelands.
Of course the simple answer to the question of whether we can “live with” ethnic cleansing is that, as a race, we can’t live without it. But that brings us to the moral question: Is ethnic cleansing the right thing to do?
In my essay “White Extinction,” I argued that under the present system, whites will become extinct, and that the only real solution is the creation of white ethnostates. Ethnic cleansing, therefore, is simply a matter of self-defense in the face of a threat to one’s life, and self-defense can morally justify even killing other people.
Imagine you are assaulted by an implacable enemy who intends to kill you. You have a single bullet, and your only certain salvation is to shoot to kill. In such a case, killing is morally justified as simple self-defense.
Now imagine a scenario in which one’s assailant is not a cold-blooded killer but someone whose capacities are diminished. He may be insane. He may be enraged. He may have been tricked into assaulting you, thinking he is acting in self-defense. He may be a soldier following orders. Perhaps he is acting under duress. But in all cases, if it is a matter of kill or be killed, then killing the other party is morally justified as a matter of self-defense.
Imagine an assailant who uses an innocent as a human shield. Even in that situation, if it is matter of kill or be killed, can one be morally blamed for killing the human shield in order to save one’s own life?
Now, instead of a scenario involving two individuals, imagine two peoples fighting to the death. In such a situation, a people is morally justified to use even lethal force to preserve itself from extinction.
Fortunately, even though such harsh measures are morally justifiable in extremis, they are not necessary for white survival and may even be counter-productive. White Nationalists need to recognize that white dispossession did not happen in a sudden burst of violence, and it will not be solved that way either.
White dispossession is a process unfolding over generations. Its architects knew very well that its ultimate end is the extinction of the white race. But they were not interested in a quick paroxysm of anti-white genocide, as emotionally satisfying as that might have been. They knew that it is difficult to mobilize people to commit mass murder, and it is risky, because the victims would fight back and perhaps win, in which case one’s own people might be wiped out in retaliation.
Therefore, they conceived a slower, safer process of genocide. They knew that if anti-white demographic trends were set in motion and sustained over time — i.e., lower birthrates, collapsing families, miscegenation, non-white immigration, non-white penetration of white living spaces, etc. — the long-term result would be white extinction, and very few whites would become aware of it, much less fight back, until resistance was pretty much futile anyway.
When whites regain control over our homelands, we need to adopt similar far-sighted policies. We need to set pro-white demographic trends in motion and sustain them. Time will take care of the rest. In the short run, we need to raise white birthrates. But we will never win by out-breeding non-whites until the planet is standing room only. The problem is not too few of us, but too many of them in our homelands.
Therefore, we need to set in motion a well-planned, orderly, and humane process of ethnic cleansing. There is, moreover, no hurry. Our enemies planned to eliminate us over generations. We can take a few decades to set things right. There will, however, be immediate psychological dividends for whites once we know that things are moving in the right direction, that our future is secured, and that our children and grandchildren will live in white homelands.
The first step is to make some distinctions. There are non-white citizens and non-white aliens. And among the aliens, there are legal and illegal aliens.
We need to deal with the aliens first. We will begin by closing the borders to non-whites. Then non-white illegals must simply be deported. The most economical way is to get them to deport themselves by cutting off their employment and benefits. The legal ones are here on visas. We will simply not renew their visas, and when their visas expire, we will make sure that they leave. We will also repeal birthright citizenship, and make it retroactive. We will weigh the anchor babies and send them back with their mothers. All of these steps will, of course, be taken in ways consistent with human rights to life, property, and due process. In the United States alone, such policies would rid us of tens of millions of recent immigrants within a few years.
As for non-whites who are citizens, although our aim is to strip them of citizenship and all right to participate in the political process (“civil rights”), we will recognize and protect their “human rights”: the right to life, property, due process, etc. We will also respect their rights to certain government benefits, e.g., education, welfare, old-age pensions, and the like.
We must recognize that the primary demographic threat from non-whites comes from people of child-bearing age, who should be our focus. Therefore, non-whites over the age of 50 who are productive and orderly citizens should have nothing to fear from us. They should be able to work, retire, and live out their lives with all the benefits they are due, and with full protection of their human rights.
However, a White Nationalist regime would also make family reunification work in favor of emigration, so elderly non-whites will be given every incentive to join their families in their homelands, where their pensions will probably go farther.
Non-white citizens can be divided into the law-abiding and the law-breaking. Law-breakers should be imprisoned and paroled outside of our homelands. Given that a very high percentage of blacks get in trouble with the law, this policy alone would rid us of millions over a few decades.
Law-abiding non-whites of childbearing age can also be divided into industrious and upwardly mobile populations (e.g., Jews and South and East Asians) and indolent, welfare-dependent populations (primarily blacks and browns). The latter population will swell mightily once we stop pretending that they are our equals and we end Affirmative Action and make-work programs. It would be cheaper to give them welfare for life rather than have them gum up the system by pretending to work.
Indolent and passive non-whites can be easily dealt with. I would give them welfare for life, as long as they collect it in their homelands.
As for the energetic and upwardly mobile non-whites, like most modern people, they move around quite a lot. We will just make sure that their next move takes them outside our homelands. Non-white schoolchildren will be educated in the native tongues of their homelands. When they reach college age, they will be sent to college overseas, so it will be natural for them to seek employment there.
Such policies would create entirely white homelands within a few decades, and the process would be orderly, humane, and consistent with the human rights of all parties.
To sustain the slow cleanse, White Nationalists must of course retain political power. People will be able to vote for virtually anything, but the degradation and destruction of the white race will be off the menu.
Beyond that, we must create a constellation of interest groups that profit from the slow cleanse. Moving companies, for instance. Furthermore, industries that are harmed by the process must be co-opted, divided, and otherwise neutralized as potential sources of opposition. For instance, industries that lose profits due to loss of cheap labor should receive tariff protections, price supports, bailouts — anything, really, to shut them up.
Another important consideration is that the slow cleanse need not be a giant government program. It merely needs to make existing government programs, private institutions, and social trends work to promote non-white emigration. Most non-whites were not brought here by government programs. They brought themselves here because of private and government incentives. When those incentives are changed, many non-whites will simply deport themselves. Due to the nature of the modern economy, most non-whites move a great deal anyway. We will simply wait until the next move, then make sure it is to a non-white country. Due to indolence, unemployability, and criminality, many non-whites are already told where to live by the government. They next time they fall into the system, it can simply deposit them in a non-white homeland.
Many whites are uncomfortable about resettling non-whites who have put down “roots” in our homelands. Non-whites have tens of thousands of years of roots in their homelands. Yet somehow they managed to move here. So if their roots there did not matter to them, why should their “roots” here matter to us? And if their shallow roots here matter to us, shouldn’t our own deep roots matter that much more?
Freedom of choice is an important thing, but preserving our race is more important. Most whites accept limits on our freedom to save endangered species of animals and plants, and we are willing to impose the same limits on others whether they like it or not. It is time to take the preservation of our own race just as seriously.
Remembering Friedrich Nietzsche (October 15, 1844–August 25, 1900)
Remembering Aleister Crowley
(October 12, 1875–December 1, 1947)
Contre le sectarisme de droite
Qu’est-ce que l’Alt Right ?
Savitri Devi, Traditionalism, & Nature Religion
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 375 Greg Johnson, Stephen Paul Foster, & Richard Houck on How to Respond to Being Called a “Hater!”
On Red State Secession
Remembering Roy Campbell (October 2, 1901–April 22, 1957)