My recent TOO essay A Rejoinder on White Genocide generated a relatively large number of comments, some positive but mostly critical. Editor Kevin MacDonald has kindly allowed me to publish this follow-up essay to address some of the many issues raised. It’s an important topic for the alt-right, and it deserves more discussion than short blog comments can allow. Hence the need for this essay.
By way of short recap: I argued previously that ‘White genocide’ is a relatively useless concept. The term ‘genocide’ has Jewish origins, arising out of Nazi actions in World War Two, and is hopelessly vague. The formal UN definition includes “intent to destroy,” “in whole or in part,” a national or ethnic group. It covers killing, of course, but also “serious bodily or mental harm”, and the imposition of harmful “conditions of life”, whatever those may be. Rather than talk about some amorphous ‘White genocide,’ I suggested dealing in a concrete way with the threats facing Whites. I defended a present figure of 800 million Whites globally—a number that will likely decline gradually, to 655 million in 2100 and to 510 million in 2200, under present assumptions. I closed with a modest plan to rationally and humanely restore an 80% White majority in the US, primarily by incentivizing non-White emigration and birth-rate reduction.
But attacking the whole notion of ‘White genocide’ proved hazardous! Clearly there is a diversity of views on this matter, which is both normal and healthy. Concepts and strategies need to be debated. Whites everywhere are undoubtedly under assault, and we need to understand this phenomenon, its causes and potential cures, if we are to move ahead. TOO is an intellectual forum for discussion of concepts and theories related to White interests, rather than an activist site per se. Still, the two realms are not independent; thoughts and ideas have natural implications for policy, politics, and social action. My original piece attempted to sketch out basic governmental principles that would best serve White interests. They were, of necessity, general and conceptual. Below I will say a bit more about the pragmatic aspect of implementing such policies.
First, though, it may be best to begin with areas of common agreement. I think it’s safe to say that there is broad consensus on the following points:
- The White race is of inherent value to humanity, and as such deserves protection and defense.
- Whites globally are under threat, due to (a) declining numbers, (b) declining physical, mental, and moral health, and (c) loss of political autonomy and self-government.
- Some of the threats are sociological, economic, or environmental in nature, but others arise from deliberate and intentional actions.
- The global Jewish lobby has an intrinsic interest in seeing a general decline in White well-being and a loss in White political power. They and their non-Jewish supporters pose the primary direct threat.
- Racial and cultural diversity has a net negative effect on human society.
- All humans are, by nature, best suited to live in social and environmental settings from which they evolved—societies that are broadly uni-racial and monocultural. Humans have little or no evolutionary experience living with diverse races or ethnicities, and doing so causes inevitable problems.
- From the early Industrial Revolution, modern society has enabled the mass movement of people from indigenous to foreign lands. Left to their own initiative, people will always attempt to move from ‘worse’ to ‘better’ societies, but if this happens en masse, it will contribute to the decay of the very societies that they seek out. Such movement must therefore be stopped.
- The only long-term solution for many present-day problems is to restore human society to its natural and original conditions—uni-racial and monocultural, broadly speaking. This entails political separation and/or repatriation of minority peoples to their native lands.
Perhaps this qualifies as a ‘manifesto’ of White Nationalism. It should garner something approaching universal consent.
Note that nothing here smacks of ‘hatred’ or ‘supremacy.’ To love one’s own people is normal, healthy, and natural, but this does not entail a demeaning or hatred of others. To protect and defends one’s own people is normal, healthy, and natural, but this does not imply aggression or violence toward others. To cite the facts of the real world—the greater social and cultural successes of Whites, the lower average intelligence of Blacks and Hispanics, etc.—is simply to acknowledge reality, and to live in the real world. Only the Master Haters call this ‘hate speech.’
This is not to say that violence is never appropriate. Every society recognizes that, under conditions of urgent and vital self-defense, that a person or group may legitimately resort to violence as a last course of action. When one is being violently attacked, one may violently defend oneself. When one is being psychologically or morally oppressed, violent action may be an acceptable response. When one’s fundamental human rights are being violated, violence may be necessary. But such action must be highly circumscribed, and limited to only the most extreme situations. It’s almost impossible to give general conditions under which specific acts of violence are permissible; such things must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, in light of general rules of civil society.
Response to Critics
Let me turn now to the specific comments of the various respondents to my initial piece. By and large, these were intelligent and thoughtful replies, and the criticisms were generally civil and focused. Several relevant issues have been raised, and I’ll try to respond to each of these individually. The most important criticism—that my proposed plan is too unrealistic—I will defer to the end of this discussion.
<mark green> starts things off with a series of relevant remarks, many of which I can agree with. He notes that Trump’s anti-immigration efforts have been sabotaged by courts and media, that the diversity lobby has a “Jewish mindset”, that my plan, if made public, would receive the “Charlottesville treatment,” and that Jewish media is brainwashing us—all true. He furthermore agrees with my statement on diversity as inevitably ruining quality of life.
On the other hand, he objects to a number of my points: 1) “millions of whites…will never cooperate with [my] plan,” 2) I fail to appreciate the extent of “White guilt”, 3) my plan is mere “wishful thinking”, and 4) Blacks and others will never voluntarily return to their native lands. By way of positive actions, he suggests a two-part plan: (a) “white identity and solidarity must rise first,” and (b) “we must take control of media”, or “establish our own.”
In reply: It is not problematic that millions of Whites will never follow my plan. There are 195 million Whites in the US today, and no one ever said that we need anything like a majority support. ‘Radical’ movements such as this never gain more than a few percent support before they begin to exert influence. In fact, with even one million supporters/followers, we could have a huge impact on the national discourse—never mind the other 194 million.
I don’t deny the role of White guilt, and it is clearly central to the Jewish brainwashing scheme. It is something we must rigorously oppose on all fronts. As to Blacks and others not returning, we must take care to initiate all White restoration programs voluntarily. We need to use all carrots and sticks at our disposal. As I said, everyone has their price. Non-whites could surely be enticed to move almost anywhere, if the price were right. Yes, it is grating to have to pay those who have already cost us vast sums, as <claudius1889> rightly points out. But we must try it first, before moving on to other, harsher measures. This is a pragmatic decision, to be considered only when the initial program has proven insufficient. But for now, we must make every effort to adopt reasonable, rational, and humane practices.
<Poupon Marx> generally agrees with <mark green>, and furthermore has his own suggestion: sequestration and “autocephalous republics”, by which I presume he means autonomous and independent nation-states. Within the US, this would imply local secession movements, based either along existing state boundaries or on spontaneous local uprisings. I have no problem with any of this, and in fact have defended secession of American states for literally decades. Washington is hopelessly corrupt, and we need states and other groups to break away and demand a restoration of self-rule. Are pro-White advocates openly arguing for secession? I hope so.
<JRM> also likes <mark green>’s critique, adding that my “well-reasoned plan” is little more than “blue-sky brainstorming.” He then writes that my plan might work in an ideal world, but in such a world it wouldn’t be necessary. I understand the sentiment, but it is misplaced here. Whites tend, by nature, to be altruistic, sympathetic, and trusting; these are wonderful qualities until they are applied to foreigners who undermine our social fabric. We need to educate Whites on the facts and on the need to take humane, compassionate action to protect them and their children. When faced with reality, many Whites will come around—even in the ‘real’ world.
The most prolific critic was <Andrew>, who offered over a dozen well-reasoned comments. His first remark makes the very valid point that humans are, by nature, ‘racist.’ “People are tribal,” as he says, arguing that we should simply admit that we are racists. I’m sympathetic with this stance, but the term has become so loaded and so besmirched that it’s hard to do so in anything like a public setting. At one time we were using the term ‘racialist,’ which has its merits but is somewhat awkward. Yes, we are racists, but perhaps we gain nothing by stating as much. Maybe best to just shrug it off when launched by our opponents. <Andrew>’s second comment states that actions against Whites “clearly qualify as genocide under the UN definition.” Yes, but as I argued, it is a hopelessly broad definition. Assertive action against virtually any group, by virtually any government, counts as ‘genocide.’ Hence the term is functionally worthless.
<PJ Dooner> is rightly concerned about our 60 million (I had thought it was more like 40 million) White Christian Zionists, who are uber-brainwashed to be pro-Jewish. I fully agree—they are a lost cause. Let’s worry more about the 150 million or so others.
<Rob Bottom> insists that “the genocide aspect is real,” citing racial diversity in elementary schools. This is assuredly a problem. And he is generally correct: the more racial interaction there is among children, the more likely there will be racial mixing and intermarriage later on. But I wonder how big a problem this will become, numerically-speaking. In my original piece I cited a statistic on rising American bi- and multi-racial individuals, from a present 8 million to around 22 million by 2050. But I have no details on these numbers. How many of the 22 million will involve Whites? If it is proportionate, we can assume around half, or some 11 million. Yes, this is a loss, but I think it amounts to something less than genocide.
Then <claudius1889> expresses concern that I ignore both the large number of “White traitors” and the power of the “diversity lobby.” Above I explained that we must work around the various race-traitors, and focus on the large number of others who are open to a White Nationalist message. I never suggested that it would be an easy walk into power. Radical change has always been a long, hard slog. But it is achievable, as I explain below. And if my ideas are so poor, I think <claudius1889> owes us a better plan.
<Eleni Tsigante> rightly observes that Israeli actions against the Palestinians count, by all reasonable measures, as genocide—though I still wouldn’t use the term there. It’s more like ethnic cleansing combined with a brutal apartheid. The world needs to be constantly reminded of Israeli crimes against humanity.
<Rerevisionist> likes my original article (“fascinating piece”), and rightly corrects me: increasing diversity does bring gains in quality of life—for Jews. I neglected to be clear.
Then we have <Wuntz Moore>. Well! He considers my “clouded” piece an “embarrassment.” Apparently he views any action that disrupts his effort to “plant memes” like White genocide as counterproductive and harmful, and as a merely-academic “graduate seminar” on linguistics (to which <Andrew> agrees). But Wuntz offers no details, challenges none of my many statistics, and gives no real defense of his position. It’s hard to take such comments seriously.
Near the end of the comment chain, Wuntz interjects once more, this time on behalf of his colleagues at “BUGS”, which I understand to be an acronym for “Bob’s Underground Graduate Seminar” (wait—didn’t he just criticize me for offering a “graduate seminar”?). Apparently the main mission of BUGS is to implant the “White genocide” meme, something they have been attempting for around eight years. I’m sympathetic to the intent, but really, we need to be a bit broader-minded than that. Is it really sufficient to incessantly scream “White genocide” at every opportunity? Especially when there is no obvious evidence of such a genocide? (More on this below).
<Twaine> also wants us to ride the ‘genocide’ train. Only “ignorance” or “apathy” could convince one to overlook this concept. Again, I’m not marginalizing the damage done, just the label for that damage.
<Andrew> then offers a long double-commentary. He is concerned that non-White anger is generated by Jewish media, but I wonder how big a problem this actually is. Yes, there are individual cases of anti-White rhetoric, mostly from academic Blacks, but I doubt this has much impact on the broader non-White population. If Andrew has any statistics on this, I’d like to see them. And I object to such statements as “Whites will be eliminated” by declining births, racial mixing, and violence. What justifies such a claim? The numbers do not support it. Lacking evidence, it sounds like more alt-right hyperbole.
Yes, Jews hate Whites, but they hate everyone! If you look at the history, Jews have a two-millennia-long record of misanthropy, malevolence, ruthlessness, deception, and violence. It’s not just Romans and Christians, it’s everyone. At least we (some of us) understand this fact, but most non-Whites foolishly believe that Jews care about them, and thus they support Jewish actions. We need to enlighten non-Whites to this fact; it can only help our cause.
Andrew’s plan involves “separation [of Whites] from non-Whites and Jews” (agreed!). This can only happen, he says, in a White ethnostate, to be established either in some other radically pro-White country, or in the US via a process of collapse and dissolution of existing political structures. The first option seems unlikely, but the second is a very real possibility, and one that we should be prepared for, and even promote. Again, this is a secession option that I have long championed. But first, you need to show Whites that they have something to gain by secession and an ethnostate—enough gain to offset the risks and costs of breaking away. Then, you need to offer a plan as to how to ‘purify’ your new ethnostate, and this is where my proposal may come in. How else will Andrew achieve his White state? Through mass murder? I don’t think so. It will either be through humane and voluntary actions, or through inhumane and brutal ethnic cleansing. I presume he would prefer the former.
<Poupon Marx> then adds that, by separating Whites from non-Whites, we inadvertently help the non-Whites, who will then be free to develop their own uni-racial and monocultural ethnostates. Agreed—separation will, in the long run, help everyone.
<Cam OT> makes a very good point, against one aspect of my plan. I spoke of encouraging White immigration into the US, but where will they come from? From other White nations that are, themselves, suffering from White loss and decay. It would probably be counterproductive for the handful of White nations to be competing with each other to steal the others’ Whites. In reality, there may be some nations in which their Whites give up as a lost cause, and then seek to flee to other White nations; those may be the best source of immigrants.
The Russians are Coming! The Russians are Coming!
<Cam OT>, <Andrew>, and Richard McCulloch all take me to task for excluding indigenous (ethnic) Russians from the White race. This is not a major issue for me, and I have no serious objection to including them. My primary rational for excluding them was that, even though they may have some Scandinavian blood, that Russians are not truly Europeans and have not contributed to human intellectual and cultural life to the extent that Europeans have. Also, there is so much racial admixture there that I wonder how White they truly are—a point nicely made by <PJ Dooner> later in the comment chain. This is certainly an area ripe for more research and study.
But if we want to include 110 million ethnic Russians, along with some 35 million Ukrainians and around 8 million Byelorussians, I have no major objection. This, though, makes the ‘genocide’ theme even less tenable, because there are now some 950 million Whites globally. Do <Cam OT>, Andrew, and Richard really want to go there?
The Question of Genocide
Returning to the specific matter of genocide, Andrew and <Lancashire Lad> both cite Zimbabwe and South Africa as case studies in actual White genocide. But it should be clear that those are highly unusual situations in which Whites moved into long-standing Black African territory and established minority rule. That Blacks would eventually reassert their historic dominance and squeeze out the Whites is unsurprising.
But even here, it is something less than ‘genocide.’ In Zimbabwe, it’s true that White numbers plummeted from around 300,000 in 1975 to around 25,000 today, but this was primarily a consequence of emigration, not violence or murder. Even less do we see ‘genocide’ in South Africa, where White numbers actually rose from 3.8 million in 1970 to 4.6 million today. Yes, there are periodic murders of White farmers in both nations, but that hardly rises to the level of genocide.
This brings us to a central issue. When most people hear the word ‘genocide,’ they think mass murder. They think Nazi gas chambers, or perhaps the Hutu slaughter of up to 1 million Tutsis. They think bodies in the streets, bodies in mass graves, bodies stacked like cordwood. Like it or not, that is the common image. So when we cry ‘White genocide,’ the average man says, “Where are the bodies?” And when he realizes that there are none, the screamers lose all credibility.
But <Whit> doesn’t care about all this; “I’m sticking to White Genocide,” he says, “because that’s what’s happening by other means.” He is probably correct when he adds that “no fact angers Whites more than the prospect of impending extinction”—yes, but when they find out that there are no heaps of dead bodies, and that millions of Whites will survive for centuries to come, no fact will more convince them that the crazy White Nationalists are full of hot air. Again, it’s all about credibility. I think we should be factual, rational, and modestly correct in our assertions, in order to win over the large number of ‘moderate’ Whites who are potentially open to a Nationalist message. The facts are on our side; no need to exaggerate.
<Tom> makes some good observations on state power and its control by leftists. In effect, state power has overwhelmed social and ‘people’ power, making itself the supreme authority. I agree, we must “shrink the cancer of government”—but how? Republicans were supposed to be the ‘small government’ party, but they completely sold out to the Jewish (and other) lobbies. We can push for tax cuts, but then the feds just run bigger deficits. They keep spending more and more, no matter how much they actually take in. It’s difficult to know how to proceed here: Undermine Washington at every step, push for local autonomy and ultimately secession, maybe implement local currencies to undercut the hegemony of the US dollar. And maybe create a new political party, one with honesty and integrity, that will uncompromisingly push for such things, along with a restoration of White majority. Otherwise, wait for the Big Collapse.
In reply, <Andrew> argues differently, being unconvinced that size of government matters. It must serve the (White) majority as its primary purpose, he says. Agreed, but all the same, size does matter. A large complex government is much more easily corrupted than a smaller, more efficient one. He then gives a nice, concise description of some of our famous American criminals-in-chief, including Lincoln and the “Jewish puppet” Woodrow Wilson, leading to our horrendous and catastrophic involvement in World Wars One and Two. Well said.
Finally, <Cat McGuire> raises two good points: (1) Why don’t Whites “go back” to the European nations from whence they came, as the Native Americans would surely like to see? And (2) Where should the Jews return to, Palestine? Her first point is valid, on both counts. Yes, American Whites could indeed return to their European home nations; this is always an option, and maybe our only one, if things get really bad here! And yes, Native Americans have it over on us Whites, that’s true. We should respect that priority, wherever possible, especially in any future White ethnostate. On her second point, all Jews are automatically citizens of Israel, so on the one hand, they could return there. On the other hand, Israel is an illegitimate and criminal state that deserves to be dissolved immediately. And why should we burden the poor Palestinians with yet more Jews? Good point. Maybe we need to adopt the old Nazi plan: send them all to Madagascar.
My “Blue-Sky” Plan
Several commentators disliked the idealistic nature of my proposal. It was called “wishful thinking” <mark green>, “unattainable”, “a greased flagpole”, “quixotic”, “fuzzy” <Poupon Marx>, “blue-sky brainstorming” <JRM>, “very naïve” and “unrealistic” <claudius1889>, “unrealistic” <Andrew>, and “pie-in-the-sky,” “heavy-handed hypotheticals” <whit>. <Dan> adds that any such plan will fail without “a coherent plan to topple existing power elites”.
Let me say that my brief sketch was intended as a vision statement, something essential to any social movement. The objective of my plan was modest: turning a present-day White American majority of 60% into one of 80% in, say, 30 years. Working from today’s figures, this would demand that non-Whites be reduced from a current 125 million to some 55 million over the same period, or slightly more than 2 million per year.
Any reduction in non-Whites, I argued, can best happen through a combination of three actions: (1) reduce immigration to zero; (2) encourage them to leave, via financial incentives and penalties; and (3) implement plans to voluntarily reduce their birth rates. This scarcely counts as a “plan”; rather, it is simple demographic logic. There are other theoretical options—enforced deportation, enforced sterilization, mass murder—but I take it that these are off the table. Thus, for America as a whole, that’s about it.
If we consider the secession option, then another possibility opens up: White relocation to presently White states or regions, and the subsequent formation of an independent White ethnostate. But where to go? As of a few years ago, four states were still more than 90% White (Maine, Vermont, West Virginia, and New Hampshire). Another 13 states were more than 80% White. Shall we all migrate to one of these? Perhaps. At least there should be active White Nationalist movements or political parties in all these states, ones who will promote the secession option.
In any case, my plan, my vision—to achieve an 80% White majority through voluntary and nonviolent means—should be taken seriously, debated, and improved upon. It is not “quixotic,” “wishful thinking,” or “pie-in-the-sky.” It is a rational and humane proposal that can be discussed and promoted in wider society, with the goal of reaching the millions of unenlightened but sympathetic Whites. How better to promote “white identity and solidarity,” <mark green>?
Perhaps there are other such plans; if so, I think they should be discussed and debated as well. Violent and inhumane proposals, at least at present, will get no traction. The ethnostate plan described above is, in theory, rational and nonviolent, but of course the federal government will not see it that way, and violence will ensue. So I’m not sure what other options remain. <Andrew>’s plan for a “worldwide White revolution” seems ‘unrealistic’ and ‘quixotic’ in the extreme, but perhaps we need to see the details. Are there other good options? I don’t see any on the horizon.
The only other rational argument that I can imagine is the one drawn from the sole successful example in history in which ‘Whites’ reestablished self-rule: National Socialist Germany. Hitler and his tiny NSDAP began serious activities in 1920, under conditions equal or worse than present-day America. A mere 13 years later, they were in power. Through financial incentives, physical harassment, and eventually enforced deportations (but not systematic mass murder), they managed to largely purify the German Reich in just ten years. Those unfamiliar with this story need to start by reading volume one of Mein Kampf.
Let me close with a brief nod to those few commentators that defended and supported my piece. <Tim Folke> is “grateful that I offer solutions to the problem” and <Andy> seconds that. <Roy Albrecht> is happy that I call out the Holocaust for what it is. And thank God for Carolyn Yeager! She calls a spade a spade—much appreciated!
Be that as it may, further discussion and debate are always welcome. The challenges are great, and time is short. But we must not dismay; our day may be closer at hand than we think.
 For a look at the Jewish corruption at the heart of Christianity, see my TOO piece “Nietzsche and the Origins of Christianity”.
 See my forthcoming book Eternal Strangers (Castle Hill, 2019).
 This point is well-made by George Hutcheson, a young Canadian White advocate, in the video link provided by <Trenchant>—thanks for that!
 For my take on this whole topic, see my recent book The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (Castle Hill, 2019).
 In declining order: North Dakota, Iowa, Montana, Kentucky, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Indiana, Ohio, and Missouri.
 Mein Kampf (vol 1), T. Dalton, trans. (Clemens & Blair, 2018). Or for highlights of the story, see the more recent work The Essential Mein Kampf (Clemens & Blair, 2019). Interested readers might also enjoy the remarks by Joseph Goebbels; see Goebbels on the Jews (T. Dalton, ed. and trans.; Castle Hill, 2019).