Remigration Is Inevitable, Part 2

2,000 words (part 2 of 3)

The Idea of a Homeland

One way to reduce resistance to remigration is to base it on the idea of a universal right to a homeland.[1] Every individual and every family should have the right to its own home, a refuge from the world where they can live as they see fit. Likewise, every people should have the right to their own homeland, where they can preserve their unique heritage and ways of life.

The idea of a universal right to a homeland has two important implications:

• A homeland is a place where citizens have privileges not enjoyed by other peoples. The purpose of a homeland is to preserve a people and their way of life for all time. Thus they must be demographically, politically, and culturally dominant, meaning that their language and culture are normative, and measures are in place to ensure their demographic continuity and dominance. This is ethnic nationalism.

• Even though a homeland privileges one people over others, this is not unfair to others, for they have the right to homelands of their own. In fact, most of them do have homelands.

The right to a homeland is meaningless, of course, if there are no controls on who can live there. This means borders. It also means policies on migration (immigration and emigration) based on the interests of the founding people.

Due to historical contingencies, most white societies are not ethnically homogeneous. But ethnic nationalism does not depend on ethnic homogeneity. An ethnostate is primarily a legal concept establishing a territory and a state dedicated to a particular people and its interests. One can create an ethnostate instantly, simply by adopting a suitable constitution.

But if a homeland is to be both the home of a particular people and democratic, then we must at the very least ensure that the founding people are the majority of the population. Moreover, since in multiparty democracies, even tiny minority groups can determine the outcome of elections, the founding people must be the overwhelming majority to have real political power.

We need to distinguish between long-standing and recently arrived minorities: Swedes in Finland are different, for instance, than Somalis in Finland.

To reduce resistance to ethnic nationalism, we need a sensible policy on minority groups. Long-standing and closely related (i.e., white) minorities can stay as long as they are comfortable living as minorities in a society in which another ethnic group’s language and culture are normative. The basic human rights of such minorities should be respected at all times. They should also enjoy the same basic civil rights as other citizens. There should be no petty and invidious forms of discrimination.

Obviously, such policies can only apply to minority groups that are committed to living peacefully with the majority. It cannot apply to minorities that are actively hostile, involved in separatist or irredentist movements, or act as fifth columns for other states. In such cases, separation would be the proper way forward.

The Scope of Remigration

This brings us to the question of the scope of remigration. Generally speaking, the broader the scope of remigration, the more people will resist it, simply because the bigger and more radical the project, the more intimidating it is to ordinary people.

Nevertheless, I think we should consider the broadest possible scope for remigration. Let’s explore sending them all back. If Europe is to be preserved, millions of African, Middle Eastern, and Asian immigrants must leave, and all their descendants too. In the majority-white colonial nations of the Americas and the Antipodes, some provision should be made for the remnants of indigenous populations, and some territory should be set aside for the descendants of non-white slaves. Yet millions of recent immigrants and their families must still be repatriated.

The ideal should be complete remigration, even though we might have to settle for less due to political compromises.

Beyond that, we might have to propose less than complete remigration—at least at first—in order to reduce resistance. I have found, for instance, that if you propose the idea of maintaining a “supermajority” of Austrians in Austria, Italians in Italy, etc., many people will accept that idea readily.

A supermajority makes sense if people accept the idea that a homeland is morally legitimate for all peoples, especially if they assume that such a homeland will be democratic, for if people can be outvoted in their own homelands, then it isn’t really theirs.

A supermajority must, of course, be cashed out in specific numerical terms to set a benchmark for remigration policies. This number will vary from country to country, depending on the existing demographic breakdown. Obviously, if a country is 95% homogeneous, it would not pursue less homogeneity, only more.

Another factor would be the willingness of the public to accept a certain numerical target. That can, of course, be determined by polling public opinion. As a general rule, it is always easier to convince people to adopt something that has already been tried. Thus, if one wishes to propose a particular majority/minority ratio, one simply needs to find the last year that it already existed.

For instance, the United States was around 90% white in 1965, when we abandoned immigration policies designed to preserve the white majority. If one proposes restoring the white supermajority of 1965, surprisingly many Americans would be amenable to that.[2] But many of the very same people would resist it if one simply proposed the number without providing a historical example of when that percentage existed.

As a general rule in politics, it is best to unify one’s own bloc and split one’s opponents. If a given country has long-standing, closely related minorities, the leaders of these minority political blocs often agitate for multiculturalism, since they think they benefit from the general principle—for instance, the Swedes in Finland or the Quebecois in Canada. It is important, therefore, to reduce their resistance to remigration by flatly stating that it does not apply to them.

Remigration should focus entirely on recent arrivals. “Recent” basically meaning: after World War II. That alone is an immense task. Thus we should not increase our burdens and multiply our opponents with more sweeping remigration proposals.

Is Remigration Moral?

This breaks down into two questions:

• Is remigration moral as a goal?

• Can remigration be done in a moral manner?

Remigration is a moral goal because every people has a right to its own homeland. Whites are losing their homelands to migration. Therefore, remigration is necessary to restore white homelands.

Beyond that, under the present system, whites will become extinct in all our homelands. The only real solution is the creation or restoration of homelands for our peoples. Therefore, remigration is simply a matter of self-defense in the face of a mortal threat. Since we recognize the moral right to self-defense, particularly by a people facing genocide, remigration is a moral goal.

Can this goal be accomplished in a moral manner? The simple answer is: yes, we can remigrate millions of people while respecting their basic human rights.

Can We Be Comfortable with Remigration?

Sadly, providing an ironclad moral argument for remigration won’t be enough for a lot of people. Modern man puts comfort ahead of morality, and one of the most important forms of comfort is feeling good about oneself, which is not quite the same thing as having a good character or a clean conscience. To lower resistance to remigration, we must make people feel comfortable with it.

Can we “live with” remigration? The simple answer is that, as a race, we can’t live without it.

Unfortunately, most people don’t think about the distant future. Thus their support for remigration hinges on more proximate considerations. They worry that it will interrupt their routines, comfort, and peace of mind.

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

Mass Migration Is Already Part of Daily Life

To persuade our people that remigration can become part of ordinary life, we should first remind them that it already is. People are forced to move all the time for educational and economic reasons. We move to study. We move for jobs. Once we have jobs, our employers can move us. If we lose a job, we may have to travel to find a new one. Rising costs of housing can force us to move. And so forth.

Yet we sleep quite well at night knowing that millions of people are forced to move for economic reasons. So we can learn to live with forcing people to move for a much higher purpose: the creation of a better world in which all peoples have their own homelands.

Moreover, since most people are comfortable with a system in which people are forced to move for economic purposes, we can make those moves work for remigration. The next time a migrant family needs to move for economic reasons, we will just make sure that they move outside our homelands. This would be particularly easy if they work for multinational corporations, which would cooperate because they wish to continue doing business in our homelands.

Beyond that, our people are already living with moving for racial and ethnic reasons. It’s just that we are the victims rather than the beneficiaries. For generations now, our people have been subjected to mass ethnic cleansing in our homelands. Countless people have changed homes, neighborhoods, jobs, schools, and cities countless times due to mass migration. But despite the enormous human and financial costs of this ethnic cleansing, we have been “living with it” quite well. People seem scarcely aware of it. It hardly intrudes into public discussion, much less political action.

If our people have been living for decades with slow ethnic displacement, then I think we can live with imposing the same conditions on the migrants who are displacing us. I think the migrants can live with it too.

Under the present system, we have no future in our own homelands. To restore our homelands, we must create a system in which the migrants have no future among us due to remigration. With each passing year, migrant populations can be reduced until the last of them have returned home. And if whites can “live with” a system in which we have no future at all, then surely migrants can live with a system in which they have a future in their own homelands.

We Must Look Out for Our Own First

One objection to remigration is that the migrants will only have bleak futures in their homelands. Notice, however, that this objection quietly discards one of the main tenets of diversity advocates, namely that migrants enrich our societies. For if migrants enrich our societies, why would they not enrich their own societies as well? In truth, migrants come to our societies because we enrich them. We provide them with better lives than they can enjoy in their homelands.

But it is also true that some migrants are superior in education, ambition, and agency to the people they leave behind. They may send money home, but their departure removes something far more important: human capital. Thus non-white societies will never be able to provide their citizens decent futures as long as some of their best people can leave to colonize our countries. Non-white lands will only “develop,” to whatever extent possible, once white countries stop skimming off some of their best people.

Every time we fly, we are told that in the event of a loss of cabin pressure, an oxygen mask will fall from the compartment above. We are always told to put on our mask first, before trying to help others. If we lose consciousness and die, we can’t prevent others from suffering the same fate. That’s nationalism in a nutshell: you must save yourself—or your people—before you can help others.

Because our nations are facing extinction, our first obligation is to ourselves. So, although we wish other peoples well, there’s nothing we can do to help them if we perish. We must save ourselves first.

White countries are rich and powerful. We can do a lot to help non-whites. But we can’t really give them a sense of belonging. Thus if you wish to help non-whites, it is best to help them in their homelands, where they already feel at home and where our money will go a lot farther.

Remigration Can Be Done Slowly

In “The Slow Cleanse,” I argued that one way to make people comfortable with remigration is to do it slowly. After all, white demographic decline has unfolded over generations.

Anti-white demographic trends include lower birthrates, collapsing families, miscegenation, non-white immigration, non-white penetration of white living spaces, etc. These trends were set in motion by political decisions or political negligence, then sustained over time the same way.

The long-term result of these trends is white extinction. But these trends have unfolded so slowly that very few of us have noticed, much less fought back, and those who have noticed have found it difficult to convince people that anything bad is happening.

When we regain control over our homelands, we need to set positive demographic trends in motion and sustain them. Time will take care of the rest. In the short run, we need to raise our birthrates. But we will never win by out-breeding the other races until the planet is “standing room only.” The problem is not too few of us, but too many of them in our homelands. We have been declining for generations. Thus we can take a few decades to set things right.

One of the most common arguments for complacency in the face of demographic decline is that the disaster will happen long after we are dead. Even if we can make a convincing case that present trends, if continued long enough, will result in white extinction, this will not happen within the lifetimes of anyone alive today.

Of course, whites will slip into minority status in many countries within the lifetimes of people reading me today. Moreover, if we look at smaller units—towns, neighborhoods, and schools—whites are slipping into minority status every single day. There are even areas in formerly white countries where whites have virtually disappeared. But certainly for older generations—the Baby Boomers and above—the worst of what we are facing will happen long after their deaths.

This crass egoism is highly selective, however. Some of the same people who wish to leave white demographic decline for future generations to worry about often support environmentalism, wildlife conservation, historical preservation, and other causes to make the world a better place long after they are dead. If you care about these things, you should care about preserving white people, the principal race that cares about the future.

But whenever we cannot change this attitude, we can make it work for us. If some people will not lift a finger to stop white extinction because it will only happen after their deaths, then they shouldn’t object to our plans for remigration, because it too will unfold slowly over decades and only reach fulfillment well after they are dead.

Of course, things have gotten a lot worse in the years since I first argued for gradualism. Thus there is a greater sense of urgency, and more people seem willing to countenance fast-paced, large-scale remigration. For instance, Rupert Lowe of Restore Britain has floated the proposal to remove between 1.5 and 2 million recent migrants in under three years.[3] This is encouraging. The quicker the better.

But it is important to bear in mind that, if politically necessary, a slower process of remigration could still be effective.

Notes

[1] Greg Johnson, “Havens in a Heartless World,” Loving Our Own (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2025).

[2] I propose the idea of “90% White Nationalism” in “The Uppity White Folks’ Manifesto,” in White Identity Politics (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2020).

[3] Harrison Pitt and Rupert Lowe, Mass Deportations: Legitimacy, Legality, and Logistics, online: https://www.restorebritain.org.uk/pp_mass_deportations_legitimacy_legality_and_logistics