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. https://www.conservapedia.com/Galt%27s_Gulch
10 Thomas Jackson, “Thinking the Unthinkable,” American Renaissance (October 1994). https://www.amren.com/archives/back-issues/october-1994/