2,036 words
Part 2 of 3 (whole series here)
The Idea of a Homeland
One way to reduce resistance to remigration is to base it on the idea of a universal right to a homeland.[1] Every individual and every family should have the right to its own home, a refuge from the world where they can live as they see fit. Likewise, every people should have the right to their own homeland, where they can preserve their unique heritage and ways of life.
The idea of a universal right to a homeland has two important implications:
- A homeland is a place where citizens have privileges not enjoyed by other peoples. The purpose of a homeland is to preserve a people and their way of life for all time. Thus they must be demographically, politically, and culturally dominant, meaning that their language and culture are normative, and measures are in place to ensure their demographic continuity and dominance. This is ethnic nationalism.
- Even though a homeland privileges one people over others, this is not unfair to others, for they have the right to homelands of their own. In fact, most of them do have homelands.
The right to a homeland is meaningless, of course, if there are no controls on who can live there. This means borders. It also means policies on migration (immigration and emigration) based on the interests of the founding people.
Due to historical contingencies, most white societies are not ethnically homogeneous. But ethnic nationalism does not depend on ethnic homogeneity. An ethnostate is primarily a legal concept establishing a territory and a state dedicated to a particular people and its interests. One can create an ethnostate instantly, simply by adopting a suitable constitution.
But if a homeland is to be both the home of a particular people and democratic, then we must at the very least ensure that the founding people are the majority of the population. Moreover, since in multiparty democracies, even tiny minority groups can determine the outcome of elections, the founding people must be the overwhelming majority to have real political power.
We need to distinguish between long-standing and recently arrived minorities: Swedes in Finland are different, for instance, than Somalis in Finland.
To reduce resistance to ethnic nationalism, we need a sensible policy on minority groups. Long-standing and closely related (i.e., white) minorities can stay as long as they are comfortable living as minorities in a society in which another ethnic group’s language and culture are normative. The basic human rights of such minorities should be respected at all times. They should also enjoy the same basic civil rights as other citizens. There should be no petty and invidious forms of discrimination.
Obviously, such policies can only apply to minority groups that are committed to living peacefully with the majority. It cannot apply to minorities that are actively hostile, involved in separatist or irredentist movements, or act as fifth columns for other states. In such cases, separation would be the proper way forward.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto here.
The Scope of Remigration
This brings us to the question of the scope of remigration. Generally speaking, the broader the scope of remigration, the more people will resist it, simply because the bigger and more radical the project, the more intimidating it is to ordinary people.
Nevertheless, I think we should consider the broadest possible scope for remigration. Let’s explore sending them all back. If Europe is to be preserved, millions of African, Middle Eastern, and Asian immigrants must leave, and all their descendants too. In the majority-white colonial nations of the Americas and the Antipodes, some provision should be made for the remnants of indigenous populations, and 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.
The ideal should be complete remigration, even though we might have to settle for less due to political compromises.
Beyond that, we might have to propose less than complete remigration—at least at first—in order to reduce resistance. I have found, for instance, that if you propose the idea of maintaining a “supermajority” of Austrians in Austria, Italians in Italy, etc., many people will accept that idea readily.
A supermajority makes sense if people accept the idea that a homeland is morally legitimate for all peoples, especially if they assume that such a homeland will be democratic, for if people can be outvoted in their own homelands, then it isn’t really theirs.
A supermajority must, of course, be cashed out in specific numerical terms to set a benchmark for remigration policies. This number will vary from country to country, depending on the existing demographic breakdown. Obviously, if a country is 95% homogeneous, it would not pursue less homogeneity, only more.
Another factor would be the willingness of the public to accept a certain numerical target. That can, of course, be determined by polling public opinion. As a general rule, it is always easier to convince people to adopt something that has already been tried. Thus, if one wishes to propose a particular majority/minority ratio, one simply needs to find the last year that it already existed.
For instance, the United States was around 90% white in 1965, when we abandoned immigration policies designed to preserve the white majority. If one proposes restoring the white supermajority of 1965, surprisingly many Americans would be amenable to that.[2] But many of the very same people would resist it if one simply proposed the number without providing a historical example of when that percentage existed.
As a general rule in politics, it is best to unify one’s own bloc and split one’s opponents. If a given country has long-standing, closely related minorities, the leaders of these minority political blocs often agitate for multiculturalism, since they think they benefit from the general principle—for instance, the Swedes in Finland or the Quebecois in Canada. It is important, therefore, to reduce their resistance to remigration by flatly stating that it does not apply to them.
Remigration should focus entirely on recent arrivals. “Recent” basically meaning: after World War II. That alone is an immense task. Thus we should not increase our burdens and multiply our opponents with more sweeping remigration proposals.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto here.
Is Remigration Moral?
This breaks down into two questions:
- Is remigration moral as a goal?
- Can remigration be done in a moral manner?
Remigration is a moral goal because every people has a right to its own homeland. Whites are losing their homelands to migration. Therefore, remigration is necessary to restore white homelands.
Beyond that, under the present system, whites will become extinct in all our homelands. The only real solution is the creation or restoration of homelands for our peoples. Therefore, remigration is simply a matter of self-defense in the face of a mortal threat. Since we recognize the moral right to self-defense, particularly by a people facing genocide, remigration is a moral goal.
Can this goal be accomplished in a moral manner? The simple answer is: yes, we can remigrate millions of people while respecting their basic human rights.
Can We Be Comfortable with Remigration?
Sadly, providing an ironclad moral argument for remigration won’t be enough for a lot of people. Modern man puts comfort ahead of morality, and one of the most important forms of comfort is feeling good about oneself, which is not quite the same thing as having a good character or a clean moral conscience. To lower resistance to remigration, we must make people feel comfortable with it.
Can we “live with” remigration? The simple answer is that, as a race, we can’t live without it.
Unfortunately, most people don’t think about the distant future. Thus their support for remigration hinges on more proximate considerations. They worry that it will interrupt their routines, comfort, and peace of mind.
Mass Migration Is Already Part of Daily Life
To persuade our people that remigration can become part of ordinary life, we should first remind them that it already is. People are forced to move all the time for educational and economic reasons. We move to study. We move for jobs. Once we have jobs, our employers can move us. If we lose a job, we may have to travel to find a new one. Rising costs of housing can force us to move. And so forth.
Yet we sleep quite well at night knowing that millions of people are forced to move for economic reasons. So we can learn to live with forcing people to move for a much higher purpose: the creation of a better world in which all peoples have their own homelands.
Moreover, since most people are comfortable with a system in which people are forced to move for economic purposes, we can make those moves work for remigration. The next time a migrant family needs to move for economic reasons, we will just make sure that they move outside our homelands. This would be particularly easy if they work for multinational corporations, which would cooperate because they wish to continue doing business in our homelands.
Beyond that, our people are already living with moving for racial and ethnic reasons. It’s just that we are the victims rather than the beneficiaries. For generations now, our people have been subjected to mass ethnic cleansing in our homelands. Countless people have changed homes, neighborhoods, jobs, schools, and cities countless times due to mass migration. But despite the enormous human and financial costs of this ethnic cleansing, we have been “living with it” quite well. People seem scarcely aware of it. It hardly intrudes into public discussion, much less political action.
If our people have been living for decades with slow ethnic displacement, then I think we can live with imposing the same conditions on the migrants who are displacing us. I think the migrants can live with it too.
Under the present system, we have no future in our own homelands. To restore our homelands, we must create a system in which the migrants have no future among us due to remigration. With each passing year, migrant populations can be reduced until the last of them have returned home. And if whites can “live with” a system in which we have no future at all, then surely migrants can live with a system in which they have a future in their own homelands.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto here.
We Must Look Out for Our Own First
One objection to remigration is that the migrants 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 migrants enrich our societies. For if migrants enrich our societies, why would they not enrich their own societies as well? In truth, migrants come to our societies because we enrich them. We provide them with better lives than they can enjoy in their homelands.
But it is also true that some migrants are 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 decent futures as long as some of their best people can leave to colonize our countries. Non-white lands will only “develop,” to whatever extent possible, once white countries stop skimming off some of their best people.
Every time we fly, we are told that in the event of a loss of cabin pressure, an oxygen mask will fall from the compartment above. We are always told to put on our mask first, before trying to help others. If we lose consciousness and die, we can’t prevent others from suffering the same fate. That’s nationalism in a nutshell: you must save yourself—or your people—before you can help others.
Because our nations are facing extinction, our first obligation is to ourselves. So, although we wish other peoples well, there’s nothing we can do to help them if we perish. We must save ourselves first.
White countries are rich and powerful. We can do a lot to help non-whites. But we can’t really give them a sense of belonging. Thus if you wish to help non-whites, it is best to help them in their homelands, where they already feel at home and where our money will go a lot farther.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto here.
Remigration Can Be Done Slowly
In “The Slow Cleanse,” I argued that one way to make people comfortable with remigration is to do it slowly. After all, white demographic decline has unfolded over generations.
Anti-white demographic trends include lower birthrates, collapsing families, miscegenation, non-white immigration, non-white penetration of white living spaces, etc. These trends were set in motion by political decisions or political negligence, then sustained over time the same way.
The long-term result of these trends is white extinction. But these trends have unfolded so slowly that very few of us have noticed, much less fought back, and those who have noticed have found it difficult to convince people that anything bad is happening.
When we regain control over our homelands, we need to set positive demographic trends in motion and sustain them. Time will take care of the rest. In the short run, we need to raise our birthrates. But we will never win by out-breeding the other races until the planet is “standing room only.” The problem is not too few of us, but too many of them in our homelands. We have been declining for generations. Thus we can take a few decades to set things right.
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. Even if we can make a convincing case that present trends, if continued long enough, will result in white extinction, this will not happen within the lifetimes of anyone alive today.
Of course, whites will slip into minority status in many countries within the lifetimes of people reading me today. Moreover, if we look at smaller units—towns, neighborhoods, and schools—whites are slipping into minority status every single day. There are even areas in formerly white countries where whites have virtually disappeared. But certainly for older generations—the Baby Boomers and above—the worst of what we are facing will happen long after their deaths.
This crass egoism is highly selective, however. Some of the same people who wish to leave white demographic decline for future generations to worry about often support environmentalism, wildlife conservation, historical preservation, and other causes to make the world a better place long after they are dead. If you care about these things, you should care about preserving white people, the principal race that cares about the future.
But whenever we cannot change this attitude, we can make it work for us. If some people will not lift a finger to stop white extinction because it will only happen after their deaths, then they shouldn’t object to our plans for remigration, because it too will unfold slowly over decades and only reach fulfillment well after they are dead.
Of course, things have gotten a lot worse in the years since I first argued for gradualism. Thus there is a greater sense of urgency, and more people seem willing to countenance fast-paced, large-scale remigration. For instance, Rupert Lowe of Restore Britain has floated the proposal to remove between 1.5 and 2 million recent migrants in under three years.[3] This is encouraging. The quicker the better.
But it is important to bear in mind that, if politically necessary, a slower process of remigration could still be effective.
Notes
[1] Greg Johnson, “Havens in a Heartless World,” Loving Our Own (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2025).
[2] I propose the idea of “90% White Nationalism” in “The Uppity White Folks’ Manifesto,” in White Identity Politics (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2020).
[3] Harrison Pitt and Rupert Lowe, Mass Deportations: Legitimacy, Legality, and Logistics, online: https://www.restorebritain.org.uk/pp_mass_deportations_legitimacy_legality_and_logistics
8 comments
The concepts of “majority” and “minority” should probably be demoted to being means rather than ends. We’re the native people in our own homelands with permanent explicit constitutional rights, these other people are aliens who are here with such individual rights as are compatible with decency and stability but with explicitly and permanently lesser political rights (if they want political rights, they have their own homelands and we wish them well there). One of the permanent and explicit constitutional rights of a people in its homeland should be numerical dominance, because quantity is a quality all of its own.
When “minority” is used instead of “alien”, it leads to a line of thought where the difficulties and vulnerabilities of ethnic outsiders are understood not as as a necessary consequence of inserting themselves into countries where they don’t belong, but as a contingent state of affairs that can be remedied by begetting or importing allies to increase your numbers in a headcount, each alien head counting just as much as a native head.
In a town meeting in Dearborn discussing LGBT propaganda in schools as it happens but it applies to anything else, the Muslims just said this is a democracy, we’re the majority in this town, so our social norms will be the town’s social norms. They understand it perfectly, and if you have a problem with this the answer isn’t in democracy or majorities or minorities but in being able to designate aliens as aliens and restrict the political rights of aliens if you have them in your country at all.
Great article! I’m envious, each person in those memes possesses a copy of The White Nationalist Manifesto which is at least twice as thick as the one I possess. 🙃
Keep up the fight!
One objection to remigration is that the migrants 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 migrants enrich our societies.
Perfect.
Our White world must be exclusively White, not merely majority White. Adopting a “suitable constitution” that must still be “democratic” sounds flawed, compromising — like reforming a faulty one, which will require legislation. Nature tells us we cannot override her laws with flawed legislation. Love of a competing subspecies through legislation, adopting a democratic constitution, is folly.
Greg: One can create an ethnostate instantly, simply by adopting a suitable constitution.
But if a homeland is to be both the home of a particular people and democratic, then we must at the very least ensure that the founding people are the majority of the population.
—
It’s difficult to disagree with the hard truth William Pierce told us nearly 30 years ago in “Toward a Healthy Society” at nationalvanguard,org
by Dr. William L. Pierce
I’VE SPOKEN BEFORE about the deliberately destructive role of the mass media in American society. I’ve talked about the psychology of liberalism, about what makes liberals do the crazy and destructive things they do. Today, though, instead of talking about the enemies of our society, the enemies of our people, let’s just talk about our people and the sort of society that we need.
You know, a society is a very complex thing: it is like a living organism. It responds to selective environmental forces, and it evolves. In past ages it was the struggle of our people to survive, the competition of our people against other peoples, other races, which determined the nature of our society. Societies which functioned well survived. Societies which didn’t function well perished. Historically, if some crazy liberal came along and were able to change all of the rules and structures in a society to suit some egalitarian fantasy of his, the society would sink like a rock, and its people would perish. And that’s what’s happening to our society today, although it may not be apparent to us because of the time scale. After the experimenters finish their deadly work, it may take a society 200 years to disintegrate completely and sink out of sight. That’s not long from a historical viewpoint, but it’s long enough so that most of the people involved never realize what’s happening to them.
The society we had in Europe up until the end of the 18th century — or one may say, the various national societies there, which really were very much alike when compared with any non-European society — this European society had evolved over a period of many, many generations of our people, and it had fine-tuned itself to our special nature; it had developed its institutions and its ways of doing things which suited us as a people and allowed us to form viable, efficient communities. And when we colonized North America and other parts of the world, we brought the essential elements of our society with us.
And what were those essential elements?
The first essential element was order. Everyone had a place in our society, whether he was the village blacksmith or the king, and he knew what that place was. He knew how he fitted in, what his responsibilities were, to whom he owed loyalty and respect, and to whom he in turn was obliged to provide guidance. It was a hierarchical society. There was no pretense that everyone was just as capable or just as creative or just as brave or just as suited for leadership as anyone else. People had social rank and social status and social authority commensurate with their social responsibilities and with their contributions to society.
The second essential feature that our society had was homogeneity. Everyone had the same roots, the same history, the same genes, the same sensibilities. Or at least, there was enough genetic similarity, there was a close enough family relationship among the people, so that people understood each other. A village, a province, a nation was like a large, extended family. People felt a sense of kinship, a sense of belonging, a sense of loyalty and responsibility that extended to the whole society. This feeling of belonging, this sense of a common history and a common destiny, this sense of identity, was the glue that held the society together and gave it its strength. And it gave men and women their individual strength too. Just knowing who they were, where they had been, and where they were going made an enormous difference in their sense of personal security, in their ability to plan ahead and be reasonably confident of what the future held for them.
This homogeneity and the consequent sense of family, of identity, was thousands of years in developing, just like the hierarchical order in our society. And we developed, we evolved, along with our society. The type of society we had became imprinted on our genes. Of course, it wasn’t a perfect society. It was full of problems and imperfections. We always were developing new technologies, for example, and our society didn’t always have time to adjust itself to these innovations before even more innovations came along. But it was a society in which we were strong and confident and more or less spiritually healthy.
You know, the opponents of social order and racial homogeneity will try to confuse the issue by pointing out that we have a longer life span today, that our infant mortality rate is much lower, that we don’t have to work as hard to support ourselves, that we can buy all sorts of shiny gadgets that our ancestors couldn’t, and so on. They want you to believe that these changes came about as benefits of the breakdown of order and the destruction of homogeneity. But they didn’t. They are all the results of technological innovation. Our medical scientists learned how to control the diseases which shortened our lives. Our scientists and engineers learned how we could work more efficiently. And they learned how to make new tools and new toys for us.
Now, to be sure, not all of the degenerative changes in our society which have occurred in the past couple of centuries have been the consequence of the destructive efforts of the Jews and the liberals. The Industrial Revolution really was a huge shock to our traditional form of society. The Industrial Revolution took people off the farms and out of the villages and packed them into factory towns like sardines in a can. This was a great strain on the old order. The new relationship between factory owner and factory workers was not as healthy a one as had existed between landowner and workers on the land, nor was the new, urban life-style as spiritually healthy as the village life-style.
Unrest and revolution were fomented from the latter part of the 18th century and throughout the 19th and 20th centuries: egalitarianism, Communism, democracy, equal rights, no responsibilities, welfare programs, feminism. The old order was drowned in blood. In France the aristocrats and the landowners were butchered in response to the resentments which the liberals had stirred up among the rabble. Later in Russia the same process took place, when the Jewish Bolsheviks finally gained the upper hand and butchered not just the aristocrats, but everyone who had worked a little harder and been a little more successful than the rabble. The kulaks, the small farmers and landowners, were murdered en masse, by the millions, in order to “equalize” Russian society and destroy the last traces of the old, hierarchical order.
And into the social chaos of the 20th century the enemies of our people were able to introduce their idea of racial equality alongside their idea of social equality. We were told that the descendants of our slaves are just as good as we are — maybe better — and so they should become our social equals. We should bring them into our schools and neighborhoods, and we should intermarry with them, and we should buy Food Stamps for them with our taxes, and we should give them preference in hiring and promotions. And we should open our borders to all of the non-White wretched refuse of the Third World’s teeming shores. They also are our equals, we are told. The more diversity the better. Diversity is our strength. Et cetera. Et cetera. Blah, blah, blah…
—end part 1—
continued…
Part 2 of William Pierce’s “Toward A Healthy Society” at nationalvanguard.org
…continued
… We were too disoriented and confused by the destruction of our social order to resist this poisonous propaganda. And so here we are at the end of the 20th century. There are some people who will try to convince you that things never have been better. We certainly have more equality and less order, more diversity and less homogeneity than ever before. And that obviously suits some people, in addition to the liberals and the Jews who have been pushing for these changes.
Are these changes better for us?
The suicide statistics, the drug statistics, the crime statistics, the divorce statistics, and the mental illness statistics give us part of the answer. The statistics should help us keep our grip on reality when the Jewish media try to persuade us that we need more of the same poison they have been dishing out for so long: more equality, more chaos, more diversity.
And we should be able to look into our own souls for the rest of the answer. We should know that we need again to have an ordered, structured society, in which we all have a place and will be appreciated according to how effectively we fill that place. We should know that we need again to have a homogeneous society, in which we can feel a sense of belonging. We should know that we need a society in which we have a sense of permanence and stability, not chaos and uncertainty. We should know that we need a society in which everyone strives for quality, not for an imaginary equality. We should know that in order to be spiritually healthy again we need a society in which we can feel a sense of rootedness and responsibility, rather than the aimless, wandering, rootless, cosmopolitan, egoism which characterizes American society today.
If we are honest with ourselves we know that we all crave a healthy society again, we need it. But too many of us have let ourselves be persuaded by the enemies of our people that the type of society we need is no longer attainable. Our enemies tell us, “We have destroyed the order in your society. We have made everyone equal, and you dare not try to take that equality away. That would be like trying to take candy away from a child. We have opened the candy store and told all the children that they can have as much as they want, and it’s all free. They all will fight you if you try to change that, if you try to tell them that they must earn their candy.” And our enemies grin in triumph when they see how that demoralizes and discourages so many of us.
And they tell us, “We have destroyed the homogeneity in your society. We have replaced your homogeneity with diversity. We have brought every non-White type on the face of the earth into your midst, we have brought them in by the millions, and we have forced you to mix with them. Now there’s nothing you can do to restore your homogeneity.” And again they grin and say, “What will you do? Will you try to root out every non-White and every mongrel and send them all away or get rid of them? You don’t have the stomach for that. So you’d better just learn to live with all of these non-Whites and mongrels. Pretty soon you’ll be a minority in your own land.” And they gloat.
And it is true, of course, that many of us do not yet have the stomach to do what must be done. And so the suicide rate and the divorce rate and the abortion rate will keep rising. The government will continue building more prisons. The cults will continue thriving. And the Jews and the liberals will keep telling us how wonderful everything is, how things have never been better, how we should appreciate all of the equality and diversity.
But, you know, all the while the number of us who do have the stomach to do what must be done will be growing. Our numbers are growing, because more and more of our people are coming to understand that the only alternative is death: death for our society, death for our children, death for our kind. What the Jews and liberals have done to our society is lethal. It cannot be sustained.
Order and homogeneity, a sense of identity and belonging, are not just luxuries for us. They are essential. Without them our society sickens and dies. The liberals may not be able to understands that, and the Jews, with their media propaganda, try to keep the rest of us from understanding it, but we can see the proof of it all around us. And we are determined to do whatever we must do to have once again a society for our own kind, a society to which we can really belong and feel a sense of responsibility to, a society in which we have a place and are appreciated if we fill that place well, a society based on order and quality and structure and commonality. We will have it. We will do what is necessary.
Source: National Alliance’s American Dissident Voices broadcast, aired 12 April 1997
There is recent precedent which can support remigration. Over the last two decades the regimes running Western countries have been mass importing tens of millions of third worlders into the first world. This has been done through networks of governmental, globalist and NGO front organizations, generally against the consent of the people of the countries targeted by mass migration.
All this infrastructure can be turned around to remigrate those third worlders back to the lands from which they came. On top of this, those in the West who were overseeing the third world invasions can also be migrated to randomly chosen third world countries.
That would be fair!
Well said.
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.