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

On Vetting & Entry into a White Ethnostate, Part I

2,203 words

[1]Part 1 of 3

If we can forgive the optimism, I believe it will be useful to develop standardized vetting algorithms which could be employed during the formation of a white ethnostate. As it has become a matter of self-preservation in the face of mass immigration and the ruthless suppression of white racial identity by our globalist elites, the need for white ethnostates will continue to increase as will our need to determine who should be able to live in them and why. Further, this particular discussion will apply mostly to the presumably tumultuous period during which an ethnostate would be formed, and not to any peaceful post-bellum period. The assumption here is that vetting algorithms developed when the future isn’t in doubt will differ greatly from those in use when the future is. Desperate times do require desperate measures, and the following will be a discussion of what to do in desperate times.

The paradox when forming an ethnostate within a hostile environment can be summed up thusly: With greater racial homogeneity, comes greater promise of a successful ethnostate in the long term but reduced promise of actually achieving that ethnostate in the short term. As with any revolution, the group seeking change needs enough people on its side to effect that change. If the leaders of the revolution are too picky about who can join, then they might not have the numbers to be successful. On the other hand, if they are not picky enough, they will defeat the purpose of the revolution to begin with.

In essence, white nationalists will need to find a compromise between competing goals before entering through the gates of their fabled white ethnostate. This Ethnostate Paradox can be summed up visually in the graph below.


We must mention several things about this graph before continuing:

  1. It is not based on any data or research, nor is it drawn to any scale. It is simply a projection of the two competing ideas mentioned above:
    1. Racially homogeneous nation-states will function better over the long run than racially heterogeneous ones.
    2. Revolutions with more supporters will fare better than revolutions with fewer supporters.
  2. It pertains mostly to the United States but could be adapted for other countries.
  3. This graph does not have anything to say about specific subgroups of white people. Since this graph pertains to the United States, which was, for the most part, founded and populated by people of northern European stock, the epitome of a white ethnostate in this case only consists exclusively of people descended from the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Celtic, or Nordic peoples. Had Italians and Frenchmen founded the United States and comprised the nation’s ethnic majority for two centuries, then ‘Southern and Western Europeans’ would appear on the far right of the X axis. In either event, no value judgment is placed on how well a certain group of whites can contribute to the success of a white ethnostate.
  4. Y axis on the left hand side may as well represent the overall genetic similarities between the groups of people clustered along the X axis, with high values signifying more similarity and low values signifying less similarity.
  5. The angles of both lines are drawn according to my intuition and have no objective validity. The Y axes can cover much distance between zero to one hundred or not. The point is to visualize a peculiar paradox not to achieve any mathematical certainty.

Judging from this graph, where the two lines meet may be a good compromise point between homogeneity and expediency. I call this the ‘Compromise Cross.’ By limiting the definition of ‘white people’ to people descended mostly from indigenous European Caucasians (including Hungarians, Finns, Estonians, and others not on the branches of the Indo-European language tree), whites will benefit from a reasonable amount of genetic similarity and reasonable chances for success.

Consider, however, the million or so Armenians and other Central Asian whites currently living in the United States. These people are technically Caucasian, if only in a more formal or geographical sense of the word. Many are also Christian and share with Europeans a mutual enemy in Islam. Such people could potentially be great allies. However, if the Compromise Cross in the above graph is adhered to, then these people and all their fighting-age young men will be excluded from the ethnostate. Presumably, this would impair the chances of the ethnostate from being formed to begin with. On the other hand, if these people are included, would their genetic, cultural, and linguistic differences with European Caucasians cause strife in white ethnostate once it is formed? These are things the leaders of any white nationalist movement must consider before determining who can join their exclusive club and who can’t.

A lot of this will depend on how desperate the whites are during the formation of a white ethnostate. If things are looking really grim, then the revolution’s leaders will have no choice but to cast a wider net, like so:


Before deciding to declare independence, white nationalist leaders should determine where on the Ethnostate Paradox Graph the dotted line falls. Anyone seeking entry on the left side of the Compromise Cross will have to endure far more vetting than someone coming from the right side of it.

Next to consider are people who are only partially white. What to do about them? Having been part of a multi-racial, miscegenetic America for many years, the reality that any white nationalist movement must face is a large number of people who either get ‘red-pilled’ after marriage and children or who are the products of such unions. There are also many ‘allies of color’ who are perfectly race-realist and sympathetic to white nationalism but are understandably concerned about their place in a white ethnostate should one ever come to pass. A white nationalist movement should have a standardized vetting algorithm in place to deal with such people before announcing its intentions to the world. It should also factor in the kind of non-white an individual partially is. Should someone who is half-white and half-Korean be considered the same way as someone who is three-quarters-white and one-quarter black?

Another thing to consider is how far back in time are we willing to go to determine a person’s race. Great examples would be the canonical Russian writer Alexander Pushkin who had an African great-grandparent. Another would the classical music composer and waltz king Johann Strauss, Jr. whose music has become symbolic of late-nineteenth century Vienna. One of his great-grandparents was a Jew. Would these historical figures be considered white?

I would say yes – even if they weren’t famous. I think it would be downright embarrassing—not to mention self-defeating—if any white nationalist organization were to look past a person’s grandparents for any reason whatsoever. Furthermore, who knows for sure who has what in their ancestral timeline? Do we really want to open that can of cemetery worms?

I addressed this very point recently in article entitled “How to Talk to Conservatives (And Why We Must) [4]”, in which I introduced the “One-Half Not-Black” rule. This stipulates that a person will be considered white if they have at least one parent who is fully white and no parent who is fully black. Hence our interests in grandparents and only grandparents.

Another wrinkle in the vast white culture quilt we wish to knit comes in the form of spouses. What to do with non-white spouses of whites who have children with them? Do any of us have the heart to break apart families? What if one or both spouses agree to fight or donate money or expertise for the cause? When the time comes, are we going to be in a position to say no? My hunch tells me that as long as such a non-white spouse is not fully black, doesn’t mind having very few political rights, and passes all other kinds of vetting (e.g., criminal, ideological, etc.) then perhaps accepting such a person should be considered.

Then there is the daunting task of maintaining a white majority. If the white majority remains below a certain percentage (ninety, let’s say) should a white ethnostate accept fewer non-white applicants than if that majority is over, say, ninety-five percent? During peace time, I would say yes. During war, however, when things can get quite desperate, I wouldn’t be so certain either way.

There is also the temptation to simply say, “No non-whites, no exceptions.” But how practical is this? For one, as I have stated before, the more people whites reject during their time of need, the greater the odds of failure of achieving an ethnostate to begin with. Second, most civilized countries have ethnic minorities, including white ones. Do we want to invite reciprocation by deporting all non-whites in such an absolutist manner? Third, having a small proportion of law-abiding, financially independent, and politically unambitious people of a different race living within your borders won’t necessarily pose a threat to a nation’s health or social cohesion. Minorities which are more inclined towards crime, poverty, public welfare, or conquest (as blacks, Hispanics, and Muslim Middle Easterners tend to be) are an entirely different matter, of course.

There is another thing to consider. White people, especially those from Northern Europe, for whatever reasons, tend to produce the best statesmen and the least corrupt governments in the world. Whites also have produced and still produce the greatest thinkers on politics and statecraft. Whether this distinction goes back into ancient times, I don’t know for sure (my impression from Victor David Hanson’s Carnage and Culture and my studies of Ancient Greek philosophy is that it does), but for the last couple hundred years at least, there is no doubt in my mind that nations run by whites are the most politically free and stable when compared to all the other nations in the world. Of course, there were exceptions such as the Soviet Union. Not all white nations fit the bill. On the other hand, most of the nations that do are white.

Don’t just take my word for it. According to Transparency.org [5], as of 2016, nine of the world’s top ten least corrupt governments were run largely by whites. And seventeen of the top twenty. Domination like that is never an accident. When Sub-Saharan blacks make up nearly ninety-eight percent of the fastest sprinters in the world or when East Asian students comprise nearly all of the top medalists in international mathematics competitions or when forty-three out of the top fifty limbo dancers are pygmies, we have to assume there is something about these people that causes them to excel in these fields, something genetic, which goes beyond mere luck and hard work. So, perhaps there is something about a significant subset of white people which makes them better able to wield power responsibly and not give in to corruption.

If this is the case, then as soon as any white ethnostate establishes itself, many non-whites in the vicinity will be petitioning to enter—because they know they will be better treated among whites than among their own kind or among other non-whites. I honestly believe that a white ethnostate could put the Confederate stars and bars on its flag, twist them into the shape of a swastika, and next to it write “FÜCK YOÜ!” in big heavy metal script, and that still wouldn’t deter much of the non-white horde.

As a result, when whites realize they can get the pick of the non-white litter on very advantageous terms and keep their ninety-plus percent majority, the temptation will be too great to resist. We can theorize all we want today about the benefits of racial homogeneity as we sit tapping away at our keyboards. And that’s great. But when real-world leaders fight real-world wars and receive real-world help from real world people to achieve real-world victories, I’m pretty sure they won’t be asking us for our opinions. They won’t be handing out too many brown paper bags either.

As a result, it might be a good idea to develop algorithms for vetting a small number of non-whites, even if they are not spouses of whites with children.

Final thought: I understand that summarily dropping human beings in racial bucket categories like this may appear cold-blooded. But this is the most humane way to extricate whites from the multi-racial mess we are currently in. Had the American elites in the 1960s not betrayed their own race by allowing non-white immigration in the first place, we would have kept our ninety percent white majority and subsequently no need for white nationalism.

Before we move on to part two, in which I will introduce and discuss my attempt at this vetting algorithm, I suggest everyone re-read Greg Johnson’s excellent essay on this topic called “The Slow Cleanse [6].” In it, he outlines a realistic and mostly peaceful transition from what we have in America today to a legitimate white ethnostate. Although I envision a more violent and chaotic transition, many of the ideas in “The Slow Cleanse [6]” I used as guiding lights for my vetting algorithm.

Hopefully, it will engender more conversation about a white ethnostate, and in more concrete terms.

Stay tuned.