2,012 words
Part 1 of 3 (whole series here)
I like the term “remigration” because it builds the argument that migration can be reversed into the word itself. If migration can happen, then of course remigration can happen too.
To make the case for remigration, we must defend three theses:
- Remigration is possible.
- Remigration is desirable.
- Remigration is moral.
Remigration Is Possible
Up until 1965, American immigration laws were designed to preserve a white supermajority. When those laws were changed, far-sighted Americans predicted that it would lead to steady white demographic displacement through non-white immigration. From the 1960s to the 1990s, the American establishment’s standard response to such fears was: “It will never happen.” Then, in the 1990s, the message shifted overnight to celebrating white demographic decline as a great victory for diversity and anti-racism. Those who did not welcome such a future were told flatly: “They’re here. There’s nothing that we can do about it.” The common denominator of all three positions—it will never happen, it is good, it can’t be stopped—is: “Do nothing to stop white demographic decline.” That’s because the goal of white demographic decline was the broad consensus of America’s ruling elite, which can only be described as hostile to the interests of white Americans.
These establishment talking points are remarkable for their sheer stupidity. Even more remarkable is how effective they are. Even people who deeply deplored white demographic decline felt that nothing could be done. To some extent, they were correct, because as long as people think nothing can be done, they’re right. So the first step is to change their thinking.
Why can’t migrants just go back? Trains, planes, boats, and automobiles don’t go just one way. The turnstile at the border doesn’t go just one way. Modern technology makes mass migration faster and easier than ever. That’s why we are in this mess to begin with.
If it is possible for them to come here, it is possible for them to go back. Remigration is possible. The only barriers to remigration are man-made. These barriers can be unmade. It is only a matter of will.
The best way to convince people that something is possible is to show them that it has already happened. In the case of mass remigration, it has happened many times:
- In the United States in the 1930s, between 1 and 2 million Mexican migrants were repatriated.
- In the United States in 1954–55, 250,000 Mexicans were remigrated by Operation Wetback.
- After Algeria became independent in 1962, more than 800,000 European settlers were forcibly remigrated.
- After the 1991 Gulf War, more than 200,000 Palestinian guest workers were expelled from Kuwait for siding with Saddam Hussein’s invasion.
- Beginning in 2023, Pakistan embarked upon remigrating up to 3 million Afghans from its territory.
- Beginning in 2025, Iran embarked upon remigrating up to 4 million Afghan refugees and migrants.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s Toward a New Nationalism here.
Surely white First World countries can do better at remigration than countries like Iran and Pakistan—in numbers, logistics, and respect for basic human rights and niceties.
Intellectually speaking, the defenses of mass non-white migration are made of tissue paper. It is easy to overcome such arguments in private discussions. But the establishment’s real bulwark is censorship: their views persisted as long as they controlled the news and entertainment media. Fortunately, dissidents were early adopters of the internet, and the rise of social media allowed our ideas to spread virally.
One reason we lack the will for remigration is that we have been convinced of two falsehoods: (1) that remigration must be entirely a government program, and (2) that remigration must be entirely coercive.
Both assumptions are false. Most migrants were not summoned to our shores by governments. They came because of economic incentives. If those incentives are reversed, they will leave. The government must, of course, set these changes in motion. But once the incentives have been reversed, employers, hospitals, landlords, and migrants themselves will take care of the rest.
Yes, some migrants will need to be ejected forcefully. Yes, some protesters will commit acts of violence. But these will simply give us an excuse to accelerate the process.
The greatest challenge to remigration is finding a way to square the requirements of our very survival with our people’s sometimes morbidly delicate consciences. But it becomes easier to mobilize our people if fair and reasonable solutions are violently rejected.
We cannot, however, allow our enemies—and, in truth, some of our friends—to convince us that even forcible deportations would entail a dramatic increase in violence, on the scale of a civil war.
First, migrants already cause a disproportionate amount of violence, so removing them would decrease violence in the long run.
Second, what we are proposing is perfectly normal. We are going to change the law, then the police and courts can deal with lawbreakers. Criminals sometimes resist violently, which is why we arm police officers. But the fact that some murderers and rapists resist arrest is not an argument to legalize murder and rape. The same is true of people who resist laws governing migration.
In short, the way to argue for remigration is to demonstrate that remigration is both possible and moral. Since people naturally have both moral and practical objections to violence, it is especially important for remigration proposals to minimize violence, indeed to plausibly promise reduced overall social violence once remigration is completed.
An Excursus on “Optics”
To convince the world that remigration is possible, desirable, and moral, we need to know the best means of persuasion. This is not just a debate about the content of our message but also the form. It is the inevitable debate about “optics.” Please learn from my mistakes.
In 2003, I wrote an essay called “To Cleanse America: A Modest Proposal.”[1] I published it online, on an obscure dissident site, under a pen name. My thesis was that there’s no question that remigration is possible: migrants can leave the same way they came. We don’t lack technical means, we lack the will. I also offered arguments to lower public resistance on moral and practical grounds.
I shared this essay with a prominent American white advocate. He liked the argument but not the word “cleanse,” which was a reference to the term “ethnic cleansing,” which was coined during the Balkan wars of the 1990s. My preference was to take that bull by the horns. If we are going to be accused of ethnic cleansing anyway, we should be prepared to say, “Yes, but we advocate the orderly, peaceful, and just kind of ethnic cleansing. It works like this . . .”
In 2010, I started the Counter-Currents webzine with a friend. In 2011, I was one of the first people in America to promote the ideas of the Great Replacement and White Genocide, which were coined that year.
You can order Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here
In June of 2014, I expanded upon my earlier ideas about remigration to a much larger audience in an essay called “The Slow Cleanse.” I chose the title because I believe that we can lower resistance to remigration not just by adopting non-violent means but also by doing it slowly and unobtrusively.
I was gratified that this article was well-received by many thoughtful European Identitarians. Once again, though, some Americans reproached me for my use of “cleanse” in the title. It was “bad optics.” Again, I rejected this argument, but when a friend said “The Slow Cleanse” sounded like a spa treatment, I decided to change the title to “Restoring White Homelands” when I included the essay in The White Nationalist Manifesto in 2018.[2]
The basic issue of optics is this: we face enormous barriers to saving our race. Thus we should not create additional barriers and heavier burdens with “bad optics.” In the case of the “cleanse” idea: just because our enemies will throw a word with negative connotations at us, that doesn’t mean we have to accept that word ourselves.
I’ve always been impatient with people who put too much emphasis on specific words. We aren’t going to win simply by programming our people to speak in anodyne buzzwords, slogans, and euphemisms, for instance the American idea that we can sidestep the taboos against “racism” and “whiteness” by speaking of ourselves as “European-Americans” instead of “whites.”
The issue is not so much the words as the negative connotations attached to them by our enemies. Ultimately, what we are fighting against is the idea that whites taking our own sides in ethnic conflicts is simply evil. That idea cannot be defeated merely by avoiding certain negative words—principally, “white” and “racist”—like Victorian ninnies.
Ultimately, we will win only when people understand that there is a good kind of “racism,” a good kind of “ethnic cleansing,” a good kind of “nationalism”: namely, those that protect our people while respecting the equal rights of other peoples.
If the battle is about the moral legitimacy of white survival, not particular words, then we should not run away from bad words. Taboos against words like “racism” and “nationalism” are already collapsing, partly because we have refused to run from them.
But, by the same token, we should not run toward bad words either.
Thus, optically speaking, we should present the case for remigration in the freshest and most wholesome terms possible, with the least amount of baggage. Again, we already face an enormous uphill battle. Why must we burden ourselves unnecessarily with the weight of the past? The time for the “transvaluation” of language is after we have won.
Remigration Is Desirable
There should be as many cases for remigration as there are people to hear them. Ideally, we should have cases tailored to every white country, every region, every age group, every educational level . . . everyone.
But the main distinction is between those with high and low time preferences, those who are oriented to the present and those who think long-term.
For those who are focused on the present, we should emphasize present problems and short-term gains. Remigration will raise wages, lower crime, lower rents, reduce traffic, reduce waiting times for public services, and generally make life better for white people of all classes, regions, and countries. In short, we must communicate that remigration is the path to prosperity and security.
For those who think long-term, we have much more compelling arguments. Remigration is imperative, because under the current system, white people have no future.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto here.
Every white homeland suffers from below-replacement fertility. Combine that with immigration and sufficient time, and we will become extinct in all of our homelands, replaced by foreigners.[3]
This is not accidental, either. White extinction is the predictable consequence of government policies. Which means that we are being subjected to a slow process of genocide, as defined under international law.[4]
To survive, we must reverse these trends. First, we must replace the people in power. Then we must replace demographic decline with growth, migration with remigration.
Our ultimate goal is to create or restore homelands for all our peoples. That requires separation, which requires moving people, moving borders, or both. This is what I call “White Nationalism.”
Under multiculturalism, white people have no future. The goal of White Nationalism is to give our people a future again, in all our homelands.
The idea of white genocide is shocking, and there is no need to lead with it among “normies.” But I think it is useful to share this argument among the leaders of the remigrationist cause, because nothing focuses the mind better than the prospect of extinction.
Beyond that, we do not benefit from illusions or naïveté about the ultimate cause of the Great Replacement. It is genocide. Which means that we are not simply battling against the mistaken and deluded, the selfish and short-sighted, but also the genocidally evil.
Notes
[1] Greg Johnson, “To Cleanse America: A Modest Proposal,” in Confessions of a Reluctant Hater, second ed. (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2016).
[2] Greg Johnson, “Restoring White Homelands,” in The White Nationalist Manifesto (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2018).
[3] Greg Johnson, “White Extinction,” in The White Nationalist Manifesto.
[4] Greg Johnson, “White Genocide,” in The White Nationalist Manifesto.
21 comments
Brilliant! The problem I have with the term cleanse is that it was coined and used by the same people who seek to destroy us. It implies the victims were seen as dirty too. I can see value in using their own terminology for our purposes. We don’t have to create a new language. The main bandage that must be ripped off is the status of anchor babies. Once they are no longer citizens, there’s no incentive for the parents and other family members to remain. Cutoff all benefits of remaining and they have to remigrate. Greasing the skids a little by funneling some federal funds to the border states and Central American states would help ease the pain of transition back to disconnected nations. Hopefully I will be around long enough to see some of this come to pass.
Great article! I am leaning toward “the deep scrub.” 🙃
Something (other than what we have at present) is inevitable. Perhaps it will be re-migration. Perhaps it will be something worse.
Being selective with words and talking around the point is what comes with a low status. The ability to speak freely, bluntly and even at time callously and contemptuously, is the prerogative of the powerful. It’s true in every society, in every system. The fear we have of using the wrong language isn’t for moral sensibilities a lot of the time, it’s not even done for optics reasons, it’s a survival instinct. It just seems like many White Nationalists have internalized their low status and have a sense of learned helplessness. And from that, many have retroactively started to justify their outright craven capitulation into only using nice-nice words for pro-white advocacy as coming from some moral principle.
I remember ten years ago people were arguing that “white genocide” and the mantra people spammed on comment’s sections weren’t effective. That it wasn’t effective because the left and establishment were clowning on the talking point and mocking it. You had people contemptuously calling it the “Mayocide’ back then. Nobody laughs anymore when white genocide is brought up, nobody really can deny it anymore, so why were we so sensitive to the laughter and ridicule ten years ago about it if we were right?
A lot of the times people talk about an ethnostate for whites as if being a choice between apples and oranges, like it’s just some consumer preference we have. They do this to avoid the distinction between “inferior” and “superior”, but really choosing between the slums of Calcutta and the clean pristine streets of 1950s Britain is not that choice at all.
You make a valid point, some of this comes from repercussions people face for speaking the truth, though. This especially so when dealing with many people’s employers. I’m not making excuses for being passive. Most people don’t want to risk their livelihood. Many white corporate employees had to undergo struggle sessions after the summer of Floyd. At least now, people can openly discuss Somali fraud in Minnesota. I will say that you need to be selective about what you discuss with some of your coworkers. The left controls many corporate boardrooms, universities, much of the press and media and they also have positions of influence in the military. We can cite numerous examples of this. A good start would be to be mindful and discreet with who you socialize with off of the job. Also, we need to continue to publicize non-white crimes and fraud.
I solved your final point by not having a job and not having any friends. A simple life.
Simple, Chud. It was collective White moral cowardice then — same as it is today.
Chud: May 16, 2026 The ability to speak freely, bluntly and even at time callously and contemptuously, is the prerogative of the powerful… It just seems like many White Nationalists have internalized their low status and have a sense of learned helplessness…
Nobody laughs anymore when white [sic] genocide is brought up, nobody really can deny it anymore, so why were we so sensitive to the laughter and ridicule ten years ago about it if we were right?
Another good comment.
I do think there is something of middle class insecurity, obsequiousness, and upward striving in the desire to police language. It is all of a piece with advertising, PR, and “neo-linguistic programming” schemes. Paul Fussell’s chapter on language and class in his book Class is worth reading in this connection.
I don’t remember the mockery of the white genocide meme. It sounds like low IQ black talk to me.
If semantics is a sticking point, I prefer the term peaceful population transfer.
Good one.
white demographic decline was the broad consensus of America’s ruling elite, which can only be described as hostile to the interests of white Americans.
isn’t this the definition of auto-genocide, if that’s even a term? Add the apathy of most whites and denial of even white existence (through social engineering welcomed and allowed by white society ) and you get a race that wants to off itself
Well I saw a snippet from Ronald Reagan about you can’t be French just by moving there or German or Italian, but that you could be an American. Isn’t this part of the challenge faced by our movement? No recognition of who the original Americans were and who we are today. The dilution has been going on for more than 250 years. It’s clearly been top down squeezing us out. He certainly could spin a yarn.
Jeepers I know the clip you are talking about and I recall the zman recalling John Derbyshire who talked about nons being the “salt”(nons) in soup (us). A little makes life nice , but a bowl of salt? Sets our children’s teeth on edge .
so in a way Reagan was probably thinking of the occasional non he bumped into. I’m sure he couldn’t have imagined this . Even if he meant exactly what he said: that America is somehow this new reality where “a people “ can be juridically cobbled together to actually recognize each other as fellow Americans which is just absurd.
I remember those days in the 80s even the 90s. In my high school there were a few nons. I felt sorry for them , because it was our school, ours. There was not even a question. You would tink if calling it a white school but it was , it was our culture for better or worse and that’s the point. Those Asians and the guy from Singapore. They behaved themselves and people liked them but they knew they were outsiders so they watched how they acted
that’s fine, but this? Majority minority? It’s meant to keep the public isolated and weak so we can be ruled more easily .
Indont mean to say that using the term “white American”as Greg uses it shouldn’t be done , because it’s so ingrained he’s just trying to be clear.
I’m almost certain that the European Commission will try to ban the term “re-emigration.” Anyone who uses it will end up in jail in the EU. They’ll try to push it through despite the successes of the “far right” in individual member states. Paradoxically, this might actually bring the term to the wide attention of “normies.”
And let’s not forget the justified expulsion of south Asians from Uganda maybe 40 or so year ago compliments of His Majesty Idi Amin. I find it difficult to feel sorry for south Asians being expelled.
I hear you on putting too much emphasis on buzzwords. Especially “racist.” I have some Jewish friends and somehow the death penalty law on the dockett in Israel came up in conversation. This law would de facto mean the death penalty for acts of Palestinian terrorism tried in military courts while Jewish terrorism since it is tried in civilian courts would not have theh death penalty. One Jew said she supported this since October the 7th happened. The other Jew called the death penalty for Palestinian terrorist Jew a racist. As the word racist came out of her mouth her mouth them contorted into this gleeful grin being able to call someone a racist. Mind you, both are very on the left (who would have thought? Leftist Jews). But what struck me was the Jew who just got called racist without beating an eye replied “I guess I am racist then.” Like Kevin DeAnna says, everyone is right wing for their own side.
In the context of October 7th, I think many it shifted the proverbial Overton windows for many Jews on the left. A similar thing is happening in the US and Europe with the accumulated problems non-whites bring with them. It is hidden in plain site in the form of all these non-whites, especially Muslims in Britain taking over local governments that remigration is necessary. You present some very good precedents.
We are fast approaching an inflection point though where it will be impossible to do this. I think DeAnna’s latest podcast calling the left a bridge to complete entropy of civilization is spot on. If the right cannot do this soon (better would have been yesterday) there will come a point where there will never be a right wing government in these parliamentary systems. The left will rule and we will hear all the boilerplate about “this is what democracy looks like!” from well meaning white liberals. Then we will see what happened after the Iranian revolution. The foreigners will take the yoke of power from the white liberals and put it around their necks as well.
Remigration needs to be sold. A good salesman choses his words wisely. Once sold any backlash from anatifa et al. needs to be dealt with swiftly. What politics boils down to is either the left will eventually have its foot on the necks of the right or vice versa.
When remigration becomes state policy it would be a good idea to support it with a propaganda campaign (aka info ops). This is to counter the kind of mainstream media disinformation blizzard seen during the recent Minneapolis federal roundups. Violence by anti-ICE activists can be publicized and public support lined up behind remigration forces. Nick Shirley style exposes of pro-migration criminality can be amped up to further discredit local/state governments which shield fraud and such.
It would also be useful to set up a popular organization to mobilize pro-migration activists to take it to the streets for counter-protests against the lefties. Activists could be backed up by some sort of legal defense organization in the event that they get arrested by hostile local governments, and to protect their jobs in the event that employers fire people for their activism. Also, lawfare can be launched against anti-ICE NGOs when they break the law (which is about most of the time).
The Left makes much use of such mass mobilizations as we have seen at Minneapolis and points south. Time for the Right to catch up…and get out in the lead.
Is it moral to return immigrants back to places from which they fled due to war and/or bad economic situation ? I’m less and less sure about it. They came to us for help and we are just going to kick them out ? What if I am next and nobody opens the door ?
Economic migrants can certainly be sent back at will.
Refugees from wars, famines, and natural disasters have rights to safe harbor under international law. But they have the right to safe harbor in the closest safe country. Not thousands of miles away in countries chosen for welfare benefits and economic opportunities.
You too have the right to safe harbor in time of war, famine, natural disaster — but again, in the first safe country.
If you are in Ireland, that would mean going to Great Britain, not the Congo or Afghanistan.
Africans and Asians wouldn’t take us in, anyway. If we arrived at their shores in boats, they’d fire on us. And nobody would give a hoot.
Greg: [W]e do not benefit from illusions or naïveté about the ultimate cause of the Great Replacement. It is genocide.
—
Replacing Whites with non-Whites is genocide — no “theory,” but fact.
Beau Albrecht prefers the kinder, gentler term peaceful population transfer to remigration. I prefer ETHNIC CLEANSING, thanks. It’s more direct and honest.
We must necessarily purge alien races — Jews and other non-Whites — and their influences from our midst or ultimately face the extinction of our unique, precious subspecies. Russian racial nationalist Wolf Stoner does not mince words when he states what is required to preserve our race, posted today with “Gaining Real Power, part 1” at nationalvanguard.org .
…The rise and fall of different species and subspecies is a normal part of life. The main problem is that the majority of Whites even now don’t want to face reality and prefer to live in denial. They are happy to accept any lie that explains White decline as “inevitable” and “normal” and that it isn’t a problem at all.
An Appetite for Easy Fixes
The deteriorating situation compels ever greater numbers of mainstream Whites to start doubting the ideological precepts that have been imposed on them. The promised multiracial paradise didn’t materialize; the era of universal happiness and plenty hasn’t come, although it was supposed to start at once after the “evil Nazis” were defeated eighty years ago.
But even after realizing that something doesn’t add up — that our rulers have lied for decades, that the White world as it once was, is now nevermore to return — the mainstream crowd tends to believe all kinds of new nonsense, accepts new false promises, and adores new fake prophets. The majority of them still believe that “Christian values” need to be restored and upheld. They still trust in “democracy” and “the Constitution.” They still believe in the possibility of “making America great again.”
We don’t need to find which of the White nations is more stupid and gullible and which made more mistakes — all of them, at some point in history, played a dirty game that undermined overall White racial interests.
We must overcome the folly of constant recrimination and start real work for the common good. The more we bicker among ourselves the more opportunity the main enemy has to inflict yet more damage and accrue yet more power.
The starting point of this transformation among racially oriented people is the unconditional acknowledgment of the guilt that their respective nations bear in bringing our race to its pitiful present state.
Now comes a time of thorough transformation. Some of our ethnic groups will vanish for objective reasons. And we don’t need to save all White nations. We do need to save the White race; the best part of it.
Racial Interests First
Racial identity is paramount; everything else is of far lesser importance. All who refuse to understand that, and who continue to push their narrow ethnic interests to the detriment of overall White interests, must be considered enemies, despite their claims of being nationalists or even National Socialists. We must consider deeds, not words. Anyone can call himself anything; what really matters is what that person does.…
Wolf’s tough talk is what our people need if our precious gene pool is to be preserved. Read the rest of his “part 1′ at the link.
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.