Jared Taylor, a man whom I deeply admire for everything he has done to boost the levels of white consciousness in the previous decades, gave a speech at this year’s AmRen conference titled ‘Why We Are Winning’. He said that the short answer to why we were winning was simply that we were right and our opponents were wrong. And, of course, it is perfectly reasonable for us to point out the fact that our cause is just. However, I cannot reach the same conclusion as Jared Taylor since I simply do not believe that the forces of light will ultimately always triumph over the forces of evil. Neither is this struggle for existence part of a Hollywood movie, nor is it a story derived from the Bible. Furthermore, I doubt that all of our enemies or even the majority of them should be regarded as evil.
Taylor spoke about the good things happening in Europe, focusing on his favorite politicians, Orbán and Salvini – and they are my favorite politicians to be sure – , as well as the Social Democrats in Denmark who have adopted an anti-immigration stance lately. However, it seems that Hungary, Poland, and Italy will not be able to turn the tide for the rest of Europe. If Poland and Hungary manage to remain homogeneous countries, that indeed will be a great success in and of itself.
This will not save Northwest Europeans such as the Dutch, Britons, Americans and Germans from becoming extinct in the long run though. In many Western European cities – take London, Frankfurt or Paris, for example – immigrants already make up more than half of the population. The only way to maintain a German ethnostate within the Federal Republic of Germany, for instance, would be to split the country in half once again. Just two months ago, I ran for a seat in the city council of Mannheim where immigrants make up roughly half of the population while large parts of the inner city are almost exclusively foreign. My campaign slogan was ‘Germans have a right to a homeland.’ I only received around 1,500 votes which – along with the other candidates on the ballot – added up to 0.3 percent… The AfD received a little more than 9 percent. The Green Party came in first. This means that over 90 percent of the people, who took part in the election, either think mass immigration is desirable or believe that it’s just not that much of an issue. They simply have other priorities.
This is indeed remarkable since the question comes down to one of sheer self-preservation. To be, or not to be, that is the question: whether it’s nobler in the mind to give away our countries to immigrants or to secure a future for our children’s children? However, since the vast majority of our race-brethren are obviously keen to give non-European immigrants a handout and throw away their children’s future, we must come up with a different strategy in order to ensure a future for the offspring of the ten percent of the population who are in their right minds. These people, who are more ethnocentric and hope that their grandchildren will resemble their grandparents, must come together in certain areas of the country, in which they can form strong homogeneous communities. This is not simply an extension of white flight; rather it is the geographic consolidation of race-conscious individuals whose first priority in life is racial integrity.
These pioneers would simply adhere to ‘the first law of nature’, as Lothrop Stoddard called it. In 1927, in regards to the Immigration Act of 1924, he wrote:
Let us remember also that the national ideal is based not upon abstract theory but upon good common sense. No theoretical questions of ‘superiority’ or ‘inferiority’ need be raised. It is perfectly true that our present immigration policy does (and should) favor North Europeans over people from other parts of Europe, while it discriminates still more rigidly against the entry of non-white races. But the basic reason for this is not a theory of race superiority, but that most fundamental and most legitimate of all human instincts, self-preservation – rightly termed ‘the first law of nature.’
I believe that future generations have the right to demand of us, the race-conscious ten to thirty percent of the population, to be born white in a white man’s land. Segregation and separation are not synonyms. We must strive for physical separation of the races, not for segregation within the same general environment. Apartheid and segregation in the south of the United States worked remarkably well for a while indeed, but time and again history has shown that from a certain point the colour line inevitably becomes corrupted. Take the caste system in India for example.
Whites in Latin America are very often of mixed-race ancestry whereas whites in the US are usually not. When the Spaniards first arrived on the continent they did not expel the Indians as did the English in North America but instead ruled over them and married their women. The same sort of miscegenation was repeated when the black slaves arrived on Latin American soil and in the Caribbean. Thus Theodore G. Bilbo could in 1947 state that ‘North America is nine-tenths white; Latin America is nine-tenths colored’.1 However, the fact that whites in the Deep South and South Africa were living alongside blacks for many generations did have an impact on the gene pool of whites – albeit an almost negligible one.
The Old South before the Civil War, with its nucleus being Virginia or the ‘Old Dominion’, is not to be mistaken with the Far or Deep South, which at first consisted only of South Carolina and Georgia – later on stretching from the coast westward through Alabama and Mississippi all the way to Louisiana, Arkansas and parts of Texas. This latter region was known as the ‘cotton belt’ and depended heavily on slave-labour.
Although the racial integrity of white Southerners has never been in question and the colour line stood firm against amalgamation for several hundred years, the long-time presence of blacks left a mark. In South Carolina and Louisiana researchers found that one in twenty people who self-identified as white had at least two percent African ancestry. On the West Coast, about two percent of white Americans have the same share of Native American ancestry.2 Although these percentages are very low, this shows that segregation within the same general area is not a long-term survival strategy.
Partial non-European ancestry is by no means restricted to white Southerners and South African Afrikaners, who are both Northwestern Europeans in appearance and spirit. Spaniards for instance sometimes have small Sub-Saharan segments, perhaps mediated through the Moors. Some Portuguese have a small proportion of black ancestry as well since African slaves were brought to south-western Portugal as early as the 1400s. In Germany, it has been estimated that ten percent of native Germans have a certain amount of Jewish ancestry. Of course, since the Germans have heavily outnumbered the Jews in their territory at all times, the amount of northwestern and eastern European DNA within the gene pool of Ashkenazi Jews is even higher. This yet again points to the conclusion that wherever two ethnic groups live in the same general area for hundreds of years there is some intermingling regardless of segregation.
True, the small percentage of non-European DNA found in the aforementioned populations does not deprive these peoples of their European identity, but if we take into account the mass-immigration of coloured races into white societies, the future looks grim to say the least. Our future in multiracial Western Europe and North America is more likely to resemble that of the Jews in medieval Germany than that of the Germans. We will be an absolute minority and our blood will inevitably become corrupted. What is more, mixed marriages were nothing to be proud of in the past and were, in fact, banned in all but one state. There was no need for such laws in Maine since, at the time, it had not a single black resident. How times have changed! Race-mixing is now openly being promoted through commercials, movies etc. In fact, there appears to be not a single Hollywood movie these days that doesn’t promote amalgamation in one form or another.
Therefore I believe that the creation of a white ethnostate is the only feasible solution to the crisis we as white people in Europe and overseas are facing. It is the key to long-term survival. It is the answer to the sixty-four thousand dollar question – the undoing of the Gordian knot. And it was Senator Theodore G. Bilbo who wrote the following words in 1947: ‘It is not too late – we can yet save the integrity and civilization of both the white and the black races. Many great men of the past have suggested the only solution – the only salvation. A physical separation as advocated from the days of Thomas Jefferson to the present is the only solution. To do this may be a Herculean task, but it is not impossible.’3
It is now the time to discuss the preferable ethnic make-up of a white ethnostate in the case of its creation somewhere in the Anglosphere. I have advocated for the creation of multiple white ethnostates before: for the creation of an ethnostate consisting mainly of Southern Europeans, which would most likely be formed in Argentina or the south of Brazil or perhaps somewhere in Southern Europe, for the creation of an enclave for Eastern Europeans somewhere in Eastern Europe or the implementation of an actual Intermarium, a strong alliance of Central and Eastern European countries between the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea, and last but not least for the creation of a Northwestern European ethnostate somewhere in the Anglosphere. However, if there is to be only one white ethnostate in North America or Australia, the desirable ethnic composition of such a state must be discussed.
It goes without saying that I would rather live in Belarus or a white Southern European settlement in South America than to see my grandchildren growing up anywhere near the coming slums of Western Europe. However, if there is a way to preserve the distinctive biocultural heritage that has shaped not just Western Europe but also North America, Australasia and South Africa, for a Northwestern European, it would be certainly wrong not to attempt to do so. In fact, it was for this reason that the Immigration Act of 1924, also known as Johnson-Reed Act, was adopted. The integration and complete assimilation of whites from Eastern Europe and Southern Europe into the US was possible – yet the integration of Northwestern Europeans happened a lot faster and smoother as Wilmot Robertson notes: ‘Non-English-speaking Northern Europeans easily and quickly adapted to the Anglo-Saxon core culture of Australia, New Zealand, British Canada and the United States.’4
Hence the quotas for a white ethnostate I would propose are the following: At least 70 percent of the population should be of Northwestern European origin. The annual influx of Southern Europeans must never exceed 15 percent of the total influx of whites. If less than 15 percent of settlers arrive from Southern European countries in Europe and Latin America, the percentage of Eastern Europeans may rise accordingly, but the total influx of ‘Southerners’ and ‘Easterners’ should not account for more than 30 percent of the settlers in any given year. This does not mean that they will be second-class citizens.
Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans have demonstrated in the past that they can be successfully integrated and fully assimilated into Northwestern European societies. However, in order to guarantee the Northwestern European character of the ethnostate in the long run, it is necessary to introduce certain quotas. If – say – Belarus should declare itself a white ethnostate, it would be perfectly reasonable for the Belarusians to demand that 70 percent of the white settlers who are willing to migrate to Belarus must be of Eastern European origin.
But what is the first step towards the ethnostate? The first step – and a necessary one to be sure – is the creation of settlements just like Orania in the United States and Canada. Also in Germany, where small villages will be up for sale in the Eastern part of the country soon, the successful approach of the Afrikaners should be emulated. Most readers are probably familiar with the South African town Orania. The aim of its founders was to create a stronghold for Afrikaans and the Afrikaner identity by keeping their language and culture alive. About 2,000 people live in Orania today and the economy is booming from what I am being told. The crime rates are so low – they don’t even need a police force. The small community has a radio station and its own currency. All jobs, from management to manual labour, are filled only by Afrikaners; non-Afrikaner workers are not permitted to work unless they have skills no resident has. There are two schools with hundreds of students and a vocational school was just opened in 2017. The population has constantly been growing over the past three decades. Imagine that the settlement was started with thirteen inhabitants in 1991!
So clearly, setting up Oranias in North America, New Zealand, Australia and Europe is what is to be done. I firmly believe in the right to self-determination. However, if the majority has no interest in exercising this right, the people who wish to do so must come together and form a majority elsewhere.
1 Bilbo, Theodore, Take Your Choice. Separation or Mongrelization, Ostara Publications 2017 , p. 48.
2 See: the maps in Bryc, Katarzyna/ Durand, Eric/ Macpherson, Michael/ Reich, David/ Mountain, Joanna, ‘The Genetic Ancestry of African Americans, Latinos, and European Americans across the United States,’ in The American Journal of Human Genetics 96 (2015), pp. 37–53, p. 45, fig. 3.
3 Bilbo, Theodore: Take Your Choice. Separation or Mongrelization, Ostara Publications 2017 , p. 2.
4 Robertson, Wilmot, The Ethnostate. An Unblinkered Prospectus for an Advanced Statecraft, Ostara Publications 2017 , p. 38.