Ethnic-Linguistic Map of Europe
2,270 words
Spanish translation here
White Nationalists believe that that best form of society is the sovereign ethnostate that is racially and ethnically homogeneous (that’s homogenEous, not homogenous, like milk). But is homogeneity really possible? Yes, of course, it is. Let’s talk about racial homogeneity first, then ethnic homogeneity.
We know that racial homogeneity is possible, since only a few decades ago, almost all of Europe was homogeneously white. Indeed, to this day, significant but shrinking parts of Europe and white diaspora societies — entire towns, and entire regions — have no nonwhites at all. So it is quite conceivable that within a few decades, by moving borders and populations, we can create racially homogeneous homelands for all European peoples.
Moving masses of people has never been easier, which is why white countries are being invaded in the first place. But if it is possible for them to come here, it is possible for them to go back. If they came on foot, they can leave on foot. If they came by planes, trains, and automobiles, they can leave the same way. We don’t lack technical means to repatriate non-whites. We simply lack the political will. But that is already changing, which is why Trump and other nationalist-populists are surging.
But one might entertain some exceptions to complete racial homogeneity.
First, in white colonial societies, there might be non-white aboriginal relict populations that are too small and isolated to constitute independent, sovereign ethnostates. So one might wish to create non-sovereign, ethnic reservations with maximum local autonomy so they can lead their lives as they seem fit. But it should be pointed out that there are no aboriginal non-white populations in Europe, so no such accommodations need be made there.
Second, white ethnostates will surely maintain trade and diplomatic relationships with at least some non-white societies, which will lead to both non-white visitors — such as tourists and business travelers — and non-white residents, such as diplomats. Since the republics of science, technology, arts, and letters deal with universal values, they are inherently cosmopolitan, a white ethnostate might also wish to host students, scientists, scholars, and artists from non-white countries, for varying periods of time.
In both of these cases, however, a white ethnostate would keep such populations small enough to be manageable and segregated from the rest of the society, so any citizen who so desires could completely avoid dealing with racial aliens. This would mean that such an ethnostate could guarantee de facto racial homogeneity to every citizen who desires it. Furthermore, every non-white living in such a society would accept and live by white norms of behavior. This is the exact opposite of today’s multiculturalism, in which whites are expected to abandon our norms and practices whenever aliens demand it.
This leads us to a threefold distinction:
- Strict homogeneity — meaning the complete lack of racial or ethnic aliens
- De facto homogeneity — meaning that even if alien elements are present, they are segregated so that the vast majority of people — all of them that want to — live in a de facto homogeneous society
- Normative homogeneity — meaning that even if alien elements are present, they accept and act according to the norms of the society
Every ethnostate could establish complete racial homogeneity, if it wanted to pay the price. But if they do not want to go that far, they can still guarantee de facto homogeneous living spaces for all citizens who want them, and then can uphold and enforce normative homogeneity, i.e., the hegemony of white values, for whites and non-whites alike.
Complete ethnic homogeneity, like complete racial homogeneity, is possible in principle, if one wishes to pay the price. But achieving ethnic homogeneity is much trickier than racial homogeneity. In Europe, one can simply repatriate all non-whites to their ancestral homelands. But that would leave a Europe in which political borders seldom map out neatly along ethnic borders. One could rectify this situation by breaking up multinational states and moving peoples and borders around. But all of these solutions are much more costly than removing non-white interlopers, simply because the primary costs must be borne by our fellow whites.
We believe that breaking up multinational states on ethnic lines — for instance in Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, Spain, France, or the UK — is the best way to resolve ethnic conflicts and preserve ethnic diversity. There are two ways of attaining this end: the easy way and the hard way, the velvet divorce of the Czechs and the Slovaks, or the wars and ethnic cleansing of the Balkans. But as the Scottish and Catalan referendums revealed, many people’s nationalistic impulses are invested in preserving multinational states, even from the secession of peoples they disdain as backwards, inferior, Left-wing, and decadent. We can only hope that these sentiments ebb as the tide of ethnonationalist thinking continues to rise.
Imagine, then, a Europe in which the most serious ethnic tensions have been resolved by secessions, partitions, and — where necessary — population exchanges. Even in such a Europe, there will still be ethnic minorities: Swedes in Finland, Hungarians in Romania, Poles in Lithuania, etc. There will also be Europeans who wish to work and study in other European countries, Europeans who marry people from other nations, and Europeans who might wish to retire in warmer climes. Also, because misfortune can befall every society, international law should require every sovereign state to make provisions for refugees from natural disasters, wars, and oppression. Similar conditions will pertain in European colonial societies, with the added difference that they might also have non-white aboriginal relict populations.
What should our attitude be toward people from other white nations?
Ethnonationalists wish to preserve distinct European cultures and subracial types, which is the whole point of having distinct homelands in the first place. We do not want to see the emergence of a homogeneous European man or a white monoculture, whether in “low” consumerist/popular or a “high” cultural Marxist versions. Therefore, policies toward other white nations must bear this goal in mind. The aim of preserving distinct nations dictates:
- No white society should allow large populations of guest workers from other white societies, or create conditions that lead large numbers of its own people to search for work abroad. All white societies should have full employment policies for their own populations.
- Immigration between white societies should be minimized. Practically all cases would be due to marriage. The naturalization process should firmly promote normative homogeneity, i.e., assimilation of the dominant language and culture by immigrants and especially by their children. It is possible for Europeans to join other European nations, and even if they might not be able to fully assimilate, their children certainly can.
- Ethnic minority groups should be allowed to retain their own languages and cultures. There should be no forced assimilation, as there was under civic nationalist regimes, since this simply creates conflict. But by the same token, minorities create a great deal of resentment by refusing to learn the dominant language and demanding that the state cater to them by instituting bilingualism. Again, the principle should be normative cultural homogeneity, meaning that outsiders need to abide by the local language and customs. If they find this oppressive, they have homelands they can move to.
- Expatriates from other white nations should be allowed, in limited numbers, as long as they respect the dominant culture and the natives need not interact with them.
- No nation can simply turn away refugees, because some day its people may need to seek refuge in other lands. But white nations are under no obligation to take in non-white refugees, which can go to other non-white countries. White refugees, however, should be welcomed and helped until such time as they can return to their homelands. In the case of refugees who have no homelands they can return to, like white Rhodesians and South Africans, they should he offered the chance to immigrate. Depending on their destination, they could be given the option of assimilating to the dominant culture or becoming a distinct ethnic minority.
- As for tourists, business travelers, diplomats, students, scholars, artists, and scientists: the same policies should pertain to those from white countries as to those from non-white ones. Their numbers should be limited, they should respect the dominant culture, and the natives should be completely free to avoid them if they so choose.
- To maintain racial purity, ethnostates should have laws against miscegenation. These are obviously more important in colonial societies with non-white relict populations, but they should exist in all white societies to prevent people from trying to bring home non-white spouses.
The main objection to compromising on absolute racial and ethnic homogeneity is that it seems like a slippery slope toward civic nationalism. But this is a mistake. Civic nationalists hold that people of radically different races and cultures can become part of the same society simply by professing a civic creed and taking an oath. That is a very thin conception of identity. Ethnonationalists have a much thicker sense of identity based on both genetic kinship and enculturation. The primary cultural marker that sets ethnic groups apart is different native languages. But it is hard to become fluent in another language — and even then, it will never replace one’s mother tongue.
Civic nationalists believe that it is very easy to become a member of another society. Ethnonationalists believe that it is difficult to impossible. It is impossible for non-whites to become members of white societies. It is difficult for whites to become members of other white societies. It is easier, of course, if an immigrant and his new homeland share the same native tongue and basic culture — for instance, the countries of the Anglosphere. But the greater the linguistic and cultural differences, the greater the difficulty of assimilation, to the point that full assimilation is often possible only for the children of immigrants, who should be raised to speak the dominant language as their mother tongue.
Not only do ethnonationalists think that cultural assimilation is difficult, they only insist on it for immigrants. For visitors and temporary residents, white and non-white alike, as well as for white minority groups living within their borders, ethnonationalists do not want or encourage assimilation. Instead, they wish different groups to maintain their cultural identities and simply accommodate the dominant culture by respecting its norms and by speaking the dominant language in public dealings. Of course travelers and temporary residents will have some latitude in these matters, but permanent residents should be held to higher standards. Not everyone within a given country at a given moment might be a citizen (which is homogeneity in the strict sense), but all of them should respect its laws and culture, which is the meaning of normative homogeneity.
Isn’t normative homogeneity just cultural chauvinism or supremacism? It is not necessarily chauvinism, because chauvinism is a conviction of superiority. But we do not insist that foreigners speak our language and follow our customs because we think they are superior. We insist upon it simply because they are our own, and we set the rules in our homeland just as we set the rules in our individual homes. And as for supremacism: can anyone explain to me why our language, culture, and norms should not be supreme in our own homelands?
Isn’t the idea of de facto homogeneity just another version of the gated community, where people flee from diversity in order to enjoy life among their own kind? This is a flawed analogy. First of all, even in gated communities, outsiders come and go: visitors, deliverymen, tradesmen, etc. But they have to follow the local rules, and they can’t enter private homes without permission. So residents don’t have to deal with them if they don’t want to. Second, the ethnostate itself is a gated community, in which outsiders come and go, but only by permission; they have to follow the local rules; and residents do not have to deal with them if they don’t want to. So within an ethnostate, even though there might be outsiders, the citizens come first, and there is a commitment to allowing them to live without any contact with outsiders whatsoever, if that is their choice. This is what it means to have de facto racial and ethnic homogeneity within an ethnically defined society.
To many, the idea of complete racial and ethnic homogeneity will seem utopian. To others, it will seem extremist, fearful, and ungenerous. This is all true. But the fear that motivates us is the prospect of racial and cultural extinction — a fear which, as I have argued in my essays “White Extinction” and “White Genocide,” is completely reasonable. A race facing genocide cannot afford to indulge in sentimentality, moderation, and half measures. At minimum, the survival of our race requires an end to non-white economic competition, political power, and genetic contamination in white homelands, and the best way to accomplish that is complete separation. Perfecting the ethnic homogeneity of white nations is a far less pressing matter. The price of not pursuing white homelands is extinction, and compared to that prospect, what we lose by going to extremes is negligible. What critics call going to extremes is simply what I call erring on the side of caution.
However, once whites feel that we have a future again, we will be able to take the risk of accepting less than fully homogeneous societies, although they should always be on our own terms, meaning that we should always insist on normative and de facto homogeneity, which will still create levels of intelligibility, community, and belonging far beyond what most white people can enjoy today.
22 Comments
Quite right, all of it, especially the ending. No half measures. The Chinese drove every White out, except for a few Jewish or Russian Communist advisors. They had to feel China was theirs again. Once they did, they opened up again – on their terms not anyone else’s.
But whites should also be encouraged to have stable and large families. LGBTQIXYZ/Feminist rubbish has had a devastating effect on white population. I am an Indo-Aryan of Persian ancestry and fully understand this urge to reject mindless assimilation.
White culture gave us the likes of Shakespeare. And I hold that Whites are essential to its survival as a semi divine text. The problem is that Whites are too apologetic to even assert their civilizational achievements. Hell, they even temper with this magnificent text just to satiate our brown feelings.
I sincerely wish they wake up and declare with pride what is theirs.
On the practical level, what do you recommend we do with half breeds and quarter breeds?
They should go to any non-white country that will accept them.
We have to be tolerant of our brother’s weaknesses and peccadillos, eh? But only so far. Cultural borders, once agreed upon, must be enforced with an Iron Will. But different White cantons/states will have different borders in regards to these things. We’re not all going to be able to live together. But any such canton or state that relaxes too much on our defining racial issues will risk being thrown out of the Coalition.
That is kind of an issue that will take care of itself. Half-breeds will probably not want to be in our country, and would leave themselves if we gained any power. The ones that stay will do so knowing that they will be absorbed into whiteness.
We don’t want to absorb non-white DNA. That’s one of the reasons for creating white homelands to begin with.
Some remarks :
1) I would also limit the number of tourists, and this pertains for all countries. Look what mass tourism has done to the unique culture of Bali. If you attend a religious ceremony in one of its temples, chances are that there are more foreign tourists present than autochthonous Balinese. Mass tourism may be “good for the economy” and the presence of tourists may be only seasonal, the same sense of ethnic alienation occurs when your country has been flooded with foreign tourists as when it has been flooded with foreign immigrants, especially if the tourists are of another race. With China and India rising economically, western countries soon will be flooded with Chinese and Indian tourists. In the future even African countries may become wealthier and send their tourists to our shores. There should be a cap on the number of tourists allowed. Ethnic homogeneity should be more important than the economic profit mass tourism offers.
2) Whites of a different ethnicity should be allowed to marry autochthonous Whites, but only on a limited scale. Non-Whites should never be allowed to marry into a white country, nor should non-white babies be allowed to be adopted into a white country. White women who have been impregnated by a non-white man should have the right to have their baby, but after its birth she and her baby should leave her white country.
3) Jews, being of Middle Eastern descent, should leave white countries for their own ethno-state Israel, reason for White Nationalists not to join the Palestinian cause and advocate for its dissolution. Since the state of Israel accepts half- and quarter-Jews we should adopt the same criterion for rejecting part-Jews.
4) Then there is the problem of the “anti-white White”. Whites who have actively worked for the destruction of the white race by promoting mass non-white immigration and miscegenation should be expelled from all white countries. That includes politicians and members of the clergy. Ideally Pope Francis should be expelled from Italy. Should after the great purge people still arise who advocate for “tolerance”, “inclusion”, “multi-culturalism” etc. then they should get a warning. If they persist, they should be expelled too.
5) We should also consider the creation of so-called Junk Zones, i.e. limited areas within white countries where people live who are degenerated to such an extent that they better be isolated from normal society. Such people may not procreate with normal people and the worst cases should be sterilized.
6) Conscious white countries should adopt an eugenic policy by promoting the procreation of “better people” in terms of racial purity, physical and mental health, beauty, IQ and other talents and idealism. Child support should be given according to the eugenic value of the parents.
7) We cannot have a healthy country without a healthy culture. Degenerated art and unhealthy ideas should not be allowed in the public sphere, perhaps tolerated in the private sphere, but its worst cases be outright forbidden.
Thanks for this.
It has often been remarked that beautiful people are born of less than attractive parents, and IQ tends to regress to the mean. Other than delving deeply into genetic modification, which seems inevitable, I don’t think we’ll be able to guide development based on the parents.
Junk Zones could also be the Temporary Autonomous Zones, written of by Hakim Bey. Or the Interzones of William Burroughs, a place to get real Chinese food by Chinese people – or to sample other forbidden pleasures. The gates close at 2:00 am, so wear a watch. High level or in other words, recovered Junkies, could reapply for admission as could their children. Foreign nationals like the Chinese mentioned above, would not be citizens. The Junk Zones could have a slightly (add italics) more liberal policy in accepting these, for the culinary and forbidden pleasures aspect or the transmission of useful skills or cultural memes, though these would best be handled more directly.
Honestly, I think a sensible white society could do without these entirely. If you want that kind of stuff, take a trip to the far East.
“good for the economy”
This is the most important problem that feeds the invasion of non-whites in western countries. The artistic and academic castes always produces nonsenses. But their ideas wouldn’t have been so influential if the economic world wouldn’t have endorsed them.
the best and only form of eugenics imo would be a form of pair bonding that incentivizes outbreeding without outsourcing beyond its nation. such a program may be a type of social or economic incentive for children of parents who were analyzed genetically to measure the amount of randomness in their pairing. this would maximize the amount of random mutations to select from and increase the likelihood of adaptive traits like inteligence becoming expressed in a population. this is the one form of eugenics that gene editing cannot manufacture for the same reason artificial inteligence does not invent things.
Practical common sense
ideas . . .
what’s not to like.
The percentage of out-groups needs to be kept extremely low. Even in Japan, where the number is around 2%, you can easily spot foreigners in Tokyo. The difference between 1% and 2%, let alone 5%-10%, is staggering. People seem to forget this very simple math. Ideally the number would be even less than 1%.
I am glad someone is talking about problem of white minorities living in other white states. This problem is being shadowed by a much bigger problem of non-white minorities, but European countries were devastated by white migration as well. E.g Slovenia was 97% ethnic Slovenians in census of 1951. In 2001 census its still over 99% white, but only 83% ethnic Slovenians. In 2011 census they didn’t ask for ethnicity, but my guess is that trend is accelerating.
It is a more complex issue to solve than with non-white population. I dont care what happens with non-whites, but I care about other white ethnic groups. Nevertheless, this problem needs to be addressed and these people need to go back.
For the sake of discussion I will stipulate that in much of Europe the 3rd world immigrants who have arrived, many claiming refugee status from Bush’s wars in the Middle East, may be able to be repatriated some time soon. I’m skeptical about that happening, but I’ll go along with it for the sake of argument. It is sort of theoretically possible, give big political change.
The article is silent on North America, essentially. The USA has 38 Million blacks. The majority of them have roots in North America that go back to slavery. The act prohibiting the importation of slaves went into effect in 1808, so most blacks living today have been here for five or more generations, possibly longer than the average white Americans.
Do to the nature of their kidnapping from Africa few have any idea what country or tribe they came from, none speak African languages or have any real connection with the continent.
The commenters here have just sort of floated over all this, to focus on “what will we do with half-breeds and quarter-breeds?”. It’s ridiculous, you are living in a fantasy world.
Besides the 38 million blacks, America has millions of other non-White minorities that have been here for generations. A lot of Chinese arrived in the late 1890s. Some Mexicans have lived in Texas for generations. We have 5.2 million AmerIndians in the USA, most of whom do not live on reservations, many of whom have tenuous or non-existant tribal connections, but are still real Indians.
It is impossible to imagine a “peaceful ethnic cleansing” scenario where 80 or 90 million people out of the 325 million total give up and all agree to move somewhere else, outside of the USA. Yet, that is what is accepted as a plausible future for our nation in article after article on the AltRight.
There is no “there” where all these people will go.
The closest precedent for million-person scale mass relocation is WW2, where millions of Jews were moved out of Germany and Poland to Concentration Camps. The larger plans to move millions of Poles out of Poland to make way for ethnic Germans failed, and then the Nazis were crushed by the Allies. There were millions of post-war relocations, but this was localized ethnic sorting. Poles who ended up in Russia moved west to Poland. Germans who ended up in Poland moved to Germany.
Perhaps I am in the minority on the right in thinking that the both World Wars were a terrible disaster for Europe and the European race. Entire generations of brave men were killed, and in the end nothing accomplished.
I have previously described the AltRights continual internal discussion of the future ethno-state as LARPing, that is it’s role playing as if something that is utterly unachievable is sure to happen, if we just believe it will. Once you have accepted that the universe has elves and trolls it’s perfectly reasonable to discuss troll-elf relations over a beer.
For the rest of us, living in reality, it’s silly. The imagination and enterprise of a generation is going to expire having been used to speculate, in extreme detail, about the ins and outs of a future ethnostate which no one *really* believes is possible. The hardest problems are skipped over as axioms.
Every white nationalist with shred of common sense knows peaceful repatriation is impossible. Its inevitably going to end in bloody hot genocide. But its still important to have this discussion beforehand about trying to expatriate these people peacefully, so that once the deed is done the history will show we tried to take the high way.
Non-whites are never going to leave white societies voluntarily, the living is too good, the honey too sweet. It will take a very sharp spear, and the vigorous use of it at every opportunity to even make the non-white inclined towards separation. That is only part of the problem, even if whites could make that spear, they lack the will to use it, two thousand years of Christianity has seen to that. No, only unlimited biological warfare can save a race that has lost the will to live.
If a race has lost the will to cut off welfare payments and employment to invaders then it lacks the will to use “unlimited biological warfare.” This is “hard man” talk, and it goes nowhere.
Partition n population exchange may be possible also within the US. Blacks could be “repatriated” to Mississippi, Alabama, n Georgia where only people of SSA ancestry would enjoy first-class citizenship n employment preferences. In the rest of the US, whites would have first-class citizenship n enjoy employment preferences. A kind of Plessy writ large or a domestic Liberia. Still part of the US, but an autonomous territory like Guam or Puerto Rico.
Force would be unnecessary. Financial inducements n tax holidays would quickly induce millions to relocate. Crime rates would drop, white educational systems would begin to recover, n the costs of subsidizing MAGeria would be far less than the current “Great Society” debacle.