The Ethnostate: Some Problems Nobody Thinks About
WHITE SURVIVAL IS a limited goal. It is necessary to survive before you can progress. We are in the midst of a relentless, fast-moving crisis, in which worldwide racial survival is at stake. (ILLUSTRATION: the statue The Victor, overlooking the city of Belgrade)
Even so, it is necessary to constantly juggle a host of factors in your mind simultaneously, including broad goals, as you strive mightily, hand-to-mouth and day-to-day, merely to subsist. It is startling how many moving parts there are to the race problem, and how few people are contemplating them seriously.
Looking at the bigger picture, there seems to be a consensus among White racialists in support of universal ethnonationalism, the idea that every race on earth is entitled to its own geographical, social, and political space. At some point (it is assumed) the people of the world can voluntarily and peaceably separate and occupy neat, demarcated racial territories satisfactory (more or less) to all.
It is difficult to state this point of view in neutral terms without sounding wildly unrealistic. Universal nationalism appears to be motivated by a strong desire to be fair; typically it is accompanied by overt rejection of White “supremacism” and “hatred” of other races.
Some (not all) proponents mention Jews. In today’s world, Jews are far and away the most dominant and powerful race on the planet, so it is crucial to consider them in any scenario about the future.
Many believe Jews should have their own homeland like everybody else. (I’m ignoring philo-Semitic racialists here, who identify with and include Jews, thereby inviting them to rule over Aryans — the inevitable consequence of such an arrangement.)
Sometimes Israel is designated as the Jewish homeland. The Jews will all go there voluntarily (fat chance), or — presumably — be compelled to.
Briefly, apart from the responsibility for injustice you thereby shoulder — exactly like the present regime, which at least has the excuse of being evil — Jewish territorial separation will fail. Like the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, where even most Soviet Jews refused to go, it will not materialize except in name. History conclusively proves that, unlike other races (with the probable exception of Gypsies), Jews cannot survive on their own.
If all the world’s Jews were compelled to occupy a specific territory, from the start you would be required to hand over billions and billions of dollars annually, and donate tons of material goods, including luxury items, just to keep them alive. Simultaneously they would skillfully undermine the societies that sustain them, because those would be the wealthiest, most viable, powerful, and racially homogeneous states on the planet. Finally, they would not stay put.
Genuine Jewish separatism will not work, in Israel or anyplace else. Jews can only survive by attaching themselves to non-Jews. Without such an arrangement, they die.
When it comes to type of ethnostate, there is no consensus. No one supports a completely White world cleansed of other races, the way Whites are being cleansed from the planet now. (Which would be a possible, in the sense of imaginable, future.) Nor do they postulate a globally unified “White” race, however defined, in a single homeland.
The default position among White racialists is largely limited to this: “An ethnostate is our goal” — without further elaboration. (I think most people assume that there will be numerous White ethnostates.) While not a totally useless concept, it is far too vague to serve as a practical guide to action.
For example: Who’s White? (Which is to say: Who belongs? The answer is not obvious or self-explanatory.) How big, territorially, should White ethnostates be, and how numerous? Once established, how would they be kept vital, strong, stable, and racially homogeneous over centuries and millennia? How will aliens be kept out in the future? What is to be done with non-Whites presently in those areas? Jews?
Such questions are rudimentary, and address only matters of race and territory, not additional thorny issues that divide people, such as culture, language, economics, religion, form of government, and so on. Obviously there is lots of room for disagreement and fragmentation even under optimal conditions. And conditions will not be optimal.
Some ethnonationalists advocate what amount to localist solutions. They favor almost any separatist tendency within formerly White nations that will break existing multiracial states up, even into fragmented replicas of the larger genocidal entities from which they seceded. Thus, Left-wing, anti-White groups like the Scottish and Welsh national parties, the IRA and its associated political entities, and Catalan separatists in Spain, as well as Jewish-neoconservative dominated Ukraine, all have White racial partisans. From the standpoint of group survival, this is not rational.
Even smaller nationalist entities have been proposed, notably Hamilton Barrett’s “Pioneer Little Europes.” Craig Cobb tried to establish a tiny settlement in rural North Dakota, exactly as Whites have done throughout recorded history, but was thwarted by Jews and the state, together with the controlled media.
The outstanding real-world example is Orania, a tiny community in rural South Africa created by possibly the most ethnically conscious (ethnically more than racially) White group on the planet, Afrikaners. It must be grimly noted how extremely marginal and vulnerable it remains.
I have tentatively suggested an approach more encompassing than localism or traditional nationalism called Pan-Nationalism. On a spectrum, this concept is territorially and demographically “large” rather than “small.”
In Germany prior to 1933, Hitler fiercely opposed Bavarian right-wing separatists (i.e., localists). His own objective extended beyond the entire German state of his time. An adherent of Pan-Germanism, his regime subsequently incorporated Austria and other German regions into an expanded, unified Reich.
The fatal flaw of localism is vulnerability to destruction by larger and more powerful hostile states.
The most detailed philosophical elaboration of universal ethnonationalism to date is that of Richard McCulloch in The Racial Compact (1994), subtitled “A Call for Racial Preservation, Racial Independence, Racial Rights and Racial Good Will.” It can be read online in HTML form; certain passages have been updated since the book was published in paperback.
Because the author, unlike virtually everyone else, spelled out his ideas in detail, certain underlying normative values and empirical assumptions shared by other conservative racialists but not articulated by them become explicit.
Examination of the book, or even its Table of Contents, shows that these principles are classical liberal in nature. The framework is analogous to that of the Magna Carta or U.S. Constitution applied to race, including racial partition and separation and a charter or compact of racial rights.
It goes far beyond the Constitution and Founders, however, in embracing the entire world as “‘a house with many mansions,’ in which racial preservation and independence would be protected and promoted, making the world safe for human racial diversity.”
As with the schemes of Jews and other globalists, this is a highly rationalistic planetary objective, albeit a humane rather than inhumane one. At a minimum it requires someone to make framework decisions from a centralized set of values deemed binding upon all.
Even more problematic, there is an injunction against violence and coercion by Whites. McCulloch frames this in terms of “moral” versus “immoral” racism. Whites who utilize force to survive, even against violent, unreasoning enemies, are (by implication) immoral racists. This is extremely important, because it is a central tenet, usually unstated, shared by most ethnostate proponents.
This is a radical departure from the entire history of European thought and behavior. Such an attitude would not have been endorsed by a majority of Whites in the past. It is a concession to the enemy so enormous and incomprehensible as to vitiate any chance of success in the real world.
It is false to assume Whites will last without resorting to violence and using coercive measures. This has been made necessary by the enemy. Human history is an unambiguous process of unfoldment: of evolution, revolution, flux, competition, clash, destruction, construction, constant, often violent change. It is frequently harsh, remorseless, and cruel. Eat or be eaten. Kill or be killed.
Alfred Tennyson juxtaposed the tension between too-high idealism and the pitilessness of Nature in Canto 56 of his famous poem In Memoriam A. H. H. (1850):
“So careful of the type?” but no.
From scarped cliff and quarried stone
She [Nature] cries, “A thousand types are gone;
I care for nothing, all shall go.
“Thou makest thine appeal to me:
I bring to life, I bring to death;
The spirit does but mean the breath:
I know no more.” And he, shall he,
Man, her last work, who seemed so fair,
Such splendid purpose in his eyes,
Who rolled the psalm to wintry skies,
Who built him fanes [churches] of fruitless prayer,
Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation’s final law —
Though Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shrieked against his creed —
Who loved, who suffered countless ills,
Who battled for the True, the Just,
Be blown about the desert dust,
Or sealed within the iron hills?
Elsewhere I have touched indirectly upon this question of realism in thinking about what must be done in relation to deportation.
Recently, I was talking to someone about the Jewish-Black-Communist takeover of South Africa. I said South Africans should have responded forcefully to their enemies rather than capitulating to them. He maintained it was not “fair” that a small minority (Whites) rule over a Black majority. You can see where this mindset inexorably leads as Whites are deliberately transformed into minorities everywhere.
I replied that I didn’t care anymore; we no longer have the luxury to indulge such emotions. (I actually don’t think they’re moral — just the opposite.)
“What would you have done?” he asked.
“I would have shoved them north of the Kalahari and Zambezi, and the Jews too, and any Whites who wanted to go with them.” (Yes, I’d take back Rhodesia and South-West Africa while I was at it.)
This is the desperate strait we’ve reached. Either we face up to hard facts and respond accordingly or we don’t (or can’t, due to totalitarianism and other external factors). Either we survive through conscious, determined effort or we perish from the face of the Earth. The self-indulgent dream of peaceful nationalism for all people is inconsistent with the struggle for existence that characterizes human life.
In desperate straits, we don’t have time to concern ourselves with the long-term or short-term well-being of other races, particularly those actively destroying us or otherwise standing in our way.
The vast majority of “fair-minded” ethnostate proponents are de facto pacifists and voluntarists on core issues such as separation, deportation, and survival — even in this hostile, totalitarian world determined to commit genocide, where freedom of speech and democracy have been abolished.
This constitutes a dangerous rejection of reality.
* * *