…since reducing the non-White proportion of the U.S. population to 10% would still require the separation and removal of over 100 million non-Whites, or over three-quarters of them, it raises the question, “Why stop there, at that point, instead of going all the way when you’re most of the way there.” It seems arbitrary…
By the same logic, since achieving McCulloch’s objective would require a massive upheaval of American society, possibly even a civil war, then why stop at the point of sacrificing part of the USA for multiracial and Amerindian nations? Isn’t that arbitrary? Why not go all the way and take it all, send the non-Whites back to their homelands, including the Amerindians back to Siberia (albeit Russia may have objections)? An argument would be that White Americans have an innate sense of fairness and would not want to deprive non-White “Americans” of an American homeland, or that such a homeland or homelands would lessen non-White resistance to separation.
With respect to the second consideration, I do not buy it. Any time Whites want to separate, even in the informal manner of de facto residential segregation, non-Whites (implicitly) insist that they have a fundamental human right to have access to Whites. That’s why we have forced racial integration. I doubt that some homeland out in the desert will lessen resistance. With respect to the first consideration - White perceptions of “fairness” - that is undoubtedly the main issue here, let us be realistic where we are right now. About half of the White American population are masochistic leftists who believe that even multiracial “America First” civic nationalism is “racist” and “fascist.” A large fraction of the other half of the White American population are aracial civic nationalists; like Tucker Carlson they believe we are all “stuck with each other” and they would reject separation as unrealistic, evil, or insane. Further, demographic change means that even if you can convince a majority of White Americans to support separation, a democratic and orderly solution is unlikely. The solution likely requires physical resistance, a scenario that bodes ill for a declining and aging White American population as time goes on.
In any case, given these realities, in order for White Americans to support separation, and to make the necessary sacrifices, the situation for White America will by necessity have degenerated to such a point of desperation that it is unlikely that even “High Trust” Whites would care much about "fairness" to non-Whites. At that point, where outcomes would be determined by blood and iron and not by debates and voting, these detailed plans and non-White homeland maps, never mind the phenotype charts and the to-the-decimal-point 23andMe “data,” would all be irrelevant. At that point, the efforts needed to convince Whites, in conjunction with the bad negative conditions that would make Whites amenable to be convinced, making them willing for extreme measures, would be such that “why stop there, at that point, instead of going all the way when you’re most of the way there,” would be a fair assessment with respect to the division of territory. If Whites would be willing to fight for most of America, why not for all of America? If conditions get so bad that even cucked Whites are willing to fight for survival, would they really care about being “fair” to non-Whites or to White leftists and other traitors who brought us to this condition? (Note: Many of these same arguments hold with respect to repatriation of non-Whites from Europe; but here I focus on the American White ethnostate scenario.)
I’m not trying to be obstructionist – I support the ethnostate idea and have written about it previously (although I disagree with others on the details). But we must be realistic. First, we are far, far away from having any significant number of Whites even thinking about supporting the idea. To get to that point will take time and, unfortunately, much White suffering. Talk about “winning the hearts and minds of Whites” does not impress me, since the people saying such things have failed for decades, and lack the self-awareness to realize that their bizarre ideas (phenotype charts, decimal point test measurements, etc. – denounced as “Nuremberg Law-like” even by some TOO commentators: “Phenotype this” and “autosomal that” and soon we’re off to the races with phrenology and the Nuremberg laws. No one is going to accept this stuff. Look at the world we’re operating in. This kind of rhetoric is just not going to fly) are not attractive, and are unlikely ever to be attractive (even in the dire conditions discussed above, to most White Americans.
Second, considering that if the ethnostate does happen, it will likely happen in chaos, in blood and iron, and not through parliamentary debates and scholarly white papers, whatever plans and ideas we develop need to be as fundamental, simple, and streamlined as possible. It is possible that even what I outline below is too complex for the coming reality. In the dark future ahead it is possible that “look White, think White, and act White” will be sufficient (although in my opinion, that would allow for too many Jews, White traitors, and other undesirables to slip through). Whatever the case, I doubt that the Whites of tomorrow will have much use for calipers, phenotype charts, or 23andMe “spit tubes,” while they are fighting for racial survival, or after the struggle is over and a new homeland needs to be built.
This comment about McCulloch’s third section is I think relevant to my own comments:
Some White Guysays:
January 28, 2021 at 8:40 pm
I read the third part of the article yesterday and have been thinking about it since. I have to say I am disappointed in the offered “solution”. It is a rehash of past proposals to divvy up the USA, which will never happen. Texans and others are not going to agree to having their states made into the corral areas for the mixed race peoples of North America. Absurd.
The people who run every element of our countries have a firm grip on all they control. They are making it very clear at present that we have no power and no control over any of it. Anyone who has spoken up is currently being arrested and/or ostracized from society.
They are not going to just let us do what we want. These types of “solutions” are beyond ridiculous. Anyone advocating for such things will be squashed like a bug by those who rule us. It is cruel and immature to suggest to people that such things are possible.
Call me a defeatist if you will, but I prefer realistic realism to fairy tales.
And in response to that comment:
January 28, 2021 at 9:20 am
Lots of people have pie in the sky fantasies about ethnostates and seem to forget that we are a powerless ethnic group with no evidence that we are able to work together to achieve big goals.
You are absolutely right that the first order goal is to survive. We can do that by building strong communities. Big political schemes come second to survival and the basic process of “re-tribalizing” where we basically learn what it means to act tribally and how to achieve tribal goals.
As a side note, I agree that we do need to have contingency plans for Whites surviving as a stateless people in the event that the ethnostate idea is not actualized, or is not actualized for a very, very long time.
With respect for the ethnostate, simplified considerations for the ingroup:
To simplify and streamline, and to be most fair and reasonable, we consider as follows. Individuals who derive familial/genealogical ancestry from any or several of the native, indigenous peoples of Europe would be included in the ethnostate. The vast majority of White Americans know their ethnic background and their genealogy can be traced back to Europe, to a satisfactory degree, if required. That is sufficient. What if such cannot be determined? People may be adopted, or there may be a lack of knowledge for another reason, or there may be a good reason to suspect someone is being dishonest. For those specific cases, genetic testing can be considered, in the rational comparative manner described below.
What about “White Hispanics” or individuals who may have some low-level fractional Amerindian (or other) New World admixture (or whatever other low level admixture)? This can be judged on a case-by-case basis, judging based on overall assimilability (phenotype, identity, intelligence and behavior). In some cases, genetic testing could be considered, also as described below.
The vast majority of determinations can be very simple and streamlined – of European ethnic genealogical ancestry or not? The minority of other cases can then be judged as indicated in the preceding paragraph, above. Thus, for most cases, there will be no need for bizarre alphabetical phenotypic charts or “testing” or whatever.
Only people who are part of the Western/Orthodox civilizational background – the Western High Culture with Eastern European Orthodox added on – should be included. From a religious perspective, what’s compatible with this background would be: Christian, pagan, agnostic, or atheist. Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. are not compatible. Unfortunately, I do not advise excluding homosexuals, since they would be regenerated each generation. It is my opinion that the vast majority of homosexuality (particularly for men, but for some women as well) is biologically determined. So, unless you exile homosexuals every generation, a strict exclusion makes no sense. However, we should not accept gay cabals or general sexual degeneracy.
Individuals who have in their private and/or public histories significant anti-White activities should not be included. While the bulk of White liberals are probably redeemable, hardcore activists and political figures are not. Would we want the likes of Hillary Clinton or Angela Merkel in a White ethnostate?
Comparative Genetic Testing:
In general, the large majority of the White population have clearly defined genealogical roots in Europe and that is sufficient.
For other specific cases, any genetic testing must be performed in a comparative not absolute manner. It is childishly naive and unscientific – and I have pointed out many times beyond the capability of the methodology – to set some hard-and-fast base-line (e.g., 91.567%) and then make distinctions based on that (91.658% good, 91.566% bad). Instead, comparative evaluations should be made – establishing what the “ethnotype” range of different European ethnies are and then observing whether the “unknown” is in the same general range. For example, there are no European ethnies whose members would be 15% Amerindian and 10% sub-Saharan African. Anyone with such a profile is obviously not of Old World European stock. Again, this would not be a case of rigid boundaries, but a common sense evaluation. If someone is 1% past the range of an ethny they claim membership in, that’s reasonable. 15% is not. If one wanted to be more objective, one could establish the standard deviation of genetic variation within an ethnotype range, but this possibly gets to the point of nitpicking. It is fairly simple to ascertain if the genetic profile of an unknown sample is generally consistent with what would expect from various European ethnic groups. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to determine that, e.g., someone who is ~40% South Asian is either recently admixed or a Roma (and the timing of admixture could be determined – but in either case, 40% South Asian is obviously not consistent with any European ethny).
The relative objectivity of this approach derives from the fact that any flaws and imprecision in the methodology (that exist and will always be present to some extent) apply to both the known and unknown samples equally, and as long as the comparisons are done in a “fuzzy” manner, without absolute strict boundaries, then the inherent imprecision is not a barrier for making useful comparisons.
The other advantage of this approach is that it, by necessity, includes all European ethnies as the known reference samples. Thus, if a person claims to be of ethny X then they must be compared to X, not to Y or Z or any other group.
What about Hispanics and other groups that may have New World admixture, etc.? The approach applied there would be to determine a set of “knowns” – for example “White Hispanics” determined to be acceptably assimilable based on chosen characteristics (phenotype, for example) – then determine the genetic range of these “knowns” and, finally, compare, in a general sense, whether the “unknowns” are similar to that range.
But, my views and proposals may well as be as unrealistic as those promoted by others. However, I stand by my comments as being somewhat more reasonable; at the very least, the proposal, re: genetic analysis is the only semi-objective rational one I’ve seen. The only way to deal with imprecision and the myriad flaws inherent in these genetic approaches is to use a comparative analysis, utilizing fuzzy boundaries, and making sure each and every European ethny – and this includes regional sections of nations (East vs. West England, North vs. South Germany, North vs. South Italy - with Sicily and Sardinia each being separately represented – North vs. South Russia, Flemish vs. Walloons, North vs. South France, etc.) - are represented as "known" reference samples.