Counter-Currents
1,602 words 
You have to hand it to Donald Trump. Aside from racking up accomplishment after accomplishment in his second term, he has also proven fearless while thinking outside the box for the American people. From abolishing the Department of Education, to militarizing the southern border, to ordering aggressive ICE raids and deportations, to mass-firing partisan federal bureaucrats, to banning DEI, to replacing the IRS with tariffs, to revamping the Kennedy Center, to auditing the government through DOGE, to promising to acquire Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal, to striking a mineral deal with Ukraine in order to end its war with Russia while recouping US losses—this is high-level statesmanship here. Maybe not on 4D chess levels, but still very high. Whether or not Trump succeeds in these endeavors is less important than the fact that he and his MAGA elites are now hitting the globalist Left on multiple fronts and forcing them to play defense, something they are clearly unaccustomed to doing.
While all of this is good for the health and wealth of the United States, we can also assume that it is good for white Americans. In pushing back against initiatives that indulge non-whites or promote racial diversity, Trump is, in a sense, making the country normatively—and unapologetically—white once again. Non-whites, of course, can continue to thrive in America; if they’re here legally and follow the laws no one will be kicking them out. They just have to understand that white people are beginning to grow a spine. They are less willing to have their pockets picked and their spaces taken from them.
So then what to make of Trump’s recent “gold card” scheme to eliminate the national debt?
What an idea that is—selling green cards to wealthy foreigners for $5 million in return for a fast track to US citizenship without collecting taxes on participants’ overseas earnings. This program will replace the government’s EB-5 immigrant investor visa program, which enables foreigners to invest slightly over $1 million in return for a green card and eventual citizenship, but with long wait times and a great amount red tape. The EB-5 program is capped at 10,000 per year, and currently has a waiting list of 250,000. The Gold Card program, on the other hand, will have no cap, so there would be no limit to how many the US government could sell. Participants reportedly will also be heavily vetted.
According to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick at Trump’s cabinet meeting late last month, the EB-5 program has problems that the Gold Card program will not:
The EB-5 program, which has been around for many years, had investment of a million into projects in America and those projects were often suspect. They didn’t really work out. There wasn’t any oversight of it. And so for a million dollar investment you got a Visa and then you came into the country and ended up with a green card. So it was poorly overseen, poorly executed.
So the Gold Card program will import the best (or, really, wealthiest) foreigners, raise money to go against the debt instead of towards dubious work projects, and reduce the bureaucratic log jam of the existing EB-5 program. Win-win-win, right? Lutnick proposes that if only 200,000 of the 250,000 prospective EB-5 investors participate, then that will contribute $1 trillion towards the current $33 trillion debt.
But Trump thinks bigger than that. With Trumpian math, he always thinks bigger:
If we sell a million, right? A million. That’s $5 trillion. $5 trillion. Howard was using a different number but that’s $5 trillion. If we sell 10 million, which is possible, 10 million highly productive people coming in or people that we’re going to make productive. They’ll be young but they’re talented, like a talented athlete—that’s $50 trillion. That means our debt is totally paid off and we have $15 trillion dollars above that. Now I don’t know that we’re going to sell that many. Maybe we won’t sell many at all. But I think we’re going to sell a lot because I think there really is a thirst. No other country can do this ‘cos people don’t want to go to other countries. They want to come here. Everybody wants to come here especially since November 5th.
From an ethnonationalist standpoint, I hesitate to endorse this program. It’s audacious, sure. For that, I admire it. I also admire Trump’s self-confidence not only in himself but in his country, which he always touts as the greatest on Earth. He’s assuming that everyone who isn’t crazy would want to come to America—which is certainly true for the desperately poor everywhere. But Trump makes this assumption of wealthy foreigners, which is iffy because such people have less reason to emigrate. Still, if Lutnick’s prediction is accurate—as it could very well be, given the current EB-5 waitlist—then at the very least the US will end up with $1 trillion it didn’t have before.
According to Trump, you’ll never find a better deal than this:
I know it’s going to be a great investment, but we have to be able to get people in the country and we want people that are productive people. And I will tell you the people that can pay 5 million, they’re going to create jobs. They’re going to spend a lot of money on jobs. They’re going to have to pay taxes on that too. So they’re going to be hiring people. They’re going to be bringing people in and companies in and I don’t know, maybe it will sell like crazy. I happen to think it’s going to sell like crazy. It’s a bargain.
On the other hand, inviting non-white immigrants is always dodgy, even the wealthy, high-IQ types. Greg Johnson and I both recently weighed in on the perils of using the H1-B Visa program to fast track Indian immigration. During his cabinet meeting, Trump floated the possibility of companies forking over $5 million for every talented techie from India, China, or Japan who works for them and wants to become a US citizen. Then again, he’s also open to wealthy Russians taking advantage of the program. So the participants are not limited to non-whites.
One glaring flaw in the plan that few seem to be discussing is the brain drain it will leave behind. If anything, the left wing argument against Trump’s gold card plan should be that by fobbing off the best and brightest non-whites, Trump will be contributing to the devolution of non-white homelands into impoverished and talent-scarce wastelands. I know that left-wing arguments carry little to no weight here at Counter-Currents. But in this case, they’re not wrong.
It’s also quite difficult to fault a president for schemes like this while he also rolls out the red carpet for the very white Afrikaners of South Africa who are being abused by their black majority and are on the verge of having their land stolen by their kleptocratic government.
— Boer (@twatterbaas) March 7, 2025
Fast forward to 2028 and the United States gains, say, a million hard-working, productive whites from South Africa on top of Lutnick’s 200,000 deep-pocketed gold card immigrants, a third of whom are white. Would that really be such a horrible trade off?
When we zoom out, I think we’re beginning to see John Derbyshire’s Sun People vs. Snow People dichotomy emerge as the fork in the road facing white people. Either divergence will lead to at least assimilation with non-whites. The former option offers the reward of eventual reclamation of control of our homelands through various forms of white supremacy, but at the risk of mongrelization. On the other hand, the latter option offers the reward of greater wealth and prosperity with higher quality immigrants, but at the risk of losing control to capable outgroups that have their own agendas.
The best of all worlds would be for whites in America to side with snow people such as East Asians and high-caste Indians, but establish rigorous taboos against miscegenation while fighting tooth and nail to maintain their majority.
As for the gold card plan itself, will it work? I don’t know. It should be rolling out this month, so we may see some results soon. Will Trump’s gold card prove gaudy enough to warrant its $5 million price tag? The Hill doesn’t seem to think so, despite liking the program in theory [emphasis mine]:
The $5 million price tag, however, is unrealistic. Few people are going to be able to afford it, and the cost makes the program less attractive even to wealthy individuals. David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, explained in an interview that the new program would be “significantly less attractive to highly wealthy individuals than the [investor visa], under which not only is the amount lower, but investors get back their investment once a green card is approved.”
Furthermore, Bier said that the president’s expectations that companies would pay $5 million to bring in top talent is also unrealistic. “No company would pay $5 million for a green card for any worker. They can’t make $5 million on many, if any, workers.” He highlighted that green card holders, and likely potential “gold card” holders, can go to a different company whenever they want, as legal residency is not tied to a specific job offer.
With a $5 million cost, it’s unlikely that many individuals would take up the offer. Thus, replacing the investor visa with the less affordable “gold card” may, in turn, have the effect of reducing legal immigration instead of expanding it.
Hey, you know what? Maybe that magnificent bastard Donald Trump is playing 4D chess after all.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
24 comments
He should impose a 500 year moratorium against legal and illegal immigration. 👍
“The best of all worlds would be for whites in America to side with snow people such as East Asians and high-caste Indians, but establish rigorous taboos against miscegenation while fighting tooth and nail to maintain their majority.”
No, this is not the best of all worlds (except maybe in a Panglossian sense). Bringing in wealthy, high IQ Asians who have high in-group preferences and strong tendencies to be corrupt is an awful idea, even if they hand over a few shekels. We don’t need to expand the non-white over-class that despises us and will find ways–legal and illegal–to bring in their less intelligent family members and other compatriots. And many of whom may choose to “msicegenate” with upwardly mobile whites. Take a look at a college campus some day.
Trump is already starting to do what is needed to attack the debt with DOGE. Reducing government spending to balance the budget and using any excess taxes to repay the debt will snowball once we can start to shrink the debt repayment portion of the debt. It will take some time. Trump’s Gold Card idea, OTOH, is one of those “get-rich-quick” schemes that always backfire.
“Establish rigorous taboos against miscegenation”? That’s going to happen soon–in some imaginary universe. A very large part of the generation now entering adulthood has already been brainwashed to think that dating outside their ethnicity is preferable. It’s going to take a very long battle of social trench warfare to change that. Given current majority beliefs , we can’t legislate in-group preferences–but we can legislate against immigration.
Usually it’s best to reject the bribe.
“A very large part of the generation now entering adulthood has already been brainwashed to think that dating outside their ethnicity is preferable”
Do you have data to support this assertion, or is it merely a paranoid fantasy?
Hey there Fionn! In a recent, previous post that we here on this forum read, you stated that you love non-White people, and I was wondering if you could expand upon that? Also, are you a subversive element on this forum? Thanks for answering these questions!
Wow Baleful. What a good question. I have so many answers I could give you, and most of them are crass insults.
You are misquoting me, as you know. I love Whites more than non-Whites. But, I do not dehumanize non-Whites because I am not a sperg, a neo-Nazi, or an edgelord. I would like them to thrive, in their own countries.
You know all this. Good luck with your TND though, I guess.
Let me ask you this: do you ACTUALLY love them, or are you just saying that out of White guilt, or fear of repercussions?
This has been promoted since Coudenhove-Kalergi a century ago, but didn’t gain much traction until more recently. Lately it’s been pushed big time by Hollyweird and the big three (((advertising agencies))).
It’s definitely promoted, but is it working? Pew Research 2017 said only 11% of Whites were in interracial marriages.
That’s still too high, but on the other hand, it means 89% of Whites married Whites.
Blackpillers should STFU.
I know math is hard for some, but there is something called a trendline that shows how things change over time. That 11 percent number is for the whole population, including the older people who will no longer have children. For Boomers and maybe Gen X, interracial marriages were still rare, in the low single digits. That means for the younger people who are the ones having children, the percentage is closer to 20.
Plus, although estimates vary using AI, roughly 25 percent of births to white mothers are now out-of-wedlock. Blacks (69 percent( and Hispanics (48 percent) are much more likely to have out-of-wedlock children than whites, so there is a very good chance that a lot of those out-of-wedlock births to white women are interracial. The “bruthas” are especially known for spreading their seed and disappearing.
Given these trends, it is possible that as many as 25 to 30 percent of births to white women are now interracial. Given that we are already less than 60 percent of the population, that’s just a few generations to irrelevance as a people in the country we created and built.
I’m just wondering: who should STFU? People who understand statistics and can recognize patterns or those who simplistically think a single vague number–a fuzzy snapshot in time–says it all?
That figure was pretty close to zero back in the 1960s, though naturally I’d prefer 0.000000000%. Even in the 1980s, at least where I was from, that stuff just didn’t fly. Most people by nature don’t want to do that, and are willing to settle only if they have no other alternatives. Race mixing is only getting popular because it’s being aggressively promoted in (((the media))).
Although 11% might not seem like a lot, consider also that our ability to reproduce ourselves is also hindered by things like consumerism and alternative lifestyles, which also are heavily promoted above what they naturally would be. These wouldn’t be such a problem if not for the fact that – thanks to our governments – we’re sharing our countries with rapidly-breeding non-Whites who we have to support with our taxes while they compete with us for our territory, resources, and women. So indeed, it’s a problem, among others of course.
“Do you have data to support this assertion, or is it merely a paranoid fantasy?”
I will assent that I was a little flippant with my use of “very large part” without supporting evidence–I had no idea my comment was being peer-reviewed. However, your suggestion that my noticing a very apparent trend is some sort of “paranoid fantasy” says a lot more about you than it does about me. I agree with Baleful Eye that some of your previous comments have been rather odd for a white nationalist site.
I don’t know of any actual studies on the specific matter of “preferences,” but I have seen studies that suggest over 90 percent of white Americans approve of interracial relationships. As far as brainwashing goes, have you seen a commercial lately? And for something somewhat empirical, let’s look at the Wikipedia demographic category of “Two or More Races,” taken from the US Census. Certainly, having children with somebody counts as a preference. Before 2000, they didn’t count such statistics because they were so negligible. Let’s look at 3 very different US cites. For Seattle, in 2000 mixed-race people were 4.4 percent, in 2010 7.3 percent, and in 2020 8.4 percent. In Raleigh, in 2000 they were 1.4 percent, in 2010 1.9 percent, and in 2020 3.9 percent. In Philadelphia, in 2000 it was 2.2 percent, in 2010 2.8 percent, in 2020 6.9 percent. Because mixed-race was a negligible category before 2000, with almost no mixed-race children, that means that in the last few years in Philly and Seattle at least 15 percent or more (maybe as high as 30 percent) of newborns must be mixed-race to cause such a rapid increase for the whole population. It doesn’t take many generations of that for the native stock to be made negligible themselves. And while the actual percentages may be lower in some rural areas, the rates of increase are the same.
There’s a big difference between paranoid and realistic. When something is actually happening, it’s realistic. Calling somebody paranoid for noticing actual patterns is–what? I’ll let readers use their own descriptions.
You were too flippant, I was too flippant, let’s call the whole thing off.
That said, White people “approving of” interracial relationships is not the same as White people entering them. Please see my reply to Rainbow.
Anyway, you’re probably right that I’m not hardcore enough to be commenting here. I guess I’ll stick to Steve Sailer and Yarvin from now on. Enjoy your Nazi party.
Hi Fionn,
Based on what I’m reading in this thread you seem “hard core” enough for Counter-Currents. Thanks.
Call off what, exactly? The beef you started when you essentially called Derek Stark an irrational paranoid? Yours is the psychology of the arrogant teenage bully coward who throws a sucker punch at someone, and then pleads for a stop to the fight after being kicked in the balls and being repeatedly smashed in the face. I believe the term for people like you is “shit-heel”. Enjoy your day now.
Agree. Perhaps I should have said the best of all worlds, given the Hobson dilemma of the allegorical fork in the road that the US government is presenting us with.
Because Trump is doing some things you like, you’re now singing the virtues of a revised H1-B program. You’re also moving towards IQ nationalism rather than white nationalism with these suggestions about a white/Asian alliance. The notion that importing a million more non-whites is suddenly a good thing because it would theoretically marginally reduce the debt is just the latest spin on the age old economic argument for immigration.
Let me ask you this – when these million wealthy Asians come here, what next? Do they then just disappear into the background and assimilate? Or do they use their wealth to affect politics, economics, and culture, probably enhancing the power of their own people at the expense of whites? Historical experience clearly suggests the latter.
And if this first million works to reduce the oh so important national debt, what possible rationale could there be for stopping there? Why not import 33 million and eliminate the debt entirely? In fact, let’s just reduce the cost of a gold card to $10 and import all 4.8 billion people in Asia – that would get us into a significant budget surplus! Again, based on historical experience, how can you operate under the assumption that the one million number would ever be the end?
This has always been the danger of Trump to WN. There are too many people who get taken in by him and begin to reflexively advocate whatever he says. And often at least half of everything he says is a terrible idea, especially on race. This is the same man who told us that George Floyd was smiling down from heaven at the prospect of the platinum plan. Like anyone else, we should praise Trump when he does/says good things and criticize him when he does/says bad things.
Well, I agree in general, but at least we’re getting something for these immigrants. As opposed to the many more millions of Haitian immigrants who have been a net loss. Wealth also tends to inherently select for talent.
Hi Corday. Just because the Gold Card plan is an improvement over open borders does not mean indeed necessarily endorse it. But as a say 70% percent solution (because foreign whites can buy these cards too) and in conjunction with Trump’s South Africa policy, it could put whites in a better spot than we are in now. I would prefer separation eventually WN through red state secession as I have stated multiple times. And your warnings about IQ nationalism are well taken. My point is that if we give in to this plan and others like it, then yes Derb’s dichotomy looms. And that is not a good thing. In lieu of red state secession, we would have to severely limit miscegenation and push for perpetual majorities in order to survive this kind of thing. Still, in this case we have more peaceful options than the leftist alternative.
Did you catch my little joke at the end? That may reveal a bit more about how I really feel about this plan.
The “strange” abrupt fawning over Trump on CC is about as subtle as an earthquake. No mention of pro Israel Trump attempting to take down anti Israel Rep Thomas Massie.
It’s like the strange death of Europe. All these strange occurrences.
Kenny, you come off like a paranoid asshole. You are banned from commenting here.
Goodness Greg, did Kenny really just get banned from commenting, or were you just being facetious?
I’m ultra sensitive to this right now because my local newspaper just banned the entire comment section from its news articles, & SO much has been lost. Evidently, this has happened at my local newspaper before, & they did end up bringing the comments section back. In its history, has Counter-Currents ever completely shut down its comments section?
I think Greg’s joking. There is nothing inappropriate about Kenny’s comment. Don is a mixed bag now but after all is said and done, he is no good for Maga-ites or conservatives in general. Has anyone ever considered that maybe he is just a front man?
This is a bad idea. It’s also a bad look for WN to believe Trump’s gaudy capitalism will bring in fellow “snow people” like East Asians and high caste Indians who want to be bros with us, and we can all make America great again together while making a few bucks out of it.
Spencer: Inviting non-white immigrants is always dodgy, even the wealthy, high-IQ types.
—
Always, if you are serious about preserving the precious White gene pool. Even with lots of money and high IQs, they cannot make White babies. That’s why they are called non-White.
Kim: March 16, 2025 I’m ultra sensitive to this right now because my local newspaper just banned the entire comment section from its news articles, & SO much has been lost…
—
Many controlled online periodicals were forced to remove comments under their articles because dissenters dominated. They couldn’t have that.
My county here in Tennessee was once recognized as the second most conservative county in the entire country, yet our small newspaper of record for the county is now part of a six-paper conglomerate that controls print media in the region and is decidedly liberal, or, at least, does not represent the conservative views of its readership. It is not Jew-owned, but might as well be for following the controlled media line when it comes to anything political. Nothing controversial allowed.
The alternative for folks here seems to be Faceberg, something I will have no part of.
There are ways, however, to get around bland local media control. I sometimees write letters to the editor of my local paper, not expecting to be published, but my view gets out by bypassing the local censors — republishing the letter on our own site where it willl not be censored and will actually receive wider readership. I am well aware that many folks in my nearly all-White county agree with my reasonable pro-White views: Chairman Williams: Letter on Immigration | National Vanguard
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.