Detail, Carl Larsson, Self-Portrait with Brita, 1895.
1,175 words
Part 2 of 3; part 1 here.
Increasing numbers of uppity white folks are ready for white identity politics. But they are not ready for the ethnostate. Thus they are committed to living in some form of multicultural society. But they also want to make multiculturalism work for them.
For instance, if the government of Sweden were committed to Swedish identity politics in a multicultural society, it would make the Swedish language and culture normative in Sweden. Outsiders living in Sweden, or just visiting, would have to respect Swedish norms. Thus everywhere native Swedes would go, they would feel like they are in their homeland, even if they encounter non-Swedes on a daily basis.
The Swedish government would also be especially committed to securing and enhancing the well-being of Swedes.
But the most important thing the Swedish government must address is the demographic decline of the Swedish people. They must halt and then reverse this trend. Currently, Sweden has a little over ten million people. One fourth are immigrants, and one third have at least one immigrant parent. Because of immigration, low Swedish fertility, and high immigrant fertility, with each passing year, those numbers get worse for native Swedes.
If one instituted a pro-Swedish demographic policy, one would have to encourage higher birthrates among the Swedish population but not other groups. One would also need to create incentives to stop Swedes from emigrating and to encourage Swedish emigrants to return. Finally, one would need to stop the immigration of non-Swedes and instead encourage their emigration.
Once those policies are in place, the creeping decline of Sweden will be replaced with a creeping renewal. It took half a century to make Sweden into a multicultural dystopia. It might take half a century to fix it. In the meantime, Swedes can go about their business as usual, but with the optimism that comes from knowing that their progeny have a bright future ahead, not decline and extinction.
But one will not be able to create a consensus supporting such policies until one announces a demographic target number somewhere under 100%. As an American, I would choose 90%. In 1965, before America abandoned immigration policies that were committed to maintaining a white supermajority, the US was about 90% white. Now the white population is about 60%, and every year those numbers get worse for white Americans.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here.
As for the ethnic breakdown of the non-white percentage, I would leave that completely open. I would, however, make it clear that it could contain representatives of all currently existing non-white groups. In a country like Sweden, the distinction would be between Swedes and non-Swedes, which would include other white ethnic groups like Finns and Estonians.
It is important to specify that members of all current minority groups would have a place under pro-majority demographic policies in order to reduce opposition.
First, many whites who are ready for some form of white identity politics will not accept it unless you leave some room for “based” minority outliers, mail-order brides, indigenous minorities, hard-luck groups like refugees and the descendants of slaves, and the purveyors of their favorite ethnic cuisines.
Second, leaving some space for all existing outsider groups would reduce resistance among such populations. Many outsiders might not resist the end of multiculturalism. They might even welcome it. After all, they want to live in white countries because of their white characteristics — high standards of living, law and order, etc. — and they see that these are threatened by multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is just the majority being gaslighted into a long, drawn-out suicide, with another Third World hellhole at the end of the road. Intelligent non-whites who have escaped such societies don’t want to inflict them on their posterity. But they would resist white identity politics if no provision were made for their kind in the future.
This kind of policy seems fair to all parties. Majorities get their homelands back: Denmark for Danes, Hungary for Hungarians, etc. Indigenous and historically established minority groups have a place as well. Even members of more recent immigrant populations can envision a place for themselves. And if they do not want to live as outsiders in a normatively German Germany, for instance, they have homelands to which they can return, and incentives to do so. Everybody has a place, everybody has a future, everybody’s interests are taken into account.
Ninety-Percent White Nationalism can even deliver a reasonable facsimile of 100% White Nationalism. The ethnostate is the idea of a racially and culturally homogeneous homeland for a particular people. But how homogeneous is homogeneity? In my essay “Homogeneity” in The White Nationalist Manifesto, I distinguish three senses of homogeneity:
- Strict homogeneity — meaning there are no racial and cultural outsiders at all
- De facto homogeneity — meaning that outsiders are present, but citizens are not forced to deal with them, so if one wants, one can live as if one inhabits a strictly homogeneous society
- Normative homogeneity — meaning that if outsiders are present, they accept and live by the norms of the society.
Most white societies will reject strict homogeneity. European colonial societies usually have aboriginal relict populations. Others have descendants of slaves and indentured servants. Still others have long-established minority groups like Swedes in Finland. Strict homogeneity just seems unfair to these groups. Beyond that, most white societies are fine with small numbers of foreign residents, foreign students, foreign tourists, and assimilable immigrants.
However, the presence of such people is no threat to a society if it is committed to normative and de facto forms of homogeneity. A 90% Swedish Sweden can still be 100% normatively Swedish. A 90% Swedish Sweden can also allow Swedes complete freedom of association and disassociation, so that nobody is forced to deal with outsiders if he prefers to remain separate. Thus people in a 90% White Nationalist society can, if they so choose, live as if it is a 100% White Nationalist society, which should satisfy most people.
Some of the most vocal opponents of 90% White Nationalism will be advocates of the 100% variety. The poison pill for them is the Jewish question, for Jews are long-established minorities in practically every white society. Jews are the leading proponents of multiculturalism and race-replacement immigration. If these policies are rejected, many Jews will feel uncomfortable. Some might even emigrate. But some might remain among the 10%. That possibility might reduce Jewish opposition to 90% White Nationalism, but it will guarantee the opposition of hardcore anti-Semites. Such opposition might, however, improve the overall political prospects of 90% White Nationalism.
In the final installment of this series, I will discuss how uppity white folks can put together a winning political coalition.
If you want to support Counter-Currents, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every weekend on DLive.
Don’t forget to sign up for the twice-monthly email Counter-Currents Newsletter for exclusive content, offers, and news.
20 Comments
Buffer states where non-whites who want to live normal lives away from the demonic Enemy are also a solution: military protection, trade, but no voting or citizenship. De facto autonomy that may interest many.
PS is it sensible from a Darwinian standpoint to make a bunch of unnecessary enemies? There will be some form of globalism, the little device in your pocket that allows you to interact with the other side of the world in real time makes that inevitable. The question is whether it will be an annihilating globalism, or a globalism that preserves and respects what came before? Into this I will toss our coming Abolition of Man by AI, robots and trans-humanism. We could have MANY allies if we were respectful rather than hostile and not specifically right wing. A comprehensive package for all people wherein whites are preserved along with everyone else is the solution.
PPS None of this talk matters if we do not have statehood, which we will not achieve without having accommodation and accord with other states. We will be good neighbors, perhaps the best, so why not leverage that to our advantage?
There are, without a doubt, some good and fine people that are black, Hispanic, Indian, Asian, Jewish that are actually quite beneficial to a functioning society. I don’t have any problems with those people. There are also a large proportion of whites that I want nothing to do with. They are completely intolerant of my right to live in peace and in freedom, and so I have no tolerance for them. They can live prosperous lives in the Rainbow nation with the rest of the feral savages.
You cannot ‘leave some room for hard luck groups, such as refugees’ since the entirety of the continent of Africa is one huge ‘hard-luck group’ as is about half the Moslem world, and most of Central and South America, etc. If North America and Europe are to remain productive and progressive in science, technology, and manufacturing, as well as protecting our culture in Art, Music, Literature and History, no open spaces in our borders can be allowed.
The question needs to be asked. Is the white race even worth saving? Evola can be indecipherable for someone like me, but I latched on to one concept. “Even if legitimate leaders were to show up in our present epoch, it’s doubtful they would be recognized. ” I think we need ideas that lead us through the long, dark night. It’s probably too late for me since I’m a 58 year-old married working-class guy. Someone of you smart, well-to-do folks need to mentor the young people in your sphere or influence. It’s way too early or perhaps too late for politics.
The suggestion that Sweden should be 90% Swedish would be too radical even for the new nationalist party Alternative for Sweden. They just want to repatriate at least half a million immigrants. But that wouldn’t be enough to solve the problem.
In Britain the Patriotic Alternative seems to be advocating for a similar policy. They don’t demand that Britain should be 90% British, but rather that they should remain the majority in their own country. That is, however, deeply controversial and enough for being labelled as racists and fascists, which scares the uppity white folks away from the movement.
The world relentlessly moves towards a borderless global civilization. Meritocracies such as ours will be consumed by the global socialists who will drag Western civilization down into the global pit. Human advancement will grind to a halt and the great future once promised to America’s young will evaporate into an endless wild goose chase of closing the gaps in racial intelligence and wealth. Before our very eyes the last stand of Western civilization now takes place against those trying to serupticiously force socialism down our weary throats.
Another great piece from Dr Johnson. I am not taking issue with what he is saying here, just thinking about the mindset of a 90% White Nationalist (aka a civic nationalist).
The thing that struck me with regards to 90% White Nationalism – which we could also call “Let’s Go Back To 1985” – is that it is essentially pointless. For one, why would you even want 10% of the country to be racially alien, anyway? Civic nationalists should have an open debate [with us] about what the actual benefits of this 10% are.
But more importantly, Civ-nats need to realize that staying in a permanent state of 1985 is going to be more trouble than it’s worth. Non-whites are more fecund than Whites are (r versus K type selection; there isn’t much anybody can do about this – unless you’ve got a spare 60,000 years of divergent evolution in a cold environment). Keeping the non-white / foreign numbers at 10% or below is going to be a lot of hassle. The truth is that 1985 necessarily leads to 1995, which in turn leads to 2005, and 2015, and then 2020, and then 2040, and 2060, and so on. It is like a thermostat you need to constantly keep on top of.
It would be far, far easier to simply have 100% White Nationalism and avoid lots and lots of trouble. I believe some kind of compromise could be made, if Civ-Nats are so desperate to have some foreigners around, that we could have White ethnostates-within-a-state, i.e. more rural regions, and they could keep their regions (which are most likely to be urban centers).
“Let’s Go Back To 1985” is basically a cope, because these people probably realize something is wrong but have a pathological inability to “take their own side” and deal with that issue.
The reason why it’s different from 1985 is that 90% white nationalism would include white racial consciousness. I believe this is a good compromise because while it allows whites to protect its racial interests it avoids main complaint from the other side i.e. that we’re out to genocide everyone. Also, I would only be strict with jews, other minorities can be managed relatively easy.
If you want to reach this group, why don’t you open an account in both Gab and Parler and post your articles there? They will not censor them. VDare is already there.
excellent suggestion.
Yes good point. Especially Parler.
While I’m strongly sympathetic to the preservationist thrust behind the article and wish Sweden and other countries has a 90% native majority, I have some concerns. Let’s say those 10% non-Whites were Africans. Now let’s say, of those 10%, 25% had offspring with Swedes. Given that the mixed kids are part-Swedish, let’s say, of their generation 35% of them go on to have children with Swedes. Then of the next generation lets say the 1/4 African, 3/4 Swedish kids go on, as adults, to reproduce with Swedes 50% of the time. Eventually there will be a lot of frizzy-haired light skinned people in Sweden (looking like Malcom Gladwell, perhaps) who aren’t really Swedish and with a blurry identity altogether, though many will call themselves “Swedish.” So now many of those new “Swedes,” who are not really Swedes at all, no longer count as non-Swedish and other come in to fill the 10% allotment.
For that scenario to play out, Swedes would have to somehow reach social consensus for the reasons why the 90% rule is necessary WITHOUT a Swedish ethnic consciousness being redeveloped.
Highly unlikely.
You are wrongly assuming that the population/demographic management and understanding would change but peoples peoples opinions about mixing would be the same as right now.
Hopefully that made sense.
I’ve met quite a lot of ‘uppity white folks’ of all ages throughout the course of my life. Without any exception that I can think of, they all loathe working class/uneducated whites. They would treat their fellow white ‘proles’ with utter disdain, whilst grovelling to any sort of foreign new-comer as if it’s their Christian duty to do so.
You claim that 1/4 of Sweden’s population consists of immigrants and that 1/3 have at least one immigrant parent. 1/4 + 1/3 = 7/12, which is 58.3%. That is not accurate. According to the Swedish Wikipedia, in 2016 the utrikes födda (foreign-born) were 1,784,497, those with 2 foreign-born parents were 535,805, and those with one foreign-born parent were 739,813. The old-stock Swedes were 6, 935,038. That gives a total population of 9,995,153. So, the immigrants are almost 18%, and those with at least one immigrant parent are 12.7%.
That is not even 1/3 of the total population. Granted, these figures are far too high, but not nearly as high as you claimed. The figures for 2020 shouldn’t be that different.
The 1/4 and 1/3 you refer to have overlap.
No, there is no overlap. Immigrants are foreign-born. So, immigrants and the Swedish-born with at least one foreign-born parent are not overlapping categories. One can’t be both foreign-born and Swedish-born.
It is true that this classification doesn’t tell us much about the racial composition of the population. Many of the foreign-born in Sweden are Finnish, and the Queen of Sweden is also foreign-born. Consequently, the crown princess and her siblings are Swedish-born with at least one foreign-born parent.
Sweden: 25% foreign-born, plus 8% more having one foreign-born parent, means 33% having one or more foreign parents.
This is an important article and a very important point.
You could even drop the target even further to begin with.
What is the percentage share of the native Swedes of 2020 Sweden? Lets say its 70% for arguments sake.
Then in that case, one could argue for Sweden to maintain 70% native ethnic Swedes. That alone will trigger the hard leftists into a frenzy and wake up many normies in the middle.
Argue for the most reasonable position that will still provoke the other side to show their hand.
Argue for such a low target reasonable position that those in the middle will think “Look at the leftist frenzy despite their very reasonable request”.
Apparently USA is only 60% european. Then ask to remain 60%. Look at how the hard left will respond to such a reasonable position. The middle sees this and becomes curious.
90% white with continued progress toward full Aryanization would be fine. After all, does anyone think our enemies will halt our genocide after we dip below 50%, 40%, or 10% of the population? Although a foreign population of 10% is small, such a nation still runs the risk of being dominated and/or subverted by elite foreign castes if appropriate measures are not in place to limit their political, social, and economic liberties.
Native tribes could live wherever they survive in their own tribal polities.
At any rate, I think this is all wistful thinking. The dark winter is likely already upon us, and we are going to have to learn how to live in diaspora as a strong and intelligent caste of hyper race-conscious relict European populations (like the Parsis). The rest of the urban “European people” are going to be mocha colored economic slaves of the Israelis, Chinese, and other high IQ race conscious people. The Arab and Turkish conquests of North Africa and the Middle East may be relevant in this regard.