White advocates have long been lured by the prospect of having their own state or region where “Whiteness” or people of European heritage could live an unobstructed life. In today’s divisive atmosphere, this dream seems almost impossible to fulfill for a number of reasons that we shall discuss.
Many obstacles obstruct the reification of an independent ethno-state both at home and abroad. They are primarily political in nature but also linked to the enormous financial burdens that come with building a viable country from scratch. The founding of Israel in 1948 gives us an example of how difficult it can be to establish a separate, theologically and linguistically different country in a hostile environment. To make this migration possible, land in the Middle East was ceded by the British government to Jewish leaders under very trying circumstances. Ever since the arrival of Jewish refugees displaced by the Second World War, there has been an ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians for control of the area, showing us the same diversity problems we see in diverse states.
First and foremost, would a White ethno-state attract enough future citizens to survive? Thousands of advocates would be required in order to maintain basic municipal services, produce tax revenue, supply food, fire and police protection, organize a public education system as well as a militia, etc.
Where would the new country of “Whiteness” be located? How would it be acquired? All over the earth, land has to be purchased or ceded by governmental decree. Unoccupied, free land is non-existent. A great deal of political influence is required for any acquisition to take place. Enormous sums of money would be needed to buy vast tracts of land for development. How would this investment be realized…who would supply the funds? Could the newcomers count on generous donations from wealthy partisans to promote their cause?
Along these lines, the Chinese are now acquiring large tracts of land in America, not for colonization but to set up an overseas agricultural supply source to feed their growing population. Nonetheless, the Chinese could use these areas for other purposes, namely to spy on near-by military bases. This, indeed, may be the case.
Australia is often mentioned as a possible site for establishing a White community; however, the Australians would certainly reject any attempt by a foreign power to acquire land for White-only purposes as mentioned above. This runs counter to their current immigration policy which is race-neutral. Any form of racially-based settlement would be cancelled by police intervention.
On the other hand, there is the possibility of purchasing land abroad at enormous cost and developing it slowly in a “commercial” way without revealing the true reasons for the transaction. However, if exposed, this sort of deception would engender a swift and immediate intervention by the government, as detailed below.
If pro-White citizens select a new community for resettlement in America, how will they live? Federal funding from Social Security and other existing governmental subsidies will most likely be suspended by presidential edict. It is likely as well that insurance policies may not apply in a non-sovereign location. White autonomy would be considered an act of secession which is not prohibited by Constitutional law but would create a storm of controversy in Congress over the creation of a “hate” state or region.
In the new oasis, what form of currency would be used? Similar to the Confederacy’s dilemma during the Civil War, what nation if any would honor its money? How could the new country issue bonds or mint currency with any credibility?
The migration of White advocates to their new homeland would generate turmoil and division in communities that observe America’s diversity and inclusion laws. The migrants would be “canceled” or shunned by their neighbors who would fear associating with ethnic “traitors” to American postwar values.
The FBI would consider White advocates living in the United States to be “insurrectionists” and potential foreign assets. They would be viewed with suspicion and mistrust. It is possible that the FBI could issue arrest warrants for outspoken opponents of the Biden regime.
Worst of all, the privilege of American citizenship would most likely be revoked by Congress for white advocates living abroad in their autonomous land. If this occurred, White migrants would be homeless and stateless persons unable to return to American territories without going through immigration procedures. Those who changed their minds would become apatrides or people without a country.
Although expatriation by Americans does not normally carry the loss of citizenship and access to financial resources, choosing Whiteness over a racially mixed nation such as America would be considered an act of treason by progressive legislators. In all likelihood, the new, illegitimate country would not be recognized nor rewarded by the American government.
However, Blacks who wanted to return to their African country of origin would not be punished in any of these ways. As a privileged and protected minority, they could not be prosecuted for “treasonous” acts such as migrating to an all-black country. Whites, by committing to a new, racially homogeneous land, would be severely penalized as an example to others who might attempt to abandon their native country.
If the possibility existed, what would the criteria be for migration to the White paradise? Who would determine these standards? How would they be enforced? How does one draw a genetic line in the ethnic sand to determine “Blackness” or “Whiteness”?
In spite of many obstacles, the Jewish Zionist movement had been in preparation for decades (in particular since the Balfour Declaration at the end of the First World War) a return to Palestine, the homeland of Judaism. In Israel the initial years were a struggle for survival, both physically and militarily. Arab countries were committed to “driving them into the sea.”
Would White advocates be prepared to confront this sort of opposition from neighboring peoples? How do we stay in the United States and demand freedom from discrimination without an overt struggle to defend our rights? It will be, as things now stand, virtually impossible to “persuade” progressive politicians and left-wing militants to grant any leeway in recognizing White heritage without condemning its “systemic racism” and past sins.
Whites are being routinely labeled as purveyors of discord and alleged evil. Every effort is being made to reduce Whites to a minority status by enabling rampant immigration, especially through the southern border. As soon as political power is gained by minorities, Whites will be the subject of discriminatory legislation–even more so than today.
With this reality in mind, is there anything the “White nation” or people of European descent can do to protect their uniqueness from miscegenation and dilution?
Television and magazine propaganda are promoting this racially mixed society in a flagrant manner. Pharmaceutical and consumer goods ads are picturing the new world of racial “harmony” at every opportunity. The light-skinned wife (never blond or blue-eyed) is happily wedded to her African American spouse: equality of the races is explicit in these instances. Mixed-race children frolic on playgrounds with no cultural distinctions or physical barriers. On television, neighborhood gatherings are always multi-racial in the approved proportions.
Occasionally a White middle class male actor is shown with his minority spouse (almost always black). No advertisement shows mixed-race couples living in center city projects…where they would most likely reside. They are always nestled in suburban homes that reek of money and status.
The commercial message is clear: we are moving toward a racially “blind” society where ethnic differences are inexistent and/or irrelevant.
Single-parent black mothers — more than 70% of existing family units in the African American community — are almost never featured in TV ads. The old-fashioned, two-spouse black marriage is presented as typical of modern black life style and values. Ever since the Civil Rights Act of 1964/1965 and the infusion of massive subsidies into the black community, the cohesiveness of black marriages — very common until this juncture — has declined significantly. Welfare moms have become the nexus of inner city living… having multiple children without a father in residence.
Progressive activists have encouraged mainstream and social media to lie to the American public in their promotion of equality and “equity” of all races. Asian couples are virtually never pictured as married to non-Asians, and certainly not to Blacks which would be considered in the Asian community a social faux pas, a major step down the ladder of success.
In today’s climate there is no way that legislation could be passed to recognize and defend the unique qualities of the White population in America. Fairness dictates that the term “White” should not be associated with racism by virtue of past actions, no matter how discriminatory they were at the time. Schools at all levels should reject the teaching of Critical Race Theory and other propaganda that debase students of Caucasian descent, in spite of their national origins. For example, a seven-year-old White child from Iceland who has never seen a black person before immigrates with his family to Atlanta, Georgia. He is thereby guilty of “systemic White racism” by virtue of his skin color and heritage? This is preposterous in every sense of the word.
If Congress will not intervene in this dilemma, what other avenues of remediation exist for the white advocate in today’s social climate?
One way would be to organize local or online discussion groups where people of a like mind could meet to develop strategies for recruitment of white advocates and suggest proactive measures for action, both political and social. Congressmen and women could be contacted to encourage their support of legislation that would favor white community interests. A list of activists could be compiled for this purpose.
At all costs, insurrectionists or violent groups should be avoided. These extremist outliers would only alienate people of good will who seek positive change. White secession and association are political issues, not a revolutionary call to arms.
There should no further attempts to nullify elections and displace duly elected governments. The consequences, as we have seen, will be dire. If possible, every attempt should be made, prior to the next round of elections, to correct electoral errors or illegal procedures that favor the Democratic Party. “Affirmative legal action” should be practiced by every GOP representative in Congress.
Advertising should be placed on social media websites that present a positive image of the white advocate movement and its aspirations. Inflammatory language should be avoided; this would only incite opposition and condemnation.
According to the 2020 census, white Americans of European heritage constitute approximately 63% of the total population…some studies have this number as low as 58%. This percentage is now in a downward spiral. As the White majority begins to lose power to ever-expanding minorities, many advocates will become increasingly receptive to forming a united front to retain their identity and social status.
Racial diversity will strain the bonds of national unity; once they become a plurality, Whites will be at the mercy of revengeful leaders who despise their privileges and economic strength.
Our struggle can succeed only in small increments, not by storming the center of national power. We can resist attacks on our dignity and political aspirations by standing firm and not succumbing to the demands of our opponents. The Democratic Party is unified in its desire to modify the very nature of our government and constitutional authority. The Republican Party has not shown the strength and conviction it needs to effect positive change.
A forceful and dynamic leader is desperately needed for White advocacy to be successful in the near future.
We must take advantage of our current political majority in the House of Representatives to promote European immigration and to recognize with honor the contributions of those patriots who founded and laid out the structure for our unique and long-lived Republic.
If we remain passive, the worst will happen. Americans will continue to be divided along ethnic lines and dissension will increase in intensity. We will revert to a tribal-like country based on ethnic loyalties. E pluribus unum will be a wilted motto with no connection to America’s past grandeur. We either separate now according to tribal lines, or live through another few centuries of tribal conflict before petering out in exhaustion.
When millions of citizens make their voices heard, the progressive left will be forced to listen. We are very fortunate that a number of highly competent White advocates are now showing the way for dissidents who feel cut adrift and divorced from their government.
Can we survive in a putative White haven far from our shores? The answer is sadly no. This negative response is based on practical considerations. European nations are tightly controlled by the EU Schengen Zone regulations. In hyper-conservative Hungary, as a member of Schengen, there are a number of immigration restrictions. Elsewhere, in more autocratic nations, White colonies would not be advisable or even possible without paying large bribes to corrupt government officials. In any event, security could not be guaranteed in these turbulent countries. Extensive, fenced-in communes would eventually be invaded by the brown-skinned natives of the region. White exclusivity would be rendered impossible without armed protection.
Are our dreams of having a more receptive government and the right to form White-based support groups reasonable? At present, this type of ethnic association is politically banned in many countries, but through collective action and courageous leadership we will prevail. Freedom of association is guaranteed by the Constitution.
Several attempts have been made throughout our history to establish independent colonies for the sake of promoting religious and cultural lifestyles that were not permissible at the time under American mores and law. We will examine three of these movements which were established during the nineteenth century within the parameters of a given American state.
The most prominent of these separatist movements are the Mormons or members of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints that settled in the State of Utah after moving from Missouri. These are devotees who serve as living witnesses or apostles of Joseph Smith (visited by the Holy Spirit at the age of twenty-four) as chronicled in the Book of Mormon, a translation of ancient texts and revelations that were miraculously discovered by Smith with the help of an angel.
The Utah Mormons practiced polygamy or serial marriage until 1896 when they were banned by Congress and the Supreme Court. Until 1978, the Mormons excluded Blacks from holding leadership roles in the Church.
Joseph Smith and his writings are considered by most Mormons as prophetic and of a divine nature. Mormonism has its followers all over the globe because of its aggressive proselytizing. They have now embraced the equality of race relations as a tenet of faith. Consequently, White advocates would not be welcomed or assisted by Mormons in their efforts to set up a colony in Utah.
The Amish community in Pennsylvania is also a long-term independent religious sect (derived from the Anabaptist faith in Europe) that adheres to a strict and non-modern lifestyle. It seeks to preserve an early eighteenth century way of life without any of the conveniences of modern living, including television and automobiles. Many of its customs and beliefs are recognized by law (military deferment and not enforcing laws that conflict with their core beliefs) and the Amish are granted a wide range of autonomy in how they govern their community.
As a secular theocracy, the Amish people receive exemptions that White advocates would not be granted. The Amish are insular and would not welcome strangers or “English” into their ranks. As farmers, they would not share land with urban White advocates who practice racial exclusion.
In northern New York State, the Oneida community, now defunct, once promoted all aspects of communal living and social experimentation; also in California collective living facilities are and were available that adhered to an independent set of values that were not in keeping with traditional mores of the time. In these communes, drug use and immoral behavior created an atmosphere of lawlessness and even criminal activity (Charles Manson). These utopian groups were not seen in a positive light; politically they played a major role in the Vietnam War protest movements of the 1960s and 1970s.
These three examples would not be the sort of community-living experience that White advocates would seek to imitate. With the help of wealthy sponsors or donors as well as co-operative politicians, White advocates could possibly gain access to communal living space in rural areas where their living style could take root and expand. It would be difficult, according to existing real estate laws, to keep sites racially restricted or homogeneous. Nonetheless, as it now stands, this is the only viable path that White advocates have to pursue. It would take commitment and ongoing financial support to bring this dream to fruition.
Over the next few decades, White advocates can either grow passive when faced with the challenges of “woke” progressive measures and accept their fate or — the most likely option — organize into militant groups that will confront negative legislation that seeks to diminish their influence.
In the war of pigmentation and historical righteousness, the liberal-progressives propose to eliminate “Whiteness” by racial dilution and enacting laws that will force the integration of all peoples. The Biden administration is dictating diversity and inclusion in all facets of urban and communal residences. Suburbs will soon be mandated to accept high rise projects without any form of ethnic restrictions.
When Whites have been reduced to a minority status with no power, the objectives of radical social politics will have been achieved. Racial identity will not play a role in national politics except for those “privileged” minorities, victims of “White” abuse and cruelty, whose subsidies are justified by past neglect.
As we initially stated, how long will white citizens tolerate these flagrant, abusive and authoritarian diktats in the guise of social justice?
Our revolt must come from within existing political organizations, by using the force of numbers to exert our will on woke zealots. Inaction, so the saying goes, is assent. Compromising our values is a declaration of defeat.
In conclusion, our opponents trumpet from the streets: “We are human and our cause is just! Our strength is in diversity!” From a distant mountain top, knowledgeable Whites answer: “We are also a part of humanity and our noble conviction is a sign of past and future greatness. One and the same, arms linked, we prosper in cultural unity.”