Why a White Homeland?

Whenever I propose a White Homeland as the cure to all our ills, I'm afraid it sounds rather shallow.

There are plenty of white countries around the world, some are still up to 97% white -- and yet none of them are well off. Arguably, America is freer, richer, and healthier than they are -- and this at just a 60% white population. Why would simply increasing the percentage of whites in our country make us better off?

The answer, of course, is it wouldn't. The % of whites in your country is a necessary, but not a sufficient element for a utopia.

An all white nation would be a nice refreshing change from the bizarre aliens and strangers who surround us today, but truth to say, even a 90% white nation, with a good culture, is far better than a 100% white nation with a bad culture. The main benefit to an all white nation is being around people like yourself -- people who share your sense of aesthetics, people who share your values and morality, people who share your history and genealogy. It's good to be affirmed and loved for who you are, rather than rejected and despised. Now, this implies some sort of relativistic values system where it doesn't matter what we believe, only that we all agree on it. That's not what I mean. The race-soul of a people calls out for a belief system perfect for itself -- our genes cry out for a self-expression, a culture, that embodies our nature, that fulfills our natural wants. In the end, there is an ideal world for everyone, and that ideal world is much closer in nature between related genes than unrelated genes. Therefore, an artificial consensus simply imposed on people through brainwashing, peer pressure or government force doesn't please anyone. Nor can a natural consensus be derived from disparate elements. We are born Republican and Democrat, Religious and Atheist, and so on. (Don't take my word for it, read Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior, that discovers our personality and beliefs are also influenced by heredity ie genes.)

Basically, when you see a group of people in disagreement, the best answer will almost always be to separate. Convincing people against their own instincts and feelings is not a long-term solution, nor is forcing them to ape the behavior we see as natural and good. Someone will always end up unhappy. Even in marriage, the best predictor that the marriage will be a happy one is how similar they are -- in education levels, wealth, looks, beliefs, and so on. An equally valid measure is to simply ask how genetically related they are, since all the previous things are hereditable. The closer people are related, the more likely they are to get along. Families are closer than normal because of how similar the people in the family are to each other -- not because of some magical bonding process that works just as well for step-children or adopted children. That's the gene-denialists position, that family love is an artificial construct and can be mimicked by unrelated people equally well. Standing in the face of this are the cold facts, like rates of child abuse twenty times as high when the father isn't related to the kids, or the fact that two adopted children make different sorts of friends and gravitate to different social circles, based on their different innate genes, even if they themselves have learned to get along. Most shocking, in twin adoption studies, twins separated by adoption at birth are more similar in personality and beliefs, than the same twins to their adoptive parents.

A nation will also feel 'closer,' more loving, more affirming and supportive to its people if they are more closely related. A nation should be a breeding ground for a certain type of soul, one that feels at home in that nation, who wouldn't have it any other way. What happened in every white country on Earth, however, whether it's 50% white or 97% white, is the same curse: It's been irredeemably judaized. An alien culture has supplanted the natural race-soul and the national 'home' of whites. Its values, aesthetics, looks, and beliefs have all been imposed by people outside of them. An alien culture has invaded and conquered everyone equally, whether the aliens actually live there or not. So all white homelands are equally badly off, because they've all uncritically accepted the same judaic nonsense as the USA. Christianity? Judaic nonsense. Multiculturalism? Judaic nonsense. Hollywood? Judaic nonsense. Materialism? Judaic nonsense. Tolerance? Judaic nonsense.

Take for example classical art versus modern art. Classical art is the expression of the European race soul, what Europeans when left to themselves decide to draw and sculpt and look at. Then jews came from somewhere or other, established themselves as the professors of art and art critics and controlled the newspapers that extolled all jewish aesthetics while denouncing all European aesthetics. Soon enough, Europeans had lost control of their own art and their tastes were being browbeaten into them by the authority figures at the top. The woeful herd nature of most humans, and their woefully low IQ in comparison to the Jewish invaders, made it hopeless to resist this sudden revolution. A revolution in taste that has sat sourly on our tongues ever since -- that we cannot quite express or explain, but makes us unhappy every day it lasts. The same with switching out the European styles of music with the jewish record labels that now control the music industry. Or the classical and gothic architecture with the jewish modern architecture, which always looks terrible -- but we have lost the ability to express what our architecture should look like, or why exactly we dislike how buildings are today. It's the same for our literature -- a Canon chosen by jews is quite different from the Canon chosen by Europeans. Our Founding Fathers, for instance, were reading Greek and Latin classics -- while our education consists of reading various PC tales about how wrong it is to discriminate. Recently the jews even had the chutzpah to make all high schoolers read "Riding the Bus with my Sister," where we learn all about the life of a retarded jewess ((Literally, I'm not kidding.), and presumably learn to feel oh so much sympathy and love for her. When jews write our canon and jews choose our canon, we will begin to hate reading and literature in general, it will make us unhappy to even be in school. The expressions of our European race soul, Dostoeveskey, Dickens, or Gibbon, rot in some corner while two bit hacks like To Kill a Mockingbird are read day in and day out.

A White Homeland would be distinct from a country which just happens to be white. The enormous, humongous, stupendous difference, would be that for the first time, we take control of our culture and design it to be by and for White people. We will scientifically zero in on what appeals, aesthetically, to white people. What is good WHITE art, as it were, what suits us most naturally, what makes our inner hearts sing. And then we will give it to our people. There will be a light step in our citizens, a sort of un-placeable happiness, where people can't even define why they have such nice days. But it will be everywhere, the expression of their race soul, the expression of the very best inside them, elevating and extolling them -- the buildings, the books, the music wafting on the wind, the store windows, the clothes we wear, can you imagine how many little things, how many little influences there are? The gilding on our silverware, the designs on our sheets -- there is room for art everywhere -- and each time there is a chance for it to be art that appeals to whites, that appeals to whites' whiteness, or art that appeals to jews, and forces whites to act and think like jews. (Or blacks, hispanics, asians, etc, if they were in power.)

It's not just our chance to recapture our art forms however. Just as vitally, we can teach history from a white perspective. We can create a white nobility, people who are exceptional at 'being white,' who have in spades the virtues we value in a person. Not money, not cunning, not anything jewish. If you want to look at a European virtue system, look back to Plato -- Courage, Justice, Wisdom, and Temperance. A nobility such as that, who could object to their rule? Where in modern society do our elected officials ever possess anything remotely similar to these virtues? It's easy enough to identify the seeds of these virtues on the playground, and it would be easy enough to continue promoting the kids who keep passing our tests, to enter that nobility. A true class of shepherds, who earn their rank every generation, rather than predators whose cunning, greed, and criminality are legend. Politicians are among the least trusted or respected classes -- why should it have to be that way? Because our race-soul was polluted and the culture that worked for thousands of years -- the ideals of the nobility and the aristocracy, were overturned by the jewish-communist belief in universal democracy. Even when the US Republic was founded, only around 1/4 of the people could vote in it. The same was true of England and other countries well into the 1900's. But the general creep of democratic-communism (where power is distributed equally regardless of merit) was definitely pushed by non-whites, who did not represent the instincts of the white race-soul.

It's obvious that there were faults in hereditary rule, and these faults were honestly addressed by people like Machiavelli, Montesquieu, and others. Sadly, these same people honestly critiqued democracy and held moderate positions on what we could do about the faults found in monarchies. When we return from the blight of democracy to the clean and pure air of the nobility, we can leave the faults of the past behind. Children inheriting power they did not merit, tyrants abusing their subjects, parasites collecting rent but not actually administering justice or defending the realm. Things like this are abuses of the system, they are not innate to it -- there were plenty of reigns by Good Kings and Good Emperors, golden ages of mankind. The art of choosing leaders who will always deliver like a Hadrian is simply a matter of scientific testing and training, it's impossible to believe that out of a pool of millions of candidates, no one is suited to the position or can succeed at it.

We can devote our money to the causes of the white race-soul. Particularly, our faustian curiosity and love of Truth. Rather than feeding Africa or converting people to Jesus worship, our charity can be to science projects. Like super-colliders, telescopes, fusion power, space travel, self-driven cars, stem cells, genetic engineering -- anything that catches our fancy. Again, the difference between a White Homeland, and a country full of whites, is for the first time ever, we can actually devote ourselves to ourselves. Not to outsiders, not to outside ideologies, but to our inner cores. It was whites who invented the scientific method -- we invented it, not anyone else -- and it's because science is what we're suited for. It's what we Should be doing. If there isn't a revolutionary science project being cooked up, if there isn't an enormous goal we are shooting for, our society grows pensive, lax, and weak. Whether it's the interstate highway system, landing on the moon within the decade, or sequencing the Human Genome, whites are at their best when the nation is pooled together chasing an exciting dream.

It took one year to build the Empire State Building. One year. Whites can do great things, when they're inspired to do great things, simply because they are great.

The so called 'Freedom Tower,' still doesn't have a single story or inch of scaffolding up. It's been 8 years. It's pathetic. This is what happens when the wind is taken out of our sails, when we aren't inspired to do anything but feed Africans or embrace immigrants. We never get anything DONE. We as a people are no longer DOING anything. The most aimless generation ever.

A White Homeland would be our first chance, as we are founding a new nation, to install an entirely new set of values and norms. A country full of whites, through sheer momentum, is stuck in a rut, a rut of accepted laws and customs, that it's impossible to break out of. For instance, the idea that women should have the right to choose who they marry, or even whether they marry at all. For the longest time, this was not a part of white culture -- it came from elsewhere. I honestly don't know where it came from. What I do know, is that the result is a societal wasteland headed for extinction. But it cannot be stopped, the momentum is simply too fierce. Women will not give up their right to hedonism and careerism, in countries where those rights have been long established, and children are raised expecting to have them as the norm. White women in the past were raised with the knowledge that they were meant to marry, have, and rear children. Since so many children died, they would commonly have to bear 10 children just to end up with two. It was hard work, it was a lifelong task. And these marriages were arranged by their parents -- women were generally asked for consent, but they weren't expected to go courting themselves, or to be the ones choosing their mates. They accepted these 'harsh' and 'slave-like' laws because that was just the way it was. It wasn't questioned or challenged, so they had no idea that they should question or challenge it. They had no idea they were living as 'sex-slaves.' For them, they were living a life of honor and virtue, they were making their family proud, and they were obeying God.

Based on people's perspectives, the same conditions can be terrible or gratifying and fulfilling. If we recast marriage as a duty and a privilege, if married women with children are the highest status women can have, they will accept it just as cheerfully as their predecessors did. But if we stay in the same old country, some 97% white country of today, all of its culture and institutions will make such a demand impossible. Women simply aren't geared to think like this anymore. I expect the whole sorry tale will play itself out to the very end, the spiraling death of the West, in all these 'countries full of whites,' because women will never give up their current privileged state -- and democracy will never be able to vote them out of said privileged state. It will take a new nation, a clean break, with clearly different priorities, to start at a healthier point. It isn't the number of whites that makes a white homeland, but how pro-white the nation is. A white homeland is a homeland designed to be pro-white, a homeland that is designed for whites to prosper and thrive in.

In a White Homeland, the environment can be protected up to OUR standards, not littered on and overcrowded and defiled by swarms of Indian, Chinese, Hispanic, or African slums. Whites love their mountains and moors, their forests and their rivers. We have a right to enjoy them the way God intended us to enjoy them. We have a right to wide open spaces. We have a right to a small population occupying a vast open countryside. Why? Because we are so productive with the land we use, that a country of a thousand whites is better than ten million blacks crammed cheek by jowl in the same space. Furthermore, after all we've given humanity -- from the car to the computer to the steam engine to Michelangelo to the very green revolution that allowed them to multiply their population endlessly -- we can claim any amount of land we please and we'd have earned it and more. We have a right to the land, we have a right to be the only ones on said land, and we have a right to have as many or as few children as we please on said land. To reach an equilibrium that suits US, our race-soul. Not thirty people to an apartment, not people sleeping in shifts on the same bed, not working hours for nickels because our jobs are always at risk by the hungry unemployed outside our doors who'd work for pennies.

Since countries full of whites have no immigration control, they can not protect their environment, their economy, their workers or their rights. A White Homeland would be different -- even if it had a smaller percentage of whites! By having the self assertiveness, by having white pride, by being pro-white, it would keep the country white, at the population we like, forever. Not for a couple more generations before the shoe drops -- not until we die of old age -- forever.

There isn't a single aspect of life, that couldn't be made better by designing the laws, the system, to better suit our natures. In a universalist country that intends to be 'fair' or 'balanced' towards all parties, of course the system can't be designed to benefit anyone. It would have to appeal equally to completely different people with completely different wants and needs. The more variety we input into a country, the more strained a government is to serve all its citizens equally. Eventually it becomes impossible and the state descends into civil war, but in the meantime, everyone equally is miserable. Muslims feel the country isn't suited enough to muslims, jews don't feel it is suited to jews, blacks don't feel it's suited to blacks, hispanics don't feel it's suited to hispanics, Asians don't feel it's suited to Asians, Indians don't feel it's suited to Indians, and Whites don't feel it's suited to Whites. And guess what? It isn't! It isn't suited to anyone! In a dreadful chimera such as the United States, with the heads of goats, lions, and snakes all mixed together into a single flame and poison belching body, there is no way even a single group can possibly be satisfied by the laws, looks, and feel of the whole. We can do much better than this. In every field in life, suiting it to our particular, not our universal nature, will always make it fit and feel better -- just like tailored suits! Countries full of whites, are still designed from a universal viewpoint. A White Homeland, is designed from a particularist viewpoint -- what is good for whites? What is the deepest expression of the European race-soul? The country that lives as the embodiment and answer to that question will be our utopia.