In the aftermath of Richard Spencer clashing with Carl “Sargon of Akkad” Benjamin, there has been much discussion about the possibility and plausibility of the United States as a “white ethno-state.” The typical leftist argument tends to be that an ethno-state would be impractical, unconstitutional, and would inevitably involve the wholesale slaughter of non-whites. In turn, they accuse anyone they perceive as “Alt-Right” of advocating for genocide. Thus, the leftists assume that the Alt-Right intends the massacre of millions of people to achieve their ends, but is that a fair assumption upon which to base criticism and opposition to the movement? In a word, no, because, aside from memes purposely meant to be offensive, the Alt-Right does not collectively advocate for interpersonal violence let alone the mass murder of tens of millions of people. To understand this, we need to see this as two distinct issues. First, would it be constitutional to enact policies preserving the United States as a white ethno-state? Second, if so, could it be achieved peacefully through practical and straightforward means?
The first issue is surely to be a major point of contention. After all, who should we accept as the definitive authority as to the meaning and intent of the Constitution? To progressives, the Constitution is an arbitrary document that can be rewritten and reinterpreted on a whim, and rights are arbitrary things that are bestowed by and can be changed by the government on a whim. To reactionaries, the meaning and intent of the Constitution was set in stone when it was written, debated, and approved more than two centuries ago, and efforts to change it to suit the progressive mindset is a violation of the nation’s principles. As one example, how can “gay marriage” be a constitutional right when Thomas Jefferson proposed castrating sodomites as a matter of law? Does the existence of Article V of the Constitution inherently mean that the principles of the nation are subject to democratic whims, capable of being redefined completely at any moment? The answer to this is a definitive “no,” which is why any change was meant to be exceedingly difficult, and, as we shall see, that is why progressives violated the Constitution originally to serve as a foundation for all other violations.
To be clear, the US was founded as an ethno-state. That is why, in 1790, the First Congress passed an act limiting naturalized citizenship to whites, which was reiterated by the Third Congress in 1795 and the Seventh in 1802. Importantly, this was done at a time when the free population was 98% white, per 1790 and 1800 census records, and this shows us what they were attempting to preserve. Thus, the Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision in the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford case was correct in determining that a “[member] of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a ‘citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.” Additionally, the danger posed by miscegenation was also recognized at the time, and, in 1784, Thomas Jefferson wrote that a freed slave must “be removed beyond the reach of mixture” so as to avoid “staining the blood of his master.” Thus, we can see that the Founders themselves saw fit to create and preserve an ethno-state, and the constitutionality of their thoughts and actions were beyond question for the better part of a century.
To this, we should expect progressives to smugly point to the so-called “Reconstruction Amendments” that followed the Civil War. Their argument being that the ethno-state was legally ended according to the amendment process given to us by the Founders. The problem, however, is that the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were never legally ratified. For example, in January 1865, the 38th Congress approved the 13th Amendment, but the North lacked the necessary support to ratify it. The “solution” was to install Unionist governments over southern states, disenfranchising voters in the process. Consider that Virginia “ratified” the 13th Amendment on 9 February 1865. That was not the legitimate government of Governor William Smith but was instead the illegal Unionist government of “Governor” Francis Harrison Pierpont. Similarly, “Governor” William Gannaway Brownlow was nominated and “elected” by Unionists in Tennessee on 5 April 1865, and they “ratified” the amendment two days later. Similar scenes played out across the South under authorities that had been unconstitutionally imposed by a federal government run amok.
For the 14th Amendment, the Republicans doubled down on such tactics, imposing unconstitutional martial law with the so-called “Reconstruction Acts” and, in an act of blatant extortion, requiring that southern states ratify the amendment before they would be allowed representation in Congress, which was a direct violation of Article V, which states “that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.” Since the Union did not recognize secession, there was no authority to deny representation. The same was true of the 15th Amendment with southern states under imposed Republican governments ratifying while Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia were again extorted into ratifying so as to be given their constitutionally mandated representation in Congress. How can such blatant violations of the Constitution be ignored? Progressives would argue that the end justified the means, but what they are really saying is that the US, as founded, was inherently flawed and that violating the Constitution was acceptable. In short, neither the nation itself nor its founding documents hold any actual value in the minds of leftists, and the Right needs to wake up to this fact and stop accepting the Left’s framing of social issues.
Once the Right accepts that the Left does not now and never has debated in good faith, we can set about looking to the Constitution and only its legally ratified amendments for answers regarding the nation that the Founders intended to pass on to their posterity. For example, the 14th Amendment was used to give citizenship to Africans, and it has subsequently been used to grant citizenship to children born to illegal alien parents on US soil. That is despite the fact that the man who drafted the citizenship clause said, “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Regardless, since the amendment was never ratified legally and directly contradicted the nation’s founding principles, the 125 million non-whites living in the US are not actually citizens. The question then is, what is to be done peacefully to resolve this issue?
On this point, we can look to Israel, which is currently offering a 3-month window within which African migrants will be awarded a plane ticket and $3,500 if they leave peacefully. After that window, they will be imprisoned. As part of the plan, Israel has negotiated with African countries to take the migrants who refuse to return to their home countries. This plan could be modified accordingly and fit within the original intent and meaning of the Constitution. For example, under the Fifth Amendment, property can be taken for public use so long as the owner is provided just compensation, and, while non-citizens have no right to remain in the country, those peacefully leaving could be compensated for any property. Importantly, the median wealth for black households is estimated to fall to $0 in the next few decades, which means this could actually benefit them. Why remain in the United States with few prospects when you could go to Africa with money in your pocket?
Now, immediately, both progressives and neoconservatives would likely begin shrieking here that this would be the death of the nation’s economy, that the national debt would skyrocket, and so on. In truth, however, there is a high net cost associated with the non-white population, and it is made all the worse because whites provide the vast majority of the tax revenue. For example, in 2015, an estimated 25.3 million non-white students attended public school at a total cost to the federal and state governments of $288.7 billion, of which approximately $115.8 billion was something other than teacher pay and benefits. Further, some 18% of teachers are non-white, accounting for $81.4 billion in wages and benefits. Thus, without firing any white teachers, we can assume some $197.2 billion in savings by removing non-white students and teachers from the system. Let’s also look at the fact that 66.2% of those incarcerated in federal and state prisons are non-white at a cost of approximately $53 billion. There is also the fact that 56% of Americans living in poverty are non-white, accounting for some $457.5 billion annually in federal and state social welfare programs that ostensibly exist so as to target and alleviate poverty.
If we take education, incarceration, and social welfare together, we see total spending of approximately $707.7 billion, or $5,661.60 per person for the roughly 125 million non-whites in the United States. As a thought experiment then, let’s say that all non-whites would have a 1-year window to register all adults and children in the program. Each man, woman, and child would then be compensated $5,000 plus transportation. Thus, a family of four with a net worth of $0 living in Chicago could fly to Africa with $20,000 in their pockets to start a new life. As a point of reference, that is enough to rent a 3-bedroom apartment in Nigeria for years.
That hardly sounds like genocide, but the Left is nonetheless likely to say that expecting people to move when all they have ever known is the United States is unfair. But let’s consider the fact that Africa is bigger than the United States, Western Europe, China, and India combined with a population density less than half that of Europe. Indeed, Africa currently has more than 2.3 million square miles of uncultivated land suitable for crops, which amounts to about 60% of the global total. Africa is also home to nearly 19,000 miles of coastline with the vast majority of the continent being tropical. There is also the fact that there is a natural draw to one’s roots, which is why most large universities now offer Africana Studies and DNA companies are offering tests to determine one’s African tribal ancestry. Rather than causing conflict by forcing peoples to share a newly heterogeneous United States, why not help Africans peacefully return home, something once espoused by black leaders such as Marcus Garvey? Black people living free from outside interference need not be something merely dreamed about in comic books and associated movies.
Toward that goal of independence, the United States could commit to redirecting the more than $40 billion spent annually for foreign aid into programs meant to help people transition. For example, in 2010, the United States provided $130 million to train doctors in Africa, and such a program could be expanded as part of the resettlement program. There have also been private programs that help to train and equip farmers in the Third World, and that too could be expanded so that people being resettled can take advantage of the vast swaths of uncultivated land in Africa. Another program that would likely prove to be useful would involve fostering enculturation, essentially teaching people about their ancestral homelands and cultures to ease the transition. That could involve learning the language, history, food, music, and the like of their own people. Imagine tens of millions of people returning to their ancestral homelands and bringing billions of dollars with them into their local economies, not to mention funds for training doctors and farmers to boost quality of life. All of the above could even be called “reparations” if it would make the process more palatable.
Again, does any of this sound like genocide? Progressives want non-whites to think of boxcars and chains, gas chambers and slavery, when they hear “white ethno-state.” They need people to be afraid so that they will never listen to actual ideas and intentions. Progressives are currently up in arms over President Trump referring to Third World nations as “s–tholes,” allegedly saying that Nigerians live in “huts,” and the like, so now is the time to embrace a program to repatriate non-whites to their ancestral homelands. We can invest money into the transition, provide training to help them maximize their success, and part as friends. Why dream about a futuristic African nation like Wakanda when they can build it today?
Alternatively, progressive Cultural Marxists can continue purposely trying to cause tension between different peoples, weaponizing the Third World against the First. And they can continue denying that white people even exist, “What does ‘white’ even mean? Who is ‘white’?” They can also continue to accuse peaceful people of wanting to commit heinous acts, attempt to silence anyone who would espouse reasonable alternatives, and so on. In the end, that is the Left willing a war into being when it does not need to happen. If the Right seeks peaceful resolution yet the Left seeks war to defend their favorite ethnic restaurants, then who is the villain? Who would be responsible when peace finally broke down under unending pressure?