Counter-Currents
3,038 words
Translations: French, Russian, Spanish, Czech
Audio version: To listen in a player, click here. To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link as” or “save target as.”
Video version here
White survival requires creating or restoring white homelands. That requires racial separation. Yet even whites who find this argument compelling think that actually creating white homelands would be impossible or immoral, for the ethnostate seems to require “ethnic cleansing.” Borders must be redrawn, and tens of millions of people must pack up and move. How is any of this possible without tyranny, terror, and bloodshed?
If Europe is to be preserved, millions of African, Middle Eastern, and South or East Asian immigrants 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.[1]
Thus to persuade people to actually build ethnostates, White Nationalists have to deal with four questions: Is restoring white homelands even possible? Can we live with it? Is it moral? Does it have to be terrible?
Is it possible for millions of non-whites to leave white nations? The best way to answer this question is 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 offspring 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. In short, 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 repatriating non-white populations? Can we be comfortable with de-colonizing our homelands? 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 encouraging 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 a system that forces 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. It’s just that 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 demographic replacement on non-whites, and I think that non-whites could live with it too.
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 fundamentally transformed, 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 are managing to “live with it,” largely because we are narcotized and distracted by individualism, careerism, consumerism, hedonism, and all-round selfishness. And we are intimidated from complaining about it, much less organizing to stop it, by political correctness.
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.
Some might object that non-whites will only have bleak futures in their homelands. Notice, however, that this objection quietly discards one of the main tenets of diversity advocates, namely that non-whites who come here enrich our societies. For if non-whites enrich our societies, why would they not enrich their own societies as well? In truth, non-whites come to white societies because we enrich them. We provide them better lives than they can enjoy in their homelands.
But it is also true that non-white immigrants are often superior in education, ambition, and agency to the people they leave behind. They may send money home, but their departure removes something far more important: human capital. Thus non-white societies will never be able to provide their citizens a decent future as long as some of their best people can leave to colonize white countries. Non-white lands will only “develop,” to whatever extent possible, once white countries stop skimming off some of their best people.
One of the beauties of nationalism is that each people is responsible for its own destiny. Because whites are facing extinction, our first obligation is to ourselves. So, although we wish all peoples well, how they fare in their own homelands is ultimately not our problem.
The simple answer to the question of whether we can “live with” repatriating non-whites is that, as a race, we can’t live without it. But that brings us to the moral question: Is repatriation the right thing to do?
I have already established that under the present system, whites will become extinct, and that the only real solution is the creation of white ethnostates. Therefore, non-violent removal of non-white populations is simply a matter of self-defense in the face of a mortal threat. And we all recognize the moral right to self-defense, particularly by a people facing genocide.
White genocide has not happened in a sudden burst of violence, and it will not be solved that way either. White genocide 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 slaughter, 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 could 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, again, 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 non-violent process of repatriation. There is, moreover, no hurry. Our enemies planned to eliminate us over generations. We can take a few decades to set things right.
To understand how it is possible to restore white homelands in a gradual, orderly, and humane manner, we need 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 also send the “anchor babies” back with their mothers.
But even though non-whites will no longer enjoy the rights of citizens (civil rights) in white countries, we will, of course, respect their human rights to life, property, and due process, as we do with all foreigners. 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, restoring white sovereignty requires that they no longer have any political power in our societies. But they will still have human rights to life, property, due process, etc., which we will of course respect. 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 mestizos). The latter population will swell mightily once 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. A White Nationalist government could 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 restore white homelands within a few decades, and the process would be orderly, humane, and consistent with the human rights of all parties.
To sustain a gradual and humane process of restoring white homelands, White Nationalists must, of course, not just attain but retain political power. People will be able to vote for virtually anything, but the degradation and destruction of the white race must be off the menu.
Beyond that, we must create a constellation of interest groups that profit from repatriation (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 repatriation 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. The 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. But 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?
Perhaps the most brazen technique of emotional manipulation used to oppose immigration control is the claim that repatriation is bad because it “breaks up families.” But immigration breaks up families too, so if breaking up families is a bad thing, immigration is a bad thing as well. We will stop breaking up non-white families by stopping immigration altogether.
It is also quite brazen that the idea of family reunification is used only to argue for chain immigration. But it can just as well be an argument for chain repatriation. If family reunification is a legitimate goal of immigration policy, then we must encourage immigrants to return to the warmth of their families back in the Old Country.
One of the most common arguments for complacency in the face of demographic decline is that the disaster will happen long after we are dead. White extinction will not happen within the lifetimes of anyone alive today, but whites will slip into minority status in many countries within the lifetimes of many of my readers. Indeed, if we look at smaller units—states, counties, towns, neighborhoods, and schools—whites are slipping into minority status every single day. But certainly for older generations, such as the Baby Boomers, the worst of what we are facing will happen long after their deaths. So even though such people often support environmentalism, wildlife conservation, historical preservation, and other causes aimed at future generations, they leave white demographic decline for future generations to worry about.
White Nationalists must, of course, combat this crass and usually highly selective form of egocentrism. But whenever we cannot change this attitude, we can make it work for us. For if some people will not worry about white demographic displacement because it will happen after their deaths, why should they worry about our plan for white demographic restoration, since it too will unfold slowly over decades and only reach fulfillment well after they are dead? If some people won’t fight against the coming anti-white dystopia because they won’t live to see it, then why should they fight against the terrifying burrito-free dystopia White Nationalists envision, since it will only come to pass far in the future, long after the last Boomer is laid to rest?
What if a white nation decides on a gradual, peaceful, and humane process of repatriation, but non-whites respond with violence? This would simply give us an opportunity to build a consensus for more rapid and forceful forms of repatriation. The essential problem of White Nationalism is finding a way to square the requirements of white survival with our people’s highly evolved, perhaps even morbid conscientiousness. But it actually makes it easier to mobilize our people if fair and reasonable solutions are violently rejected.
Even though the restoration of white homelands may take a couple of generations, there will be immediate psychological dividends for whites once we know our race has a future again. There will be less alienation and depression—fewer losers, alcoholics, drug addicts, and suicides. More whites will form families, have children, pursue degrees, start businesses, and contribute to society. Once we restore hope for the future, our people will start living as if the ethnostate is already here. Those who fight for a better world live in it today.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “Paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
- Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments.
- Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
Note
[1] See, for instance, William L. Pierce, writing as Andrew MacDonald, The Turner Diaries, second ed. (Hillsboro, W.V., National Vanguard Books, 1999) and H. A. Covington, The Brigade (Philadelphia: Xlibris, 2008).
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
34 comments
Great piece, thank you! Well written and insightful.
Please see my site as well.
http://cincinnatiisadump.wordpress.com/
Counter-Currents is probably the best website for material like this, and the idea of repatriation has come up several times now. I am pleased with that. However, the whole idea is based on the assumption of some kind of white unity. Should we not be looking at a most important factor in all of this? How can white people get along with each other and be unified. Our problems with the colored races only happened because of conflict and competition amongst Europeans. The slavery and colonialism was brought about by fierce economic competition between white nations and institutions.
The modern multiculturalism, although under the pretense of humanitarianism, it is anything but. It is just different white people using the race conflict, as either conservatives or liberals, all in hopes of some political gain when the dust clears. Multiculturalism is just another form of whites fighting each other. I know the Jewish factor is very important, but I see the Jew as an infectious agent, who has swarmed into a body with a weakened immune system. Our lack of unity is that weakened immunity that would otherwise send the Jews packing.
Repatriation is something that is quite achievable. It is predicated on white solidarity and agreement, which has not been so achievable in the recent past.
Agreed. This is my view. Thank you, WWWM.
Greg thank you for this article, I’ve prodded you before to write this article and now that it has been produced I am not disappointed with what you have written. Given I wrote the ‘The Moral High Ground: A reply to Andrew Hamilton’s on Deportation’ I am the exactly the kind of person who raises the questions such as is it possible?, is it moral?, can we live with? and should it have to be icky?
I wrote my article sometime ago now and have had a few months to digest the feedback and think further on the issue. In your article you talk about in extremis scenarios, which would justify harsh, even violent measures against non-whites in order for our people to establish homelands and thereby ensure the survival of our people. It seems clear from your article that you don’t think that we face such in extremis scenarios. This is also my position.
Like I suspect lots of readers of this site have, I have read HAC’s Northwest novels which are fictional portrayals of an imagined northwest war of independence and have found them very entertaining reads, especially the Brigade which I have read multiple times. But I view these books as escapist fare and not in any way a reflection of actual political reality. I do not for example think that the ‘Senior Quality of Life Act’, which permits non-whites doctors to murder elderly whites is on the cards, nor do I believe that ‘It Takes a Village’ will spirit away white children from their parents merely for reading their children politically incorrect bedtime stories. Nor do I think the police and judicial system will become as corrupt and lawless as is portrayed in the novels and thereby block off all other means of political struggle.
Hypothetically if such in extremis scenarios as existed in the Brigade became the reality in extremis measures would be justifiable. But such in extremis scenarios are not happening now and I see no trends which point to such scenarios happening in the future either. Those who advocate ‘tough’ measures now do so on the axiomatic assumption that future events will prove them right, rather than adopt the eminently pragmatic attitude that one fights soft power with soft power and hard power with hard power. Or to put it another way one if the enemy draws a pen, you draw a pen, if the enemy draws a gun, you also draw a gun.
Finally, Greg I appreciate your rhetorical point that so many people whites and non-whites move around for economic reasons that most people hardly notice. Why should restructuring economic incentives for non-whites to move back into their own homelands be any different? Especially when the alternative to not doing this is the genocide of our race.
My only reservation with the article stems from my pessimism that with demographic trends running against us that our movement will not only be able to gain power, but will do so by also maintaining territorial integrity and power over large numbers of non-whites. I think our best way forward is to embrace the inevitable fragmentation and through secession carve out the whitest areas within the borders of the old nation states and then overtime gradually expand the borders of the ethno-state until the former national territory is eventually reclaimed.
Your final paragraph is outstanding, and indeed, the only real way. I never saw this until now, but I’ve been arguing all those lines in comments here at CC for several years now, and have believed this way for many decades. The only time I can ever recall disagreeing with my intellectual hero Samuel T. Francis was in his American Renaissance debate in the mid-90s with Michael Masters (I wonder what happened to him? he was doing good work in the 90s, but I haven’t seen his name for ages) on the subject of “separation vs {white} supremacism”, with Francis taking the latter position. I could see Francis’s arguments – that whites cannot take flight forever, but must reestablish racial will to endure – but even then I suspected that most whites are too weak (not just physically, but in ethical character) for that. Even then (and long before that, too) I favored the ethnostate (I didn’t call it that, but my friends and I were batting around that idea already in the 70s). Whites must withdraw, regroup, rearm and reinstantiate racial pride and recovery of our civilizational heritage. We can only do this in an ethnostate. We can only get an ethnostate, however, as I have been arguing here in many comments: via white nationalist territorial ingathering into a handful of states (perhaps the Northwest Front; if enough of us move to those states, we will slow cleanse the antifa in Portland and Seattle simply by voting in increasingly law and order conservative politicians and DAs, who will fund the police and prosecute the antifa terrorists – with ever fuller public support), followed by our own totally passive “slow cleanse” of nonwhites via non-racialist-but-nonwhite-disfavoring public policies (to the extent we can evade too much Federal civil rights harassment – a very big “if”).
Is there a way to get the above done except under an autocratic system? It won’t happen without a political revolution and it couldn’t be maintained with a universal franchise in effect, even if the franchise was only for whites . Is there a form of republicanism that can preserve freedom and the white race?
Well, most of the Lefties buy into the “Anthropogenic Global Warming” hoax. So, why not use that as the lever?
The carbon footprint is 1 ton per capita in much of Central America. The carbon footprint is 5 tons per capita in Mexico. The carbon footprint in the US is 17 tons per capita. If we move Central Americans and Mexicans back to their homelands, world carbon will be reduced significantly. If we take in any immigrants, they should come only from environmentally friendly cultures with similar carbon footprints, like Canada and Australia.
By changing our immigration demographics and sending back all the Central Americans, Mexicans, et cetera, we would be saving planet Earth from “Anthropogenic Global Warming” driven by mass immigration from low per capita carbon footprint countries into higher per capita carbon footprint countries. Applying this principle, would save Western civilization from the Third World.
That piece was so nice, kind and thoughtful that it struck me as being written by a Canadian – or at least how Canadians like to think of themselves.
The Christians will get religion again and you can consider the deed done.
There truly is nothing new under the sun and the time to hate and the time for war will role round again and the time for casting out and all that will begin and all the governmental decrees will go the way of King Canute. That’s just the way it goes.
Excellent article which puts the lie to the idea that white homelands can only be achieved by genocide on a mass scale as envisioned by such persons as Pierce and Chechar. Slow repatriation in an orderly and humane manner is very well possible and need not be considered as immoral. What has to be thought out however is how to convince the recieving countries to accept the remigrants. Economical incentives will have to be invented. For example extra development aid as a reward for recieving remigrants. Another thing is to do it with as little racial insult as possible. People simply will not be eager to move if they have the feeling it is because they are considerd as “racially inferior”. Nor will the receiving countries cooperate if they suspect the same motive. Respectfull behavior – right from the beginning – towards non-whites is therefore indicated. That would exclude from our movement (which should be a serious movement for achieving real results in the real world and not only in fantasy) all those types who engage in bloodthirsty genocidal fantasies and use denigrating terms for non-whites all the time. We should have a movement whose aims can be morally defended for an audience of whatever race. Survival and independence for all racial and ethnic groups with peacefull relations with all is such a worthy defensible aim.
Speaking a dream does not make it a truth and therefore cannot make reality a lie. While it would be very nice to recapture our lands in a sweet and wonderful way (i.e. paying them to go) it has never been done in the past, ever.
The most effective modern day example of ethnic cleansing without a lot of murder is the Islamic custom of forcing a Tax (or Jizlya) to exist in the homelands or the Latino custom of defacing the property of blacks to get them to move out of LA County, a form of “Brown Intifada”.
The position we are in is not conducive to either of these methods. Our government is filled with non-Whites, including the President and Chief AG Holder and already Whites can not defend their person without being broken financially (Zimmerman). Over 1/3 of the bureaucracy is non-White and the military is growing browner every day. At the moment of seizing power, non-Whites fire White en-mass as in Clayton County GA to fill police and civil service jobs with their brethren. Once established, they begin the process of removing the barriers to more of “their” people to come here, with the help of the Host country. I just don’t see MeCHA and La RAZA saying that they will go back to Mexico because Uncle Sugar is cutting them a check. I can’t believe the negro will leave for Liberia. As Jesse Jackson said, “we will follow you (Whites) everywhere.”
This kind of happy thinking is what led us to where we are now. Like with the negro gangs or MS-13, people knew they should be gathered up by the military and deported, but lacked the will to cause it to happen. So every year new “Gang Peace Initiatives” were worked out, new equipment purchased, new “studies” done. The result is that 500,000 gang members roam our land, many with tattoos on their FACES saying what gang they belong to, how many Whites and others they have killed and how much prison time they have done for “street Cred” while a million of the worst ones are ALREADY in prison.
A real Success.
Both of the political parties, almost all the churches are against such changes that Mr. Johnson talks about, meaning that a collapse of the Federal Government and the complete change in leadership would be necessary before such a nice policy of removal and continued payment were possible, ignoring that fact that we are BROKE and so deeply in debt that we would never be able to continue to pay 3rd Worlders Social Security and Welfare, let alone our own Elderly here in the homeland.
This is pie in the sky
This was an excellent article with excellent points made.
What libertarians and white nationalists lack is leverage based on sovereignty. With that, you ARE the system, instead of, fighting the system. Life is so much easier from there. Without that, you’re spinning wheels in mud. There is no leadership, no movement forward, just navel gazing and in-fighting, frustration, failure, and hopelessness.
Check out my technique to start new tax free cities. Read the WHITE PAPER. Please talk about it, instead of, “running through the streets barefoot to make liberty.”
It’s time for serious plans that can succeed in getting sovereignty. One city can help other cities start. You can start governments-in-exile. A Swedish government-in-exile would reach people. It would shock people. It costs nothing and is subversive of the Marxist femocracy.
Numerous possibilities open up.
White nationalists seem far more willing and interested in starting new systems, than libertarians who loathe executing on a plan. Thought to action. Everything else is fantasy to leave behind.
Here’s a piece of action:
http://kisscoin.US
Thank you, Dr Johnson, for this great article, which says virtually exactly what I have said for some years. However, owing to vague wording, I can’t tell if you mean that by engaging in this process, the entire USA (or whatever country in question) will be saved. So that is my first question.
Corollary to which, What has become of the Pacific Northwest idea? There is no realistic alternative to that; taking back the entire US is completely out of the question (fantasy).
It is also the elephant in the living room that the white elites are the ones truly responsible for this state of affairs (not even the jews, a la WWWM’s comment), & it is also fantasy to believe they will relinquish control through peaceable (electoral, etc) means.
It is the easiest thing to deride Harold Covington’s ‘Northwest Independence’ novels. The processes he describes are happening, eg children being kidnapped & brainwashed by the State: it’s called forced state schooling. ‘It Takes A Village’ is an exaggerated metaphor, as are other elements. I expect CC people to understand metaphor in fiction.
In your TOQ article of 18-3-2010 you wrote of ‘the Quartet’s towering virtues.’ It was your favourable review that caused me to read the novels in the first place, which provided the kick in the pants I needed to propel me into being genuinely WN. (As I indicated in an email to you, the deprogramming provided by the novels was one of the most painful, even traumatic things of my life. And it was not my fault that there were no other materials available to serve that function.)
Then there’s the Northwest Front White Book manual that states (p 27) Prof Kevin MacDonald is 1st choice for president of the Republic.
Forget about Harold Covington & his novels. There IS NO realistic alternative in existential terms to the IDEA of the Northwest Independence for the programme you outline ie of ‘white homelands’. If you now feel HAC & his novels are not relevant, fine. If you believe Northwest Independence is ‘escapist fantasy’ I must ask you to explain, especially after reading your interview with HAC in North American New Right vol. 1 (tremendous), where you certainly expressed no such insuperable objections.
I’m really confused. You imply there is no other mode of Northwest Independence than HAC’s; of course there is, I can imagine it. If I were trying to explain to someone what I envision, I would say, ‘A Greg Johnson Counter-currents version of Pacific Northwest Independence,’ which is the impression I had a year ago of your position (if stealthed) from reading your writings, CC, TOQ, etc.
Btw I hesitated to side with CC 4 years ago because every time I went on CC or received your FB postings they were plastered with Hitler & IIIrd Reich imagery, which initially put me off. (I’ve since been cured, discovered DIJ, etc.)
I also want an explanation of why the carping at HAC/Northwest novels isn’t really WN internecine class war, ie the eggheads with advanced degrees versus the working class thugs (HAC & co). We don’t need more WN class war, we need each other–indeed, ‘When we have each other, we have everything.’
First, thank you and the other commentators for their kind words on this article.
In answer to some of your questions.
1. The process I describe would work anywhere White Nationalists attain power, whether in existing states or new ones.
2. I am not dealing here with how we get power, but what we could do once we get it
3. I still recommend Covington as the best form of Old Right thinking in a North American context. But it is still Old Right thinking, and I want to get beyond that. So it does not really matter to me whether one Old Right approach (Covington) is more realistic than other ones.
4. I think Covington’s skills as a satirist are razor sharp and quite funny.
5. I don’t see civil disagreements in principle as “carping” much less “class warfare” — although the Axis Sally fiasco with the NW Front is a textbook case of “Premature Populism” (https://counter-currents.com/2013/05/premature-populism/). Beyond that, I stated that I found Covington’s race war and ethnic cleansing fantasies repugnant in my review of the first four volumes of the North West Quintet.
6. As for the idea of White Nationalists concentrating in the Pacific Northwest: I was born there, and after July 1, I will be back there. It is a great place to live, but nothing can ruin your life quicker and more thoroughly than getting involved with some of the dysfunctional people in the White Nationalist movement (drunks, depressives, pathological liars, tweakers, lawyers, day traders, and other scum), so please don’t move anywhere just based on the presence of White Nationalists. Find a good job in a nice place to live, then establish yourself in the community. Be a good neighbor, worker, etc. If you have WN friends whom you trust, encourage them to join you. But be very cautious when reaching out to local WNs. For instance, don’t give people your name or home address until you have had time to observe them over a long period of time.
“It is a great place to live, but nothing can ruin your life quicker and more thoroughly than getting involved with some of the dysfunctional people in the White Nationalist movement (drunks, depressives, pathological liars, tweakers, lawyers, day traders, and other scum), so please don’t move anywhere just based on the presence of White Nationalists.”
It is absolutely the BEST place to live. But it is the best place not because it is full of WNs. It is the best place because the vast majority of the people are of Northern European ancestry. Clean streets, love of Nature and the Outdoors, concern and love for education and art, limited amount of violent or destructive behavior, strong family bonds, working class spirit and resolve. THESE are the things that make it great.
“Find a good job in a nice place to live, then establish yourself in the community. Be a good neighbor, worker, etc. If you have WN friends whom you trust, encourage them to join you. But be very cautious when reaching out to local WNs. For instance, don’t give people your name or home address until you have had time to observe them over a long period of time. ”
The majority of people who identify as WN are damaged goods. In different ways and even sometimes despite their own attempts to become semi normal. The whole area up here is full of people who are Jew wise and race wise despite what you may have heard about them being too distant from nonWhites to understand race. (Remember we have Indians here and they are always a good source of examples of undesirable nonWhite behavior.Luckily they mostly stay on the rez ) There are plenty of people who know the score, I meet them all the time, almost every day.
I encourage people to move here mostly because it will change and improve your life probably more than anything else you can do now. My husband skied about 60 days this last winter, some of those days he also played ice hockey on a local team. My daughter skis and figure skates and belongs to a pony club. In the summer we hike forest trails that look like parts of a medieval forest and we swim in crystal clear mountain lakes. The land is lush and green and the roads and parks are clear of trash. We have rodeos, fairs, farmers markets and festivals and art shows and nobody worries about some local gangs messing with anyone. Your kids can ride their bikes around the neighborhood without being jumped by thugs. Most people honestly dont even lock their front door. Plus even the Democrats up here love their guns and hunting.
If you do move here remember to let the positive forces here affect your life and make it into one of joy and beauty. Kraft durch Freude. Strength through Joy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN3lumlaI50
April in Kalispell Montana
I am laughing bittersweetly when I think of Portland and Seattle in this Year of Our Lord 2020. Nowhere is safe, until whites affirmatively make it so. I, too, find this Slow Cleanse to be overly wishful. The ethnostate will never come about this way. It might not have to involve Turner Diaries style genocide, but it will involve ‘rough stuff’ for a considerable while.
If whites can break free from the multi-cult, the society that will result will be so far above anything non-whites can or will ever be able to produce that they will have little choice but to come face to face with their inferiority, be forever deprived of participating in all significant human achievements and in some instances even regress to barbarism. By perpetuating the death by diversity of the white race they at least can bring the white to their level, or perhaps give their racial group the opportunity to surpass the occidental through an unrelenting tidal wave of miscegenation and anti-white legislation.
Truth be told the non-white has little to gain by moving nearer his racial kinsman. All-negro societies exist today and all share the same attributes: dilapidated infrastructure, corrupt politics, out of control violence, inability to utilize resources, complete absence of culture and technological progress (and the only reason these things aren’t as bad as they should be is because of constant western intervention). Except through violence how are you going to expect to convince a negro that comfortable western society with safe-guards codified into law to ensure “racial equality” is not preferable to a reversion to barbarism? Likewise, how are you going to convince a jew to leave when at present they can accumulate vast wealth legally through malice, and when they can ensure their protected status so easily through wealth and influence (not to mention exploit the eroded mores of society)? Would a jew really want to move to a non-white state and deal with the conditions described above? Would a jew willingly throw away his cosmopolitan essence and move to a tiny nation surrounded by jihadists, while also permitting a jew-wise nationalist state to develop and to deprive ZOG of its influence? Perhaps Asians can at least be receptive to the WN ideology but how are you going to convince the modern deranciated Asian who doesn’t know one word of an oriental language to leave when they are even more aware of the protections afforded to them by law and when they can as civilized people more easily gain sympathy with whites not on our side?
The fact is that all great and lasting things are achieved through violent struggle. Occasionally in the alternative right you’ll hear people ask why Hitler wasn’t content with merely the foundation of National Socialist Germany, as if the swastika could be flying over the Reichchancellory right now. But why would ordinary politicians decades after der Fuehrer work feverishly to resist foreign influences and to perpetuate the NS German state if it wasn’t achieved through great sacrifice? Any political revolution in history is either achieved through violence, or will result in greater violence to ensure its survival (often both). While I genuinely don’t believe most people on the alternative right want violence the fact of the matter is that it is the most effective means of achieving political ends, and that the political ends we wish to achieve are extraordinary. While we today have the luxury of decrying the idea of genocide, what would we think after an anti-white hellstorm is unleashed on our children? Today it might be wise propaganda wise to claim we desire nothing but a peaceful solution, but when WNs can write essays from a position of strength I think their content will be very different.
tl;dr Enoch Powell was right
I think you are missing the point. The ultimate sanction of the law is force. We will make it unlawful for non-whites to live among us. The implementation of this law can, however, take time, and we can structure incentives so that non-whites comply with the law voluntarily, so that force need not be employed. If any rough stuff is required, we’ll be sure to let you know.
It’s funny – I came to this article after recently reading some articles in the left wing media discussing the question of reparations for slavery. While my guess is that the latest babble over reparations is the last thing on Johnson’s mind, this article feels like the perfect response.
Good article, but in my view, since we don’t even have a movement yet, so being concerned about how a future ethnostate will be formed is wasteful at best, counter-productive at worst.
You are 100% mistaken here. We can’t have a serious movement if we don’t do serious thinking about what an ethnostate would look like and how it might be achieved.
This article has many interesting implications. Most interesting for me is the necessity of Whites to scrupulously determine if a course of action is moral or not before proceeding. I recall Dr. Kevin MacDonald discussing this as a unique trait among Europeans, even in regard to a question which relates to their potential extinction. I am not party to decision-making discussions among East Asians or other ethnic groups, but my guess is that this is not much of a consideration. For example, it would be difficult to imagine a discussion among Japanese academics on whether it was moral to expel Phillipinos from Japan. I imagine them saying, “we don’t need them, so off they go”. The main consideration would be how to do it so that they wouldn’t be criticized internationally or lose face, with whether the action could be “morally justified” would simply not naturally occur to them, with the point being that this is a biological issue, where their brains simply process information differently (in a more adaptive way).
I think it might be useful to view this psychological need by Europeans as a mental disability, as it is at odds with the necessities of survival, one of Nature’s imperatives (even though at some time in the past this opposite was the case, as the natural environment was quite different). In any case, Mr. Johnson is correct in that a moral justification for ethnic cleansing would be necessary for it to be accepted, even if without that cleansing the organism would be driven to the path of unreversible genetic annihilation within a handful of generations.
Shortly after America’s occupation of Japan started, there were the offspring of U.S. Black soldiers and Japanese women. The Japanese dealt with this issue rather promptly, and shipped all the mixed race kids off to Brazil.
As Orwell once commented about Burnham, you deal with serious issues. I suppose what bugs me is that I’d like to think of myself as a reasonable person. Yet given current trends, one has to be open to increasingly over the top policies simply to survive. We can see what has happened to white people when they let down their guard, whether in South Africa or Detroit. It ain’t pleasant.
Reading your article, I was struck that the tactics for creating a white homeland are not much more extreme than the policies being currently used against white people.
Over the last half century, tens of millions of white people have been forced to move out of their homes, towns and countries. We can look at the European peoples expelled from Algeria, Rhodesia and the former Portuguese empire in Africa. It’s been reported that European cities such as Malmo and London are becoming increasingly third worlder dominated. And there’s the abysmal situation for whites in the rainbow nation of South Africa.
Here in the USA, there has been the phenomenon of “white flight.” We’ve seen entire cities emptied of white people, and the successor “peoples of color” effectively wrecking those metropolises. Detroit is the most obvious example, where the lights and water supply are going out and the streets look like some ancient town after the Huns got through pillaging it.
Blacks have no problem with massive use of violence against whites: rioting, gangbanging, flashmobs, thuggery on university campuses. And this is complemented by policies discriminating against whites, from affirmative action to ad nauseam. This makes
things unlivable for whites, hence the flight. It should be recognized that blacks are given ideological justification in all this, not to mention legal, organizational and financial support, by white liberals.
There’s the example of both World Wars, where the victors–in the name of democracy and self-determination of peoples–redrew the map of Europe. The result was the mass expulsion of peoples from lands they had lived in for generations. Again, in the name of democracy and self-determination of peoples.
The modern state has no problem in enacting the most draconian legislation to enforce its will. As one example, the US war on drugs involves extra-constitutional methods such as asset forfeiture, mandatory drug testing, no knock warrants, paramilitary policing, massive indoctrination (DARE, anti-drug PSAs, etc.), extrajudicial renditions (i.e., kidnapping), and the use of the armed forces to enforce American law as far afield as the Andes and Afghanistan. If the government can put millions of people in jail for drug use, then why not make a similar effort towards enforcing the laws re immigration? (Obviously, this is just an example–I don’t want to debate the merits of the drug war right now.)
So it can be done. The question is the will to do it.
I think there is a deeper issue. Once you have a white homeland, how do you keep it white? After all, countries like Norway, France, Britain and even the USA used to be entirely white or predominately white. Yet they lost it in part owing to insane egalitarian ideologies. How does one discredit those ideologies such that the next generation does not repeat the errors we see crashing down around us today?
Another point is having an expanding white populace. Families with large numbers of children will displace aging populaces. This part of the equation has to be turned to the favor of white people. An up and coming generation of young white men and women are needed to stake their claim to territory and then defend it.
Anyway, this is a real issue and thanks for bringing it up.
Re: nonwhites with “roots” in America –
What good are roots if you can’t take them with you? -Gertrude Stein
Well Gertie would know, wouldn’t she? Good tip. Thanks.
The only thing we should care about is the survival of our race everything else is irrelevant. Whatever it takes to ensure we survive or sit back and go the way of the dodo.
“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.”
In Europe, the Whites feel powerless to stop the planned replacement even though they are still a huge majority. A century ago, they were a tiny minority in India and Africa, and there was no resistance to their domination.
“We just need to have the will.”
We need to form, shape, develop, and affirm our collective will. But it is hard to do that against the public institutions, without any access to the media, and without freedom of speech.
“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.”
We need a reversal of power. The anti-white side must become afraid of white people. Maybe that will happen when most Whites realize what has happened to them. It seems the first step should be to blow up the Jewish lock on Western institutions. I’m not sure if that will happen peacefully. After that, a few presidents and prime ministers will have to be executed as part of our communication policy. And then, we can start peacefully expelling the invaders.
“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.”
They are not prescient. I don’t think they ever imagined their tactics would work so well and there would be so little resistance. They just kept doing everything they could against the White race. And now, they can only hope that it won’t blow up in their faces.
“White Nationalists believe that our race will become extinct unless we create homogeneously white homelands.”
So, How does one comprehend the solution ? IMO, in these necessary steps:
1. The mass-immigration from the Third world into the First is driven by the vast scale of poverty extant in their lands of origin.
2. These Third-world immigrants, currently invading the West, have not conquered us in war: there has been no Okinawa 1945 scenario in reverse. Their entrance en masse into our white homelands has been made possible only by the active contrivance of the current power-elite.
3. When sufficient Whites grasp and comprehend what is at stake here: the To Be or Not To Be of our white race and civilisation, then their present lack of concern will be a thing of the past, and they will again, as in former times, loyally take up their responsibilities towards their own kind and their own traditional communities. The current elite will, of course, then be removed from power.
4.As for repatriation, that will be simple: From the Whites, re-invigorated by a new-found sense of responsibility, will come an irresistible moral pressure exerted on the foreigners to return to their lands of origin, in order that they aid and comfort their own folk. Bear in mind that the Third-worlders here have not conquered us in war, that they are in fact utterly dependent on the white society.
In conclusion: what is required is for the Whites to understand what is at stake, and then to construct the movement necessary to turn the situation around.
They came here to parasitize on our accumulated capital, i.e. for money.
They will leave for money. Whose money? Their own.
How? By making them pay an annual residence tax whose proceeds are returned to them in their entirety, with interest, when they leave.
This allows us to control the rate of decolonisation. If too few are leaving, the residence tax is raised, if too many, it is lowered.
Very interesting idea.
Great idea — and banks will love the float — money they earn on money sitting still. And the ability to lend this money out over the years and rake in even more profit from it. This will work for everybody — just like our Social Security works miracles for the government over our lifetime of paying into it. I truly think you have hit on something here. Now, if we could only tax the ‘remittances’ they send back monthly to ‘the family in the old country’. All of this would make immigrants squall mightily, because they are not ‘future-thinkers’ and have no trust in either banks or white schemes. Our main concern is that the invasions have to STOP.
I also think we would need a small army of lawyers within our mind-set that could defend us in the myriad of civil rights laws extant in this country and all of Western Civilization, written and implemented since 1965, and voraciously supported by the ACLU, et al. We must urge our followers to enter the legal profession, even at the lowest rungs as law clerks and paralegals, as well as real estate agents, so we can begin ‘taking back our physical land’, one acre and/or one apartment house or gated community at a time.
It has occurred to me that if the Del Webb Corp. can build huge new communities in the middle of the desert in Arizona for folks over 55 — isn’t that ‘ageism’? — then we should be able to build vast new gated communities from scratch near other large cities in any state on ‘waste’ acreage, available only to White people of any age. Right now, that would incur cries of ‘Racism’, etc., and probably be against some civil rights law, but if it can e done for one ‘specialty group’ — those over 55 years of age — surely it can be done racially as well. It’s a start!
YES YES YES! I have had this idea for over a decade. I actually tried to interest a wealthy real estate developer I know into doing something like this. I was going to make it a politically themed gated development – The Heritage American Community – pitched to rabid conservatives and Americana nostalgics. Think Alexandria – of course we would want all-white planned communities, but those would utterly fall afoul of the Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 (I think); a Jewish attorney would find a black guy to pretend he wanted to live there, just so the latter could be told he can’t, which allows the former to sue. And the Jew would win, guaranteed. It’s called “racial discrimination”, and while there is nothing immoral about it from a Christian standpoint (the only standpoint which to me can be considered ethical; without a God as the Supreme Judge of moral conduct, ethics, like logic, can exist analytically, but is has no functional importance), it very much is against the law. The trick is to figure out how to build “implicitly white” settlements which can evade or survive “civil rights” lawsuits. The obvious (to me) way is to market the settlements as “theme developments”, with very white cultural elements as the preferred themes. For WN purposes, even political alignment might do the trick. “A Montana REPUBLICAN Community” might be enough to be essentially equivalent to a whites-only sign on the clubhouse front door.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.