a solution to white genocide?

The great replacement theory is a “far-right conspiracy theory” originally made popular by French author Renaud Camus. All Western nations seem to have a version of this theory. The American version states that nonwhites are replacing whites in the US at an ever-increasing rate. Madison Grant, an anthropologist and popular author in the early 20th century, found that 1860, America was over ninety percent Nordic in its racial composition. He also found that settlers with brown eyes were so rare on the American frontier that a man “would be noted by them.” In other words, they were practically nonexistent. If we compare that fact with what we see in grammar schools today, it becomes apparent that the replacement theory is not a conspiracy theory but a real one. Due to miscegenation and differential birth rates, “whites” will soon be a minority in the US. The Nordic population already is. The question that matters is what, if anything, can be done about it. This essay lists four possible solutions and goes over each briefly.

In the ideas below it quickly becomes evident that a concept called the national dividend plays a crucial role in their chances of success. So, a brief explanation of the national dividend is required. In the early 1900s, a Scottish engineer named C.H. Douglas discovered a gap between prices and income in industrialized societies – or the citizens in the industrialized nations were not earning enough income to buy what they produced. So, for example, suppose in one year, the citizens of the United States made one billion dollars worth of goods and, as a result of their labor, were paid six hundred million dollars. If the citizens did not save anything and spent all their six hundred million dollars on American goods, there would still be four hundred million dollars worth of goods sitting on the shelf unsold. This cause of this gap is complex but has to do with how funding for capital assets is borrowed and repaid. It was this gap between prices and income and the myriad solutions created to deal with it, according to Douglas, that caused industrialized economies to become dysfunctional. According to Douglas, the solution is to form a National Credit Office to calculate this gap and GIVE this amount to the citizens in two forms: a “price adjustment mechanism” and a monthly check called the national dividend. These actions would close the gap between prices and income and allow the economy to function at its highest potential. Currently, the banks solve this problem by printing the needed money – out of thin air – and loaning it with interest as consumer debt. This puts the population in ever-increasing debt but allows the economy to function – albeit at a reduced level. Social Credit would strip the banks of this power to conjure money and grant it only to the National Credit Office. The NCO would then calculate the money needed to fill the gap between prices and wages, print it out of thin air, and distribute it to the citizens as a national discount and a national dividend. So, despite its name, Social Credit is not socialism. It does not take from one group and give to another. It is merely a plan to bridge the price-income gap and get industrialized economies to function at their intended level. The National Discount and National Dividend represent the profits machine labor has taken from human labor[1]

In Douglas’s original vision, now over 100 years old, he felt the gap between prices and wages was caused by economic association. Since all humans associate, everyone in society, just by the fact they were human, deserved an equal share of the national dividend. Douglas never contemplated a multicultural society because they did not exist at the time. So, the dividend should be doled out evenly. This was Douglas’s original idea but is questionable today for two reasons. First, today, the gap between prices and wages is not so much a product of economic association but of machine labor dispersing human labor in the workforce. More machines in the workforce equals less income for humans and, consequently, the bigger the national dividend would get. The point here is that all the machines and technology that are replacing humans in the workforce were not developed by everyone. They are the distinct product of the Nordic or northern European sub-race. Since technology is the cause of the price-income gap, the ones who created Western technology have the right to determine its solution. And second, without the leadership class in charge of the dividend, it is unlikely any of the following ideas will work. Without the dividend as a motivator, they will likely never be implemented or, if so, will fail. The power to grant or withhold a guaranteed income for life is the power to motivate people. Motivate them to do things they normally would not – like emigrate – or behave. So, the dividend must be variable, with the leadership class controlling who gets what amount. With this introduction to Social Credit and the National Dividend, we can discuss ways of talking white America out of its self-righteous suicide.

REPATRIATION This is the primary method supported by white nationalist groups. Basically, nonwhites are rounded up and exported to whatever country or geographic region they came from. The white nationalists give little thought to what happens to the emigrants once they return to their homelands. It could very well end badly for them. Many whites would have a problem with this, and civil unrest could result. The problem is that the crueler the method, the less likely it will ever happen. Also, the more likely it is to result in violence and possible white-on-white conflict. Another white-on-white civil war is the absolute worst-case scenario, and we should avoid this at all costs. Any repatriation plan will have to be a civil one. What if a civilized solution could be found? Would it be possible to pay nonwhites to emigrate? If so, would this plan ever stand a chance?

Richard C Cook is an American writer who worked for the US Treasury Department for over twenty years. In 2007, he wrote a paper titled “An Emergency Program of Monetary Reform for the United States.” In it, he suggested if the social credit economic system were in place, the national dividend would be around ten thousand dollars per adult and five thousand per dependent child annually. These figures were from 2006 data. Suppose that if pressured, half of the nonwhites agreed to return to their homeland, and the half that stayed forfeited their national discount and national dividend to the half that chose to leave. First-generation emigrants would now receive approximately 20k per adult and 10k per dependent child yearly for the rest of their lives as long as they did not return to the United States. This is only an estimate, but it is based on 2006 figures. The dividend would not apply to second-generation expatriates. The point of the national dividend is to give consumers the power to purchase the surplus goods that have been produced. So, the emigres would have to spend their dividend checks on American goods. This would be difficult for someone living overseas and might be a flaw in this plan. Assuming this could be worked out, is using the national dividend to pay nonwhites to leave the solution? Will this be acceptable enough to avoid social unrest? Believe it or not, if the social credit economic system were implemented, repatriation could become a reality.

ETHNOSTATE This is another favorite of the white nationalist groups. The idea is that we force different races to separate and cohabit only with their kind. In this scheme, the government would give nonwhites some southern and southwestern states, and whites would take the rest of the country. In his online book, racialcompact.com, Richard Mcculloch suggests that the ethnostate is the best solution. He would divide the country into about eight states, with the nonwhites residing in the southwest. 75% of the land goes to the whites and 25% to the nonwhites. I guess the idea is that nonwhites live in crowded conditions in their homelands, so they have no reason to complain.

On its face, the ethnostate seems far-fetched. Very unlikely to happen. However, we have seen that with Douglas’s economic system and the motivation of the national dividend, repatriation is not that far-fetched. And would the ethnostate not be a more straightforward solution? The homelands of most nonwhites in America are third-world countries with dismal living conditions. Motivating them to emigrate, even with a guaranteed check, might be a tough sell. With the ethnostate idea, they would not have to leave the US but move to another state. And still keep their national dividend check. It could be as simple as withholding dividend checks from people not living in their assigned states. So, like the repatriation idea, the ethnostate is not as far-fetched as it first seems.

1 CHILD POLICY In the 1980s and 1990s, China had a one-child policy for most of its population. The Chinese government started it in response to what they perceived as a population crisis. After their first child, Chinese couples faced what amounted to mandatory sterilization. Ultimately, it was ineffective at curbing China’s population growth and ended in 2021. We could start something like this in the United States. The idea would be to limit nonwhite couples to a maximum of one child until their population is drastically reduced. Couples who have more than one child would forfeit their dividend check and possibly pay increased taxes. From a conservationist point of view, this is the best policy as it reduces America’s population instead of increasing it. It could be used with the ethnostate or repatriation idea or even both. Politically, it will be a tough sell. It seems cruel and anti-American to impose birth limits on people. It could lead to social unrest or possibly white-on-white violence, which makes it risky. For this reason, we should probably use it only in a last-case scenario.

THE JEWISH STRATEGY Human beings have been migrating and mixing ever since there have been human beings. When two distinct groups cohabit in the same geographical area, they almost always mix and lose their unique features. Sometimes, it happens quickly and sometimes takes a long time, but it almost always happens. This mixing has been termed “miscegenation”. The record holder for cohabiting with other peoples and not mixing appears to be the Jewish people. Before the creation of Israel they had no homeland and lived with various peoples worldwide. Somehow, during this time, they did not mix with their host peoples to any great extent. The theory goes that they are the most ethnocentric people alive and refuse to mix. But this theory is not valid. Current miscegenation estimates for Jews in diaspora countries range from 10 to 50 percent! From this figure, it appears these people should have disappeared a long time ago.

Further, if you look into their history, it becomes evident they’ve always mixed with their host people. Sometimes by choice and other times by force. So here, the Jewish people have seemingly done the impossible – consistently mixing with their hosts while simultaneously keeping their unique features. How, exactly, have they done this? The answer is that they have always had differential birth rates within their population. While most Jews have an average birthrate, the most religious among them (the Hasidic and ultra-orthodox) have a high birthrate far above the replacement level. This group shuns birth control for religious reasons and NEVER mixes with other groups. Every generation the least Jewish among them marries out and disappears from the tribe. Their numbers are replaced by the high birthrate of the most Jewish among them. So, the Jewish population remains stable despite a high miscegenation rate.

This strategy works. The fact that Jews still exist proves it. Would this strategy work for white America? The idea would be to encourage the leadership class to have large families. These surplus births would replace the white Americans who have mixed with nonwhite Americans. If large families are not enough, then other methods like sperm donation or even polygyny could be added. ANYTHING to get their birthrate into orbit. If this strategy were followed long enough, it would likely result in a 2-class America – a large and highly competent white ruling class and a not-so-competent lower class of mixed origin—maybe not the best scenario, but certainly better than our current trajectory. The best thing about this course is that nobody has to be deported or relocated. There should be no reason for civil unrest. Since this is the path of least resistance, it is the logical starting point for any plan to save white America. Will it be enough? Maybe. Or maybe one of the more painful choices above will have to be instigated. Only time will tell.