The National Premise Revisited

This is a much shortened and slightly revised version of the author’s article “Visions of the Ethnostate” which was featured in the Fall 2018 issue of The Occidental Quarterly.

*  *  *  *


It is an interesting fact that in the already vast and ever-growing corpus of works, books, essays, articles and videos addressing the racial problem by those who can be, and often are, denoted as “White advocates” there is a glaring lack of actual advocacy. Of the varied aspects of the racial problem, the more obvious ones, including their history and causes, are typically covered in great detail. The less obvious aspects, such as the long-term consequences of the racial problem, admittedly requiring some degree of projection and speculation, receive much less attention. Given the grim prospect of their continued racially destructive course, and the stark either-or choices they present, a reluctance to address or confront these consequences is understandable. To fully confront them, considering the full extent of their effects, would force one to face the logical and much more controversial next step of advocating or proposing possible alternative courses or solutions.

In The Dispossessed Majority in 1972 Wilmot Robertson set a new standard for describing the racial problem, but he didn’t propose a solution for it.1 He addressed this omission in his second book Ventilations in 1974, proposing a solution of territorial racial separation in which the far greater part of the United States would be kept together in what he called “The Utopian States of America,” with minorities concentrated in semi-autonomous enclaves under White hegemony.2 For example, Jews would be concentrated in enclaves in New York, Los Angeles, and Miami Beach. All Blacks outside the south would be concentrated in the twenty largest urban ghettos, which would be enlarged as needed for this purpose, while Blacks in the south would be concentrated in those counties where they were already the majority. The exceptions would be the Latinos who would be ceded a 40-mile deep band along the full length of the Mexican border, and the East Asians who would be given the Hawaiian Islands except for some US military bases.

Soon after reading Ventilations I met Jim Feller. He had also read Robertson’s books and showed me a partition map he had drawn up that was mostly based on Robertson’s proposal but with a different plan for Black separation, and apparently a much wider band for the Latino country than Robertson’s 40 miles. Less than two years later I saw Feller’s map again on the cover of the April 1976 issue of Instauration (Figure 1) illustrating an article by Robertson titled “The National Premise” that proposed a racial partition of the United States.3 With the exception of the change in the location of the Blacks, and making the minority states independent, it was close enough to Robertson’s earlier proposal that he was probably happy to adopt it.

Figure 1: Feller Partition Map

At the end of a sidebar explaining the map Robertson wrote:

If all this sounds impractical, we ask our readers to think of the alternatives. If the races are not separated soon, the Majority [Whites] will have to fight for survival or go completely under. Already we have lost many of our largest cities . . . and if things continue at their present pace, it is quite possible that we may soon be reduced to a formal and permanent state of serfdom. Separation and the surrender of a great deal of our land and property may well be our only means of survival.

That was 43 years ago. Since then we have witnessed the continuing “browning” of America, the ongoing dispossession and replacement of the White population by invasion-levels of non-White immigration, the more than doubling of the non-White (i.e., non-European) proportion of the population from 20% in 1976 to 41% in 2016, non-Whites becoming a majority of the population under the age of ten and projected to become an absolute majority around 2040, the rate of White reproductive intermixture with non-Whites doubling about every twenty years (e.g., per CDC figures, from 5.2% in 1990 to 11.6% in 2010), and cultural changes corresponding to the demographic changes.

Feller’s example inspired by first partition plan which appeared in map form in the November 1983 issue of Instauration (Figure 2) under the title “Spinning Off the Minorities.”4 The Black nation (D), with an area of 96,100 square miles, was a little larger than the United Kingdom. The Latino nation (C) had 89,500 square miles. The two non-European Caucasian nations (A and E) had a combined area of 59,000 square miles.

Figure 2: First McCulloch Partition Map

My second plan appeared in map form (Figure 3) in my book, The Nordish Quest, in 1989 and more than doubles the territory for the non-White nations, from 283,000 to 661,000 square miles, or 21.2 percent of the area of the lower forty-eight states, enough for them to be clearly viable as independent nations and to meet the average reasonable White person’s standard of fairness.5 As you can see, in spite of obvious differences, Feller’s plan and mine share the same conception of an ethnostate created by a grand racial partition of the country. We could refer to this as the “National Premise” concept of a transcontinental nation designed to retain all of the still savable White population and the far greater part of the national territory, be the continuation of the historical United States with its institutions and heritage, remain the world’s greatest economic and military power, and retain all of the nuclear weapons, submarines, major surface warships, first-line aircraft, and almost all of the conventional heavy weapons, enabling it to enforce, at least at sea, the global Pax Americana that Robertson advocated in The Dispossessed Majority. There would be no need for any of the non-White successor states to be more heavily armed than Mexico.

Figure 3: Second McCulloch Partition Map

To get an idea of the scale of the map in Figure 3, the Black nation bounded by the Mississippi, Colorado and Arkansas rivers (F), at 258,000 square miles, is 21 percent larger in area than France (including Corsica) and 15 percent larger than Kenya. The Latino nation (E), at 199,000 square miles, is a little larger than Spain. There are two nations for non-European Caucasians and various persons and groups that don’t fit well in the other nations. The western one (A), at 126,000 square miles, is 8 percent larger than Italy (including Sicily and Sardinia), while the eastern one (H) in Florida is the size of the Netherlands and Flanders combined, as is the East Asian nation (C) in southern California. The South Asian nation (B) is the size of the Netherlands and Belgium combined and the Hispanic Afro-Caribbean nation (I) in south Florida is twice the size of Puerto Rico. The 2016 population of these ceded areas was about 87 million, of which about 39.4 million were European and 47.6 million non-European. In the United States as a whole there were 132 million non-Europeans (41 percent) and in Canada 7.2 million (20.4 percent).

The word “ethnostate,” most basically defined as an independent monoracial country or homeland, was coined by Wilmot Robertson in his book of that title in 1992. Why a new word? The concept of a monoracial nation was not new. It had been around long before Robertson, Feller, and I addressed it. But the term ethnostate gave us the first English expression of the concept in a single word, and that seems to give it more power.

Between 1976 and 1992 Robertson’s preferred concept of the ethnostate underwent a major change, influenced by Raymond Cattell’s Beyondism.6 As we have seen, in the 1976 article he promoted the grand or “national premise” vision of the ethnostate as the continuation of a mostly intact White America. In The Ethnostate in 1992 he proposed not only separating the races into different countries, which would achieve the basic goal of an ethnostate, but going beyond this to also break up or “devolve” the White American population into multiple separate nations, each armed with nuclear weapons to protect itself from larger predators.7 As he put it, “The basic sine qua non of an ethnostate, the prop on which it succeeds or fails, is racial and cultural homogeneity. We have already suggested that a second prop, almost as basic, is smallness. . . . The governed must not exceed a reasonable number.”8 He did not specify what “reasonable number” means but mentioned 50 million as a number that is far too large, indicating the maximum population size should be a fraction of that. We know from his other writing about this time that he also favored the break-up or devolution of Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, and Italy into their smaller provincial components, such as the French province of Brittany, with a population of about 4.5 million. Since he was not specific about what the maximum population would be, and therefore into how many separate ethnostates the White American population should be divided, I assumed it would be at least a dozen, and probably more.

The term “ethnostate” didn’t really catch on for almost two decades. I didn’t use it in any of my published work, probably because the utopian vision behind it was so different from my own. But as it circulated at conferences and popped up in discussions, often used by people who were unaware of the original size limitation, its definition in common usage broadened and generalized to include any form or scale of territorial racial separation into different countries. At the beginning of the current decade it came into its own with the rise of online blogging and discussion groups, to which it proved well suited. It is now used so broadly and inclusively as to be reduced to what Robertson called its most basic sine qua non, its racial and cultural homogeneity, with even the cultural part largely neglected as a redundant euphemism for something widely seen as the inseparable extended phenotype of a race. But race was always the primary part of the definition. The limitation on size was secondary and had nothing to do with race, and indeed in racial terms it was not natural but artificial and arbitrary. In this broad form it has been widely adopted, promoted, and diffused, and with no restriction on size or scale, the “national premise” vision of the ethnostate, such as mine, Jim Feller’s and Robertson’s vision of 1976, fits quite comfortably.

Defining the word “ethnostate” as including any concept that meets the basic definition of a monoracial nation with its own territory and independent government allows for many different visions of what it could be. This can lead to confusion and misunderstanding regarding which version or concept is being discussed. For the sake of clarity, we need a standardized frame of reference to objectively define, compare, and evaluate the different concepts, such as I attempt to do in the following:

  • Grand or National Premise White Ethnostate

Contains 75–100 percent of the White population. A transcontinental nation purposed to serve White interests by including and preserving the maximum number of the White population and the far greater part of the territory as a continuation of the United States of America, retaining all nuclear and other major military assets, and remaining the world’s dominant economic and military superpower.

  • Major White Ethnostate

Contains 50–75 percent of the White population. Same purpose as the Grand or National Premise concept but smaller and weaker, possibly not transcontinental or including most of the territory. If it includes the national capital and most of the Atlantic seaboard it will probably be the continuation of the United States. Long-term prospects good. The larger it is, and the larger the share of the nuclear and other weapons it holds, the stronger its global and regional position and the better its long-term prospects.

  • Minor White Ethnostate

Contains 25–50 percent of the White population. Controls less than half the territory of the country and is not transcontinental, nor is it the continuation of the United States, or a global power or even the dominant regional power. With connections to Europe and a sufficient part of the nuclear arsenal its long-term prospects would be fair to good, depending on population size. Without nuclear weapons it would exist at the sufferance of the multiracial nation and long-term prospects would be poor. But even if it survives, the majority of the White race that is still in the multiracial nation as a shrinking minority would not. (At this level of conception, with a partial racial separation which includes only a minority of Whites, the process of ethnostate creation is usually visualized as one of secession, whereas in the previous “Grand” and “Major” concepts it is one of partition.)

  • Petty White Ethnostate

Contains 10–25 percent of the White population. Designed to save a small but still significant minority of the White race while the great majority is destroyed. Geographically limited to one quadrant of the country, with the northwest most commonly proposed, which would cut it off from Europe. With nuclear weapons it could be a secondary regional power, without them it would exist at the sufferance of the dominant multiracial nation, so long-term prospects are poor.

  • Mini White Ethnostate

Contains 0.1–10 percent of the White population. Purpose often focused more on realizing a creed or ideological purity than on maximizing racial preservation, so smaller and weaker than Petty type and saves an even smaller minority. Too large to avoid hostile attention so long-term prospects for survival are poor unless it has nuclear weapons.

  • Micro or “Galt’s Gulch”9 White Ethnostate

Contains less than 0.1 percent of the White population
Designed as means for a small community of White racial survivalists to escape the general destruction of their race. Unable to resist a serious attack so long-term prospects are poor and depend on avoiding attention.

  • Pseudo White Ethnostate

Percentage of the White population varies.Fails to meet basic criteria for an ethnostate either because it allows non-Whites in the White state or it is not independent.

  • Booby Trap or Con White Ethnostate

Contains less than 25 percent of the White population.Purposed to serve non-White interests, protecting the multiracial nation by diverting discontented Whites from better pro-White options, keeping the majority of Whites, and all or nearly all non-Whites, in the multiracial nation which would be the continuation of the United States with possession of the nuclear and other major military assets. Designed to fail and exists at sufferance of much stronger multiracial nation so prospects very poor.

  • Pie in the Sky White Ethnostate

Not defined spatially and temporally remote, so little more than a word with no sense of tangible meaning or reality.

If you’re asking serious people to support a cause, most will want to know, even have to know, what the goal is, what they are working for, perhaps fighting for. And it needs to be worth the effort—something worth winning and justifying the means used to win it. Considering the magnitude of our problem, we need to think big, not small. We need to think about saving our race as a whole, not just a small part of it, and not just in the United States but also in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. In our situation thinking small is a form of defeatism, for if a goal is too small to be a sufficient solution, even if it is won it is still a defeat. If you win, you lose.

The bulleted list above provides some basic information and points toward other questions that should be addressed. What proportion of the White population would the ethnostate include and hopefully save? What proportion and which parts of the country would it include? How many Whites would have to relocate? What is its purpose? Is it designed to promote some particularist creed or to maximize White preservation? What would be its position and standing in the world or on the continent? Would it still be a global superpower? Would it be the dominant regional power on the continent or even able to defend itself? How effective would it be at serving White interests, at saving the White race from subjugation and destruction? Is it a product of big and long-term thinking, or small and short-term thinking? What are its prospects for success or long-term viability? From the answers to these questions we will choose the concept that best serves our goal and purpose.

Some people think that a smaller ethnostate achieved by secession would be more easily attainable and face less resistance, and therefore be a more practical and realistic goal than a larger ethnostate achieved by partition. This is a misconception. There is no easy way out, no simple solution for our problem, no halfway point on the journey where we can stop and make do. To get any ethnostate that is meaningful or worth working toward we will have to be in control of the country and in charge of the separation process. To be in control means we will first have to win. There is no substitute for victory in creating the ethnostate. Only after we have won and are in control can any worthwhile ethnostate concept become a reality. And when we have won and are in control and can have any type of ethnostate we choose, we would be worse than fools, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, if we didn’t choose our best option but settled for a booby prize ethnostate that gave away most of our country and our race.

So, what is our choice, our goal? Think big and long term, or small and short term? Basically, in plans based on thinking big, the United States spins off the non-White minorities in a grand partition and becomes an explicitly all-White country. In plans based on small thinking, the United States allows secession by a small fraction of the most racially discontented Whites and continues as an increasingly non-White and anti-White (i.e., “progressive”) multiracial country.

If we want to save as much as possible of our race and country, we will choose the national premise. If we want our country to still be the strongest in the world, still the gem—and queen—of the ocean, and not forfeit that position to an increasingly non-White and anti-White multiracial state, and perhaps eventually to China, or if we even want to be able to stand up to China on favorable terms, we will choose the national premise. If we want to be able to help save Europe, Australia, and New Zealand for the White race we will choose the national premise, for a smaller ethnostate would be fully occupied with its own security with little ability to project power beyond its borders. If we want our country to be able to operate on a great scale, undertake great endeavors, achieve great things, and be the leading actor on the world stage, we will choose the national premise. The country I grew up in was great by all these measures as only a grand or national premise ethnostate can continue to be. If we want our ethnostate to be the kind of America the White race needs, we will choose the national premise. That is the kind of ethnostate I want my country to be.

Once our choice for an ethnostate has been made, it can only be created by political and territorial racial separation into different independent countries. This requires the movement, transfer, or relocation of populations. The reality of separation is the most difficult part, where many millions of people will be required to relocate to another part of the country. In my proposal (Figure 3 above), based on mid-2016 estimates, about 39.4 million or 20.6% of the 191 million European-Americans would have to relocate from the ceded territories and about 110 million or 83% of the 132 million non-Europeans would have to relocate to their ceded territory. That’s a total of about 150 million people being relocated. In the thirty years since I formulated this proposal the non-European population has increased by 80 million, from 52 million to the 132 million in the above figures, almost tripling the number of non-Europeans that would need to be relocated.

The magnitude of separation is why the review of my fourth book in the October 1994 issue of American Renaissance was titled “Thinking the Unthinkable.”10 But as that review makes clear, we don’t really have a choice if our race is to survive. Which is more unthinkable, biting the bullet with a one-time movement of 150 million people, or the destruction of the White American population? It’s either-or. The choice is between preservation and destruction, and in such a choice the moral presumption should be in favor of preservation. To me it is our genocide, not separation for preservation, that is unthinkable, and multiracialism is a genocidal machine, an engine of racial destruction as total in its final effects as anything ever imagined or real. Seen in this light, far from being unthinkable, separation is what we most need to be thinking about, and advocating at every opportunity. Nothing defines us better, or more, than what we are for, what we advocate, the alternative we offer. Nothing trumps the torrent of invective descriptors better than what we actually stand for.

1 Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority (Cape Canaveral, FL: Howard Allen Enterprises, 1972).

2 Wilmot Robertson, Ventilations (Cape Canaveral, FL: Howard Allen Enterprises, 1974).

3 Wilmot Robertson, “The National Premise,” Instauration, April 1976.

4 Richard McCulloch, “Spinning Off the Minorities,” Instauration (November 1983). This partition plan also appeared in my first two books:

Richard McCulloch, The Ideal and Destiny (Coral Springs, FL: Towncourt Enter- prises, 1982).

Richard McCulloch, Destiny of Angels (Coral Springs, FL: Towncourt Enterprises, 1986).

5 Richard McCulloch, The Nordish Quest (Coral Springs, FL: Towncourt Enterpris- es, 1989).

6 Raymond Cattell, Beyondism: Religion from Science (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1987).

7 Wilmot Robertson, The Ethnostate (Cape Canaveral, FL: Howard Allen Enterprises, 1992).

8 Ibid., 16.

9 The term “Galt’s Gulch” refers to a band of survivalists, based on Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.

10 Thomas Jackson, “Thinking the Unthinkable,” American Renaissance (October 1994).





17 replies
  1. Loren R.
    Loren R. says:

    multiracialism is a genocidal machine,
    I live this every day. I cannot believe what has happened to my community. This is an invasion and the end game is our death.

  2. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    My gut response after reading this was the same as my response to Andrew Joyce’s latest article on Ed Dutton, ie; and much of what I read here, and not just here. It reminded me of one obvious takeaway from Darwin’s Origin, ie; that the more complex a species is the less chances for survival.

    We all know we’re up against it. Though I remain thoroughly convinced that even if we’re unable to save ourselves the only thing non-Whites (including jews) can count on is a Pyrrhic victory.

    Either way, it’s obviously time for us to face as many facts and challenges as we can. No matter how unpleasant.

    For example, “How effective would it be at serving White interests, at saving the White race from subjugation and destruction?”

    It’d probably be helpful to know exactly what is meant by “White interests.” Who would define that one and would we all agree?

    Mr. McCulloch seems to be saying that White interests means “saving the White race…”

    But we up against it today exactly because most people, in fact, just about every other White but us, either doesn’t know or care.

    We, like Oedipus, “sway between hope and fear” because we’re aware and are concerned. But most Whites move mindlessly back and forth between ignorance and apathy.

    My experience with change, in my own life and literally everyone else I know personally and others I’ve come across in the flesh or in print, is that no one changes until they hit some kind of bottom.

    It’s like getting someone to move from the stage of being an unreflective thinker to a reflective thinker. It’s a huge leap and most never make it.


    That question can be answered. And any White man or woman who can answer will learn a lot about who we are and why we’re despised.

    In fact, it was implicit and nearly explicit in Dr. Joyce’s excellent review of Mr. Dutton’s latest.

    Also, though I agree that Nationalism is the way to go, it’s hardly as simple as that. A fact I’m sure we’re all aware of here.

    But a question remains. One well worth asking if we’re going to move in that direction.

    If we already were a Grand or National Premise White Ethnostate, as we most certainly were at one point not that long ago, how did loose our way.

    That’s another question we’d have to answer. Especially if we want to avoid a repeat performance.

  3. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    Could I offer a more viable alternative to the above hallucinations ? Decidedly not! Unless, of course, one would contract some stalwart Zionists : given their ruthless determination, G-d given talents and holding the universal patent on the ethno-state.

    Americans cannot agree on which potholes and bridges to repair. They can’t audit the Fed. They can’t audit the Pentagon, where renowned auditing firms also give up. They can’t get AIPAC to register as foreign agents. They can’t conduct elections beyond reproach. They can’t prevent the common ” fencing ” of the oil- and gas-rich Golan in return for Jewish votes and a therefor favorably disposed MSM. They can’t compel an answer from Rabbi Dov Zakheim as to the whereabouts of the Rumsfeld 9/10-announced missing 2.1 TRILLION on his watch as CFO of the Pentagon. Nor the discounted ” surplus ” fighters to Israel, from a purported underequipped US. Air Force, in ” dire need of replenishment “.
    Americans rank around 28th in education.

    I suggest, that we term these new states the COAS; i.e. the Confederacy of the Alphabet Soup. Will they use the U.S. dollar, with their well-known mismanagement and welfare ? If so, when will the dollar trade 16 to 1 Euro, as did the East German Mark vis-a-vis the West on the black-market, it’s real perceived value ?

    What of secession and a slew of new foundational laws or a Constitution with a Convention requiring a 66% [?] consent. Criminal and civil law. Snow plowing in peripheral borderlands. Citizenships. Border controls. A Schengen-type job market. The destruction of the real estate market, especially in border regions. Factories in one alphabet and its essential supplies next door.

    Jewry, perceiving its continuation in a multicultural society, would oppose these rearrangements with every fiber in their body. I never cared for Niagara Falls-like honky tonk Florida: let them fight with the Cubans over Miami-Dade. They will not abide by their concentration there: several years ago two U.S Airforce Intercontinental bombers transferred two armed A-bombs from A to B, by error.

    After Israel renders the entire Middle East uninhabitable, via some false-flag trigger, they are all going to Andinia; Patagonia, Argentina. Herzl already considered that in his Der Judenstaat as an alternative to Palestine. Thousands of active IDF forces members as current [ reconnaissance ] tourists. Major Rothschild, Soros et al, joint investments. Eduardo Elsztain owns it all and manipulates the IMF, World Bank and others as a virtuoso, aiming at Andinia’s secession and as his personal acquisition. The Pattern making friends. Worth the research.

    The NYT explained to those in the southern half of Argentina how bad they had it under Buenos Aires: time to secede; but don’t ask into whose arms !


    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Indeed, this is how you spell ‘ fascinating ‘ when exhausted. Other than that, I think I speak pretty good English for being in the country only a short distance. Spellcheck dozed as well and I owe you one of those round tiny thingies at the end of that word.

  4. RoyAlbrecht
    RoyAlbrecht says:

    Lest we put the cart before the horse, the main thing that needs to be Recognized and Accepted by ALL ethnostates
    (except of course the Jewish one)
    is that “…Jews…” have driven us to each other’s throats.
    As long as “…Jews…” are allowed to escape punishment and/or containment for their millenniums of repeated criminality, but instead, God forbid, be territorially rewarded once again, thereby given a chance to organize an armed multiracial coalition that will eventually be turned against Whites,
    we may as well throw pretense to the wind and just start an undeclared, civil war right now.
    You all know as well as I do, no matter what good intentions or concessions Whites cede to “…Jews…” (and the minorities We have been generous towards but (((they))) now wield),
    Whites will always remain (((their))) target.
    There is no reasoning with Jews. They are hard wired to purvey Sin.

    IMO, the above territorial solution affords so many loop holes it almost guarantees World War III. For example, the Chinese “…ethno-province…” within the East Asian ethnostate would almost certainly and immediately begin trying to import Chinese slave labour and military resources; both human and material, and turn them;
    first against the other provinces within its own ethnostate,
    then against neighbouring ethnostate-A
    [unless “A” is populated with Jews…, in which case a new Jewish-Chinese “…mutually malevolent…” merger would precipitate…, God help us all]
    and eventually against ethnostates C, D, E, & F.
    Thereafter, the White ethnostate would be in (((their))) collective cross hairs.

    And good luck with even trying to relocate 150 million people !
    The result:
    [link chosen at random]

    (Revelation 14:20) “And the winepresse was troden without the citie, and blood came out of the winepresse, euen vnto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and sixe hundred furlongs.”

    IMO, all solutions presented in the essay above have some merit, so they should be considered and prioritized as a series of plans to fall back on.
    But a truly Aryan Vision would be a Bloodless Solution.

    From an evolutionary stand point, there was a time when Jews could play the ethnostates within Europe against each other. That time, in my opinion, has clearly passed.
    So leave it to the Jews to try the same sh!t on an enlarged global pile of ethnostates wherein the (once?) White ethnostates have (((been handicapped))) to the greatest degree.

    The Jews have been disrobed long ago and (((their))) fate is now in the hands of the people with whom (((they))) are harboured (as Fugitives).
    The question now must turn to whether it is possible for a White-Created, industrial-technological-like, Peaceful, sociological-revolution to be achieved BEFORE the Jew can realize a “…Bloody Revelation-like Scenario…”?

    Asian nations were quick on the up-take to the (((stolen))) toys We created. Will they be as quick to take up the battle against the Jew within their midst?
    It seems that Our future depends more on how Whites influence the non-White World (((thinking))) rather than continuing along the path of pouring gasoline into a tank that has a (((gaping hole with an arsonist just itching to light up the entire mess))).

    If Whites truly have come to hate themselves for what they have become, there is hope. For where there is hatred, there burns a fire. And where Fire Burns a Spirit Lurks.

    As I saw with the Holocaust Conference in Iran;
    if Our own White people are too Stupid, Self-Hating, Cowardly and Beholden to Jew Mammon to act upon that (((which they can no longer deny))),
    then we must again present the White, Racial, Territorial Problem to the Minority Nations that Aryans have allowed, with good will no less, Jews to Engineer into Our midst.
    Even Africans can be taught that saving Gorillas and the environment will have positive tourism benefits? Are Africans really so malevolent that they would (((knowingly))) wipe out every last European on the planet? If an African can change his game so can the rest of humanity.

  5. PaleoAtlantid
    PaleoAtlantid says:

    Too much theorizing and not enough action, that’s our problem. Also we should look to history for instruction as to what led to success in the past. Both Spain and Russia were long considered outside the mainline historical development of Europe, and both were for many centuries engaged in existential struggles with alien peoples and cultures. Russian princes, temporal and spiritual, chose the path of semi-submission as the best way to resist the Mongol genocidal juggernaut. They also had space and inaccessible terrain into which to flee. Spain on the other hand in keeping with their Gothic spirit chose the path of direct confrontation. In both cases the alien invasions precipitated the fragmentation of the national territory into rival states that were only unified during the final triumph over the invaders.
    For Europe the only solution is confrontation with thousands of front-lines, reducing the enemy to pockets and cutting off their line of retreat.
    The USA and Canada can afford the ethnostate option. Separate and watch the multiculti rump state descend into chaos and barbarity.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      “the alien invasions precipitated the fragmentation of the national territory into rival states that were only unified during the final triumph over the invaders.”

      The difference between the previous invasion and the current one is that the previous one was actually resisted as the Europeans did not want the invaders, and the two sides were fairly evenly matched.

      Move forward to the present…

      Today the two sides are not evenly matched; the West is strong and the invaders are 3rd world and weak. The West could easily repel the invasion if it wished, but it does not want to, due to the Western people following the current anti-white culture being given to them by the anti-white whites amongst their own white population, and helped along by the Jews.

      Rather than even thinking about repelling the invaders, the Western people instead elect politicians who want to lure over more invaders. The white people do this in order to fit in with the culture and avoid disapproval. They would rather vote for the demise of their own race than endure the social disapproval of ‘being racist’.

  6. silviosilver
    silviosilver says:

    Racial preservation (and the racial separatism it necessitates) is fundamentally an ideology; and it is fundamentally an ideology we are advocating – much as liberals, libertarians, socialists and communists do. All ideologies contain certain features, among which: they provide a vision of the desired future and a vision of the future they wish to avoid; they explain how things got to be the way they are; and they recommend a path to taking political power and setting things right. Racialists spend most of their energies raising alarm about the future they wish to avoid and explaining how things got to be the way they are. Discussion of positive visions and the stepping stones to power and setting things right is much rarer, so Richard McCulloch is to be thanked for prompting this one.

    I essentially agree with what McCulloch has laid out here. There are a few points I would raise, however.

    “Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood.” So it said and so McCulloch argues here. But is that really so? If there’s a danger in thinking too small, isn’t there also a danger in thinking too big? I believe there is reason to think so.

    Race, unfortunately, is hard. Nobody goes from a non-racialist to a racial maximalist overnight. One must first come to values one’s race, and only then is one moved to seek out ways to defend or further its interests. And even then, as experience has surely taught McCulloch, merely comprehending that multiracialism in itself, wholly apart from any other problems it may cause, represents a mortal threat to racial existence is tragically difficult, often to the point of impossibility, for most people. Making the case for maximalist racial objectives thus mainly confuses or scares people who, in many cases have only recently adopted pro-white attitudes. Responses are more likely to run along the lines of “Is race really so important that we have to expel tens of millions of people? Maybe the anti-racists were right about you guys all along.”

    Further to this, since maximalist racial objectives only typically appeal to hardened racialists, discussion of them acts as an invitation to racial fantasists of all sorts to provide their input. All manner of lunacy is earnestly advanced. It is difficult to imagine such rhetorical bedlam ever appealing to the kind of serious thinkers and actors McCulloch himself recognizes we require. A seasoned and serious racial thinker can easily ignore the kooks; but seasoned and serious racial thinkers, for the time being, are in short supply. Socialism, say, has its kooks too, but as an established ideology, it long ago attracted a critical mass of serious thinkers to its side, thus its kooks do less damage to its “brand” than do our kooks to ours. Framing the racial problem in terms much smaller than maximalist racial objectives, if it does nothing else, at least helps to limit the harm the kooks do by dissuading them from participating.

    Secondly, there is the question of realism. Is it even realistic to imagine the maximalist racial objectives could be achieved? It is not out of a misplaced sense of generosity that some people propose much less than maximalist objectives. As the earlier separation plans McCulloch has reproduced here demonstrate, greater territorial sacrifices come mainly in response to the bleaker demographic picture. Unless I have completely misread the political scene, there is no great white push in the offing. Therefore it could be still be decades before whites come to support racial separation – a time when the demographic picture will be much bleaker still. Surely at some point maximalist objectives will no longer be feasible, and it would just as surely be folly to continue to advance them at that point.

    Lastly, McCulloch’s discussion of the various “grades” of separatist scenarios all assume that the white ethnostate would sit alongside an ongoing multiracial rump United States. I question this assumption. Just as the emergence of communism on the world stage provoked responses across the globe, so too would the emergence of racial separatism. Contrary to the impression one may get from reading pro-white commentary, whites are not the only people in America with racial interests. Absent the threat of white resurgence – ie “absent” because it has already occurred – would other non-black races really continue to pretend that racial diversity is a strength, continue to pretend that blacks are their equals, and so on? Or might they reconsider or abandon their allegiance to multiracialism altogether if a better alternative, such as separatism, came along? If multiracialism is abandoned, there would not be any rump, normatively multiracial United States, and threat to the white ethnostate would then be greatly reduced – such that a maximalist ethnostate would no longer be required as a guarantor of racial security.

    • Leon Q. Haller
      Leon Q. Haller says:

      White Zion remains the ONLY option. I admire McCulloch’s early and steadfast devotion and extensive academic contributions to White Preservationism, but this article rests on an enormous and fatal misconception: that most Whites support WP, and thus would support an ethnostate. That simply assumes away the essential problem, which is the suicidally low level of White racial consciousness and concern among the vast majority of Whites. As I have argued for over 15 years now, Whites obviously suffer from some sort of evolutionary defect, or at least, maladaptation, rendering them at this particular historical moment uniquely unable to resist race denialist and utopian ideologies. After all, if most Whites were racially healthy, we wouldn’t be having these discussions.

      Thus, the idea of racial partition (“maximalist ethnostatism”) at this time is ludicrous. A “booby trap + Galt’s Gulch” microethnostate is the MOST that is feasible without successful revolutionary/guerilla warfare (for which right now there is virtually no public support, including among even genuine conservatives). Population transfers? HUH???!! We can’t even muster mass support to change US asylum-invasion policies so as to keep out migratory colonizers marching on our border, but at some halcyon future point, we will have the will to forcibly transfer 100 million people (and what if many of those are White Preservationists, who, however, happen to like their ancestral counties and states and don’t want to relocate; or have family and friends unwilling to relocate whom they value more than WP, and so won’t relocate; or have jobs that are non-geographically transferable; or houses near ski resorts or golf courses they like … etc etc?).

      WZ is the only option. WPs must territorially ingather, preferably into a sovereign nation, like Australia, that is small enough to be “demographico-politically conquerable”, and then they must practice “gradual radicalization” – exactly as nonwhites have conquered my state of California, and are continuously remolding it to suit their own racial preferences. If we wish to save something of White America, the only hope is ingathering within already White AND fairly conservative states within the USA (say, Idaho, Wyoming and Montana); engage in decades of metapolitical activism and racial awareness raising; and then press for secession during a time of national crisis.

      That might work. Expecting our nonwhite conquerors to agree to relocate into tiny racial enclaves when they practically own my whole country is ridiculous.

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        Good post and correct identification of the cause of whites heading for minority status – the vast majority offer no resistance (not even in the secrecy of the voting booth) and most do not mind it happening.

        “the suicidally low level of White racial consciousness and concern among the vast majority of Whites.”

        And yet these are the same whites (in genetic terms) who rushed eagerly to war against other whites when their patriotism was cynically awakened by their own government’s tactics 80 years ago, tactics such as collecting a large number of US ships together in Pearl harbor as sitting ducks to entice the enemy into attacking them.

        So the people do have patriotism and instincts of self-preservation and self-defense, it is just that at present those who run the media and government and schools are managing to suppress them. 80 years ago their elites persuaded them to join in a white-on-white war and now the same elites persuade them that to even think about self-preservation is racist and evil.

        Assume the figure is 15% for the proportion of whites who strongly hate white people just for being superior, due to their genes, and assume the current MSM and govt are drawn from this 15%.

        The question is, what event or catastrophe will it take to awaken patriotism & self-interest of the other 85% and will cause the 85% to stop listening to the 15% and to stop allowing the 15% to dictate the culture, and will cause a new elite to take power, one that is not drawn from the 15% who are anti-white.

        Clearly 9/11 was not enough to have any significant impact, as it did not lead to any reduction in mass immigration – in fact it led to more mass immigration as Bush totally ignored the source of the attack – Saudi Arabia – and instead caused wars that produced even more refugees. Imagine how different things would now be if Bush had not been controlled by the enemy-within and had chosen to close the border after 9/11 and deport at least some mslms when he had such a golden opportunity.

        But events can change quickly and who knows what will happen if something bigger than 9/11 happens (involving nuclear radiation or chemical attack or water poisoning). In the end the security services cannot stop such things if the govt invites in millions of hostile foreigners who hate them.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      “..we have to expel tens of millions of people?”
      This is why it is better to talk of bribing people to go and paying them to go instead of talking about expelling by force. For example, free stuff continues, but only for those who leave, and they can have benefits payable for life, but only paid if they move to Mexico or Liberia, and give up their US citizenship. Massive demographic changes can be achieved using money alone to lure them back to Africa or Mexico, which is after all why they came to the West in the first place.

  7. Exile
    Exile says:

    The distinction between a functionally-sized e-state and an oversized one is qualitatively distinct from the basic definition which they both share. The present state of Europe suggests that a foreign presence of 10-15% is enough to make a functional cohesive nation with social support networks ala 70’s Scandinavia impossible. Present day America demonstrates what happens in the <85% majority ethnostate. For the sake of argument I think the only way that an e-state with less than 85% majority would survive would be to deny women the vote (not that it isn't something we should consider in states with larger majorities).

  8. Kenneth Anderson
    Kenneth Anderson says:

    The separation of powers and states enshrined in the US Constitution could be the best way to develop ethnostates legally without radical, illegal, or violent methods. It would first require reaffirming and even expanding the power of the states and the principle of states rights and federalism; the Constitution now says that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution, all remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people. But ethnostatism might require an amendment or two to the Constitution. If the states then want to form an ethnostate they should be able to do so, and if they don’t they don’t.

    States that want to remain multicultural and multi-racial can do so, but my guess is that people in multicultural and multi-racial states would soon move to states of their own ethnic group. This is where the political battle could legally take place. It will be very difficult, but no more diffident than secessions, or the slow death of distinct races, and it has the benefit of conserving the Constitution and working within the system—unlawful actions kill movements.

    If we can’t develop ethnostates consciously and purposely they will develop unconsciously and less purposely because they are the most natural political configuration for kin-centered and ethnic-centered human nature. Knowledge of ethnostates and the biological origin of social behavior needs to be presented to the people first, but this knowledge is slowly, naturally, coming forward in any case, in spite of the corrupt Media and our schools.

    • silviosilver
      silviosilver says:

      Personally, I am highly skeptical of this idea that it’s a choice between racial ethnostates either being constructed deliberately and methodically or emerging “naturally” (whatever that means) and chaotically. I think the choice is between a deliberate ethnostate or no ethnostate at all. It’s a kind of obscurantism to claim that, in time, nature will reassert itself and people will just automatically take the necessary actions – actions that today are either unknowable or unavailable. Of course, I’d love to be wrong about this, since it means that those of us who are trying to go about it consciously could muck it up completely and an ethnostate would still emerge anyway.

  9. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    ” All Blacks outside the south would be concentrated in the twenty largest urban ghettos, which would be enlarged as needed for this purpose,….” etc

    The only way whites can survive is if we instigate migrations in order to geographically separate different races. This can easily be achieved using money, provided there is the will to do so. People will follow the money, so if benefits are paid to Mexicans for life who are now in the US, but only on condition that they return to Mexico, there will be a stampede to leave. There is no need for conflict.

    But the reason this is not likely to happen is because the whites do NOT WANT it to happen. The people in the US will not even elect a Congress that will authorise the funds for Trump’s wall.

    This is the only obstacle to white separation – the will to do it, not the means to do it or the details, and while the people are not interested enough in achieving this goal to vote for it, nothing will happen.

    The reason the majority of white people have no interest in their own survival (or rather the next generation’s survival, as they personally will be okay), is because the people at present are listening to the guiding voice of their own white lefties, perhaps 15% of the total white population, who hate their own race and strongly wish it to become mixed race and 3rd world.

    So the majority can never form a white country again unless they rid themselves of the problem of their own white enemy within, their lefties who now rule them and run their MSM, and who happily co-operate with other races who are also hostile to whites, such as many Jews.

    Until the issue of whites having a 15% (or whatever) who are totally dedicated to the downfall of whites, unless the issue of this enemy-within is recognised, there is not hope for us. Instead of even acknowledging their existence, most people on the Right just group all whites together as if they are all basically similar, and our lefties are just well-intentioned but mistaken types who can be won over.

    Whilst some lefties can be won over, these are not the true lefties, and are mainly the young who are immersed in the lefty narrative all their lives – the 15% lefties who are ‘true lefties’ are never going to change their outlook as their politics is deeply wired and takes them over completely. These are the types to work in refugee centres bringing in Africans, and when their own daughters are raped and murdered by the clientele, these lefty parents still support the same refugees. This proves that the differences are so profound they must have a genetic basis.

Comments are closed.