Human rights violations. This is the first argument that people against the formation of an ethnostate will cite. The idea that an ethnic state could be formed without violence or human rights violations will not be allowed to cross their minds as we have come to associate racism and in-group preference with violence. The ethnostate is synonymous with violence in the mind of most people.
I will argue in this article that this association is unfounded because there many ways in which an ethnostate can be achieved with zero violence, let alone human rights violations, not only that, I will also be arguing that by failing to form ethnic states we will inevitably become subject to violence far more extreme than anything that opponents of the ethnostate imagine.
The "Defacto" Ethnostate
The first approach to a peaceful ethnostate I call the "Defacto" strategy. This strategy would simply see us taking an area that is primarily populated by the people we wish to preserve and declaring it a state. In the context of the Europeans in the USA, we could take just a few states like Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire and simply just proclaim that this area is now a European-American ethnostate. This would not require the forcible removal of anyone, all it would require is immigration controls on these states since they are primarily European in the first place. Those non-Europeans that remain would simply be bred out over time, leave of their own volition or continue to live as an insignificant minority in the new ethnostate.
The ethnostate does not necessarily mean that it is made 100% out of a given demographic, it simply means that the protected demographic holds a supermajority and that the constitution of the ethnostate has as its primary purpose the protection and posterity of that protected demographic. How this goal is achieved is irrelevant, be it democratic, fascist, communist, capitalist, libertarian or authoritarian. If the purpose of the state is the preservation of ethnicity then it is an ethnostate.
This goal of government is still viable for most countries. Very few countries have non-native populations above 10%. Every single one of these countries could restrict immigration and then provide incentives to foreign populations that would result in their eventual removal or permanent minority status. For example, providing monetary incentives to childless foreigners while providing monetary incentives for reproducing natives would very quickly change demographics.
If the idea of allowing a migrant population to be outbred and smothered out of the nation does not sit comfortably with you, then you should shift perspective and understand that the exact opposite is the scenario for many native populations around the planet. Many native populations are being smothered and outbred by migrants into non-existence, the difference is that once a native population is destroyed it no longer exists anywhere else on the planet, but if the migrant population is removed from an ethnostate then that migrant population still exists in its country of origin.
For example, if we removed every Somalian from Sweden then there would still be millions of Somalians in Somalia, however, if we allow the Swedish people to disappear from Sweden then there will be no more Swedes. The latter is a genocide, the former is self-preservation.
The "Incentivised" Ethnostate
The next method is an extension of the previous strategy. In this strategy, we take all the steps outlined above with the addition of incentivized emigration of migrants. Instead of hoping that the migrants dwindle or integrate on their own, we take an active approach to removing them by encouraging them to return to their homelands.
Those that are resistant to return to their homelands can have their government benefits rescinded and be offered money or other benefits in exchange for their emigration. Most migrants in the western world only left their homelands to improve their financial prospects, if we could offer them the perks of living in a western economy while sparing ourselves the social issues that come with immigration then that is what I would call a win-win.
The favourable exchange rate between western currencies and the contributors of western migrant inflow provides even more room for optimization, if an Indian man can live at a western standard in India for a fraction of the cost that is required to host him in the western world then we would be foolish not to make that happen. We are not even going to get into the environmental perks (which I get into here "article coming soon"), which to keep it succinct, could only be improved from this arrangement.
The only catch for the recipients of these benefits would be that they are not eligible to receive them until they leave the would-be ethnostate. I can't see many migrants refusing the opportunity spend a currency like the US dollar or British pound in their home nation for extra purchasing power with the added benefit of speaking the language, sharing the religion and feeling integrated into the culture.
Up until this point in our plan, all we have done is flip the incentives that we have been providing to migrants. Currently, we offer welfare if you can make it into our nations along with the plethora of other advantages that western citizenship provides. By flipping the incentives we will be reversing the motives of the newest additions to our societies causing them to leave and turning most western nations back into ethnostate almost instantaneously.
Because, as critics of the ethnostate seemingly forget, western nations were ethnostate for all of history until just a few decades ago after the second world war. If they can be made multi-cultural/ethnic/racial in a few decades they can be made mono-ethnic/racial/cultural in just as many decades. The world as it currently stands is not in the natural state that we have maintained for thousands of years.
I believe that most of the Europeans countries that have accepted large migrants population and whose leadership refuses to admit its flaws are beyond a peaceful solution. The methods outlined above should be used as extensively as possible, however, there may be a large population of migrants that will not leave peacefully, they are here, and for whatever reason, they will not be convinced to leave.
It is exactly for the above reasons that while I would be overjoyed to see either of the first two strategies employed, I am also not afraid to employ some of the more extreme measures that I am about to attempt to explain and justify.
But first, we have to identify the three groups that we can break migrants down into: Assimilated, Reproductive and Militant.
The first group of migrants are those that wish to remain peacefully and slowly dissolve out of existence while enjoying the full benefits of western nations. This group is usually more materialistic and atheistic, they are here purely for the pursuit of material goods and the lifestyle. They are mostly harmless and are simply a cultural eyesore. Most are more than willing to give up having children if it means they get to keep consuming western products. I am happy to live with one generation of these immigrants until they die childless and solve the problem themselves.
The second demographic is those migrants who refuse to leave and also insist on excessive reproduction, this is the case for many migrants in the western world, they simply breed at a far higher rate than the natives and as such are destined to outnumber them if the above strategies are not employed. As most of the western world is democratic then the outbreeding of natives also equates to the democratic overruling of the natives. In the scenario that foreign populations begin to contest with the natives for control of their nations, racial and religious conflict is bound to erupt throughout the western world. Learn more about this process in my article about the "Bullet Free Genocide".
The peaceful method of dealing with these migrants is to simply revoke government benefits, most of the migrant women who are producing 3+ children are doing so with the subsidisation of the government. Once they no longer receive benefits given to them because they are breeding, most of them will slow down, we can even provide benefits to those who do not reproduce. Of course, some migrants will continue to breed for cultural and religious reasons and it is against this group that I start to justify the use of physical removal. These groups are using childbirth as a method of warfare and territorial expansion. They are thus engaging in conflict against the natives and we are free to retaliate.
The war through wombs and subsequent "demographic replacement" has never taken place without extreme violence or outright genocide. These scenarios always result in ethnic cleansing and so the only option the natives are left with is to initiate the minimum amount of violence necessary as early as possible to remove migrant populations as early as possible to prevent the far greater bloodshed that awaits in the future when two sizeable demographics contest with each other for control over a nation.
The removal of 1-15% of the population now can prevent the death and suffering of all those people who are in the nation when that small percentage grows. To ignore the growth of a foreign population and its biological imperative to conquer and claim resources for its people is to ignore reality. If you wish to prevent violence then it is exactly the multiracial, multicultural society that you must prevent and you can do so now by stopping migration and buying back citizenships.
The third and final group is those migrants with more violent tendencies or ideological conviction. This is the case of many African immigrants who form gangs or those migrants who sincerely subscribe to Islam. In this case, the migrants are on a warpath, they are a raiding party. Here to rape, pillage and take everything they can in the name of their race and gods. It is against these migrants that I have no problem employing physical removal against them, they are in our countries entirely out of our benevolence and they can be removed when that benevolence runs dry.
Any migrant who commits sex crimes or violent crimes should be immediately removed with extreme prejudice, whether it's on a boat, plane, train or at the end of a rifle. No demographic has the obligation to tolerate violence against them, that includes Europeans.
If you, like myself, actually care about the world your ancestors fought for and wish to ensure that you get to hand down a society worth living in too your descendants then you should debunk, ridicule and then ignore anyone who attempts to convince you that it is impossible to reverse the demographic trends of the past few decades.
Every man worth his salt should be making it his primary focus to achieve a society that is worthy of his forefathers and descendants, the ethnostate is nowhere near as hard to achieve as the modern coward wants you to believe.
By employing the above methods, you can see the "assimilated" simply cease to exist in a generation or two, the "breeders" will leave in exchange for bribes and benefits and the militants can be eliminated with zero guilt. As argued above, ethnostate can be formed peacefully, however, those who are soon to be ethnically cleansed have no responsibility to preserve their territory within peaceful means.
It's time to B.R.A.C.E
All we have to do is:
Absorb the assimilated.
Close the borders.
Eliminate the radicals.
The colonial ethnostate
The only real alternative to the above is colonisation, that is the idea of finding fresh virgin land and starting again. Places that have been considered for this idea are large empty areas in places like Antarctica, Russia, Australia, Canada and America. The problem with this strategy is that while it is peaceful, it is also not desirable or viable. The places on Earth that are empty are empty for a reason, they often lack natural resources or habitable/farmable land.
To spend the lives of the already dwindling populations of Europe attempting to colonize harsh environments like Antarctica is a waste of time when we already have nations that our forefathers poured blood and sweat into. All we have to do is reassert our dominance over them.
An Example: England
I will now provide a brief example of how England could be returned to an ethnostate.
England in the 2011 census was still 79.8% White British. This includes the English, Scots and Welsh.
The makeup of the migrant population is 7.8% "Asian", this is primarily made of people from India and Pakistan.
The next largest group coming in at 5.7% are non-British Europeans. The Irish, Poles, French and Germans for example.
Then the African population is the next sizeable population at 3.5%, these people originate from Subsaharan Africa and the Caribbean.
In raw numbers that puts the migrant population of England at 7.2 million people or 17% of the population. By looking at the origin of most of these migrants we can see they come from places that are.... economically challenged.
So lets B.R.A.C.E.
First we Buyback the citizenships of those who are more than happy to sell their citizenship back and return to their native lands with a large pile of cash. Assuming just 10% of the migrant population has a citizenship and that half of those decide to accept the payment we have removed 350,000 people.
Then we Revoke visas, the first to have their visas revoked will be those with a criminal record or a history of anti-social behaviour. About a quarter of the English prison system is made up of migrants, that is a quarter of eighty thousand people who will be immediately removed taking another twenty thousand people from our total. That is without looking at the people who are not currently in prison but who do have a criminal history or considering those who will commit crimes in the future.
So, assuming that each prisoner has a sentence of eighteen months and that migrants make up 25% of the prison population we can say that in the past decade one hundred and forty thousand migrants have been through the prison system and multiple times that will have committed lesser crimes that only warranted fines. We will now remove another 350,000 migrants from our total.
Of those who remain, we can Absorb the assimilated, 2.3% of the immigrant population is already genetically mixed, that is 1.2 million people. Within two or three generations this population can be assimilated out of existence.
In the meantime, the borders have been Closed. This means there has been no incoming migration, we are dealing only with those that are already here, which leaves us with the final step...
Eliminate the radicals. Around the world in most Islamic nations more than 60-80% of the populations support Sharia law becoming the official law of a nation. That is the metric I will be using to determine "radical" beliefs.
In the 2011 census, 2.7 million Muslims live in England, if we are generous and say that only half of those want Sharia to become the official law of England then we have found 1.35 million Muslims who are in support of overthrowing the law put in place by the natives in favour of their own. These people are radicals and I do not shy away from forcibly removing them.
In total, after applying B.R.A.C.E we have reduced the migrant population by 2.25 million. We took the migrant population from 17% of the population to about 10%. As time passes the incentives we have put in place will tempt more of the migrants who now feel unwelcome to leave, more will become assimilated genetically and those that react violently will be dealt with forcefully. This is how you create an ethnostate without aggression. This can even be achieved democratically, for now.
Migration is affecting the democratic process, if you value democracy you cannot be in favour of immigration. If we revoted for Brexit now, the non-white population added to the voting rolls in just the past few years would already have tipped the scale in the other direction. We are running out of time to reach a peaceful and democratic solution to this problem.
We will not be replaced.
For thousands of years the British people have resided on the British Isles, they have dealt with these migrations before, as recently as two millennia ago with the Anglo-Saxons from whom England has taken its name. The British people were 100% of the British population for thousands of years up until the second world war. In the 1950s the foreign population in the UK was less than 5%. Just 70 years later, in the span of a single human life, that number has quadrupled to almost 20%. This simply cannot be allowed to continue without it affecting the security of the British people.
The demographics are changing, and so being against European ethnostate, just means you are in favour of a world without Europeans. The destruction of the European people, the handing of their territory and future over to foreign people.
But that is not what will happen, many may be ready to hand the lands of their ancestors over, but there are still many who carry the spirit of their people ancestors within them, and they will not allow themselves to be replaced without a fucking fight. So those who would see us destroyed have a choice, come to an agreement now, get a concrete agreement on what land belongs to what people, or wait until it is settled on the battlefield.