Disenfranchisement

1,700 words

When people say, “Demographics is destiny,” they mean that as America (or any other white country) becomes less white, political power will move into the hands of non-whites and their allies, principally the Left, which will be bad for America.

In White Nationalist circles, we constantly claim that “the demographic clock is ticking,” as if it is connected to a time-bomb. The explosion is white dispossession. The clock reaches zero as soon as whites sink below 50% of the population. And that’s all folks!

But this isn’t necessarily true.

The whole scenario assumes that non-whites will be able to wield political power by voting.

Demographics is not destiny if non-whites cannot vote.

As a White Nationalist, I hold that the best way to escape the destiny of white dispossession is racial separation by creating sovereign white homelands, which would require moving borders and/or moving people. Basically, this solution removes the clock connected to the explosive.

But there’s another escape as well: disenfranchisement. We simply take away the votes of the colored people. This is analogous to cutting the wires between the timer (white demographic decline) and the dynamite, stopping the explosion (white dispossession). The non-whites would remain, but their numbers could no longer be translated into political power.

Just to be clear, I am not arguing that people should not use the “demographics is destiny” argument. Like all such arguments, however, it is only true “if we do nothing.” But we need to know all the things that we can do to elude this “destiny.” Disenfranchisement is one of them.

To understand disenfranchisement, we need to make a distinction between “human rights” and “civil rights.” We have human rights simply as human beings. They are the same wherever we are on the planet. Civil rights, however, refer to rights within a specific political system. They are the rights of a citizen. One can take away civil rights, because they are created by political systems. But one cannot take away human rights, because we possess them by nature.

The right to vote is a civil right. One can enjoy the full protection of one’s human rights without having the right to vote in a particular society. For instance, this is true of children who are too young to vote. It is also true of foreign travelers and resident aliens.

Thus removing someone’s right to vote is perfectly consistent with respecting his human rights.

Now, I must make myself perfectly clear. I do not think this is the most desirable long-term solution for white demographic decline. In the long run, I want white ethnostates.

But in the short-term, disenfranchisement of non-whites would give whites some political breathing room to create white ethnostates.

Moreover, as I have argued in “Remigration Is Inevitable,” disenfranchisement is a necessary part of any process of remigration.

First, it is simply logical that if a society has made the momentous decision to physically separate itself from entire populations, such populations would no longer have the right to vote. Denaturalization logically entails disenfranchisement.

Second, remigration will take time. This means that after a white society has resolved on remigration, non-white citizens will remain within its borders. However, if one is serious about remigrating these people, it makes no sense to allow them to exercise political power in the meantime—political power that might, for instance, be used to overturn remigration.

Disenfranchisement would work. In fact it could work so well that it might undermine our ability to create ethnostates.

You can buy Greg Johnson's The White Nationalist Manifesto here.

In effect, disenfranchisement could create white equivalents of the Gulf States. Native Qataris, for example, are 11 to 12% of Qatar’s population. The rest consists of guest workers from other countries who have no political power. In the United Arab Emirates, natives constitute about 11 to 15% of the population. The rest are foreign guest workers with no political power. Native Kuwaitis are 30 to 40% of Kuwait’s population, the rest being foreign nationals.

I regard such a society as dystopian. Basically, it is what white First-World countries would turn into if we maintained sub-replacement fertility, feminism, consumerism, oligarchy, and open borders, but simply abolished democracy for all newcomers. The only thing worse would be the same society in which the newcomers could vote.

As a White Nationalist, however, I regard all of these phenomena as symptoms of decadence. I want to cure us of them, not make them safe from the rising tide of color.

But White Nationalists already know we can never rest. We know that the masses are complacent and willing to accept half-measures and compromises. Thus as soon as we win one incremental victory like disenfranchisement, we know that we must simply move the goalposts closer to the ethnostate and keep agitating to take further steps in that direction.

But no matter what the ultimate outcome of disenfranchisement, it is necessary to halt white demographic decline. So disenfranchisement is desirable.

But is it possible?

Yes, it is.

The best way to prove something is possible is to show that it is actual. First of all, in the US no one under the age of 18 has the right to vote in federal elections. Second, in 48 out of 50 US states, if you are incarcerated for a felony, you lose your right to vote while you are in prison. (The exceptions are Maine and Vermont, plus Washington DC.) Furthermore, Americans can also lose their right to vote through being declared mentally incompetent or incapacitated. Finally, Americans can lose their right to vote simply by moving from one state to another. States have differing residency requirements before one can register to vote.

Beyond that, vast numbers of Americans disenfranchise themselves simply by not registering to vote. Estimates vary from 25 to 30% of people who are eligible to vote never bother to register. And even people who are registered to vote often choose not to exercise that right. In high-turnout elections, 20 to 25% of registered voters do not bother. In low-turnout elections, that number rises to 45 to 55%.

Yet all of these non-voting Americans still enjoy the same basic protections of their human rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Given that so many Americans who can vote choose not to, this makes a mockery of the liberal pretense that voting rights are somehow sacred.

Now let’s discuss disenfranchising the colored people.

These are policies that White Nationalists should adopt when we are in power. We should also encourage and applaud them before we have power, because they will make our work easier in the future.

America’s non-white population consists of citizens who have the franchise, and non-citizens who don’t. Citizens who enjoy the franchise can be divided into long-standing minorities and recently arrived ones. Remigration proposals deal with the recently arrived. It’s more complicated to repatriate longstanding minorities like the descendants of African slaves to their ancestral homelands. And indigenous minorities are already in their ancestral homeland. Thus the solution for these groups is to create sovereign homelands, or semi-autonomous reservations for small tribes.

Non-citizens are divided into legal and illegal residents. However, in some corrupt (viz Democrat) areas, non-citizens are allowed to vote.

The first thing to do is simply disenfranchise people who should not be voting anyway. (That would also include the dead.)

The second step is to halt the naturalization of all non-whites.

You can order Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here.

But what about the non-whites who already have the vote?

First, we should consider giving all citizens positive incentives to disenfranchise themselves. Many people choose not to vote because they wish to avoid the possibility of jury duty. Let’s give them other things to avoid.

• Let’s tie eligibility for the military draft to voting.

• Let’s tie receiving certain welfare benefits to renouncing one’s right to vote.

• One could give tax incentives to people who renounce the right to vote.

For the poor, we could exempt them from sales taxes. I also favor disenfranchising oligarchs by giving them exemptions from capital gains taxes. (More importantly, they would also become ineligible to donate money to campaigns.)

Second, we can build on existing forms of disenfranchisement.

• There is no reason to restore the voting rights of felons once they are paroled.

• We can also raise the minimum age to vote from 18 to 20 or 21.

• We can make it easier to declare people mentally incompetent or incapacitated and thus ineligible to vote.

• We can extend the period of required residency in a state before one is allowed to vote.

• We can also make voter registration automatically “sunset” after a certain period of time, thus requiring people to renew it. (This is a sensible policy in any case, since it prevents dead people from voting.)

• We can require legal identification documents to vote.

• We can end mail-in voting, since it is subject to fraud.

• We can require that voters have a permanent residence of some sort rather than sleeping under a bridge to disenfranchise the homeless.

All of these measures would disproportionately impact non-whites, which is why we support them.

Third, we can return to tried-and-true techniques of mass non-white disenfranchisement, which were pioneered in the American South in the Jim Crow era:

• Poll taxes (basically, a fee for registering to vote)

• Literacy tests (perhaps we could expand that to IQ tests)

• Gerrymandering: congressional district lines can be drawn to decrease the number of non-white elected officials. This is not a form of disenfranchisement per se, but it does dilute non-white power, so it should be applauded.

Third, we can create new techniques of disenfranchisement. For instance, it is perfectly reasonable to denaturalize recent immigrants (and their families, since we want to keep families together) if they violate the law, including immigration laws.

All of these techniques of disenfranchisement gradually chip away at non-white power. They are useful interim improvements. But we should never lose track of our ultimate goal: the restoration or creation of sovereign homelands for all white peoples.

That goal requires separation from non-white populations through remigration and/or territorial partition. Both of these paths entail denaturalization, and denaturalization entails disenfranchisement.

Thus we should not shy away from advocating disenfranchisement and pursuing it incrementally today.