Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Category: Demographics

Facing the Future As a Minority

For as long as anyone can remember, immigration has been the chief political concern at gatherings such as this. At last night’s cocktail party, “amnesty,” “illegals,” and various heroes and villains in Washington were discussed with great interest.

This speech was delivered at the 2013 American Renaissance conference, which took place on April 5-7 near Nashville, Tennessee.  

For as long as anyone can remember, immigration has been the chief political concern at gatherings such as this. At last night’s cocktail party, “amnesty,” “illegals,” and various heroes and villains in Washington were discussed with great interest.

For people like us—who are asylumed away to the margins—one could say that immigration is our connection to the outside world.  It makes us feel like we have a horse in the race—maybe even that, through our silent partners in the Beltway, we can affect national policy.  We even get captivated, we must admit, by the political theater of “immigration reform.” Ann Coulter’s speech at the last Conservative Political Action Conference, for example, was catnip for racialists. Ann staked out the far rightward territory of respectability; and though she used the language of Republican electioneering, she seemed to be winking and nodding at us the entire time.

Whenever any issue or idea receives universal accord—when it becomes an assumption, when it’s taken for granted—it’s time to put it under serious scrutiny.  We should ask what an issue like immigration can tell us about ourselves—about what our goals are, and should be, and how we could best engage in political action. I hope we can do that today.

* * *

That we have failed to stem immigration in our 45-year struggle is obvious enough.  Some major amnesties have been halted due to energetic, grassroots activists, but mass-immigration proponents have walked away from these battles with confidence that they’ll get it done next year.

That we have continuously failed is not, in itself, an argument against continuing along this course.  Still, sometimes when we focus on various political skirmishes (like the current one over “amnesty”), we lose sight of the big picture—we lose sight of the fact that we have failed on a much deeper level than mere policy.

In the summer 2011, the Census Bureau reported that the majority of children born in the United States are non-White.  Thus, from our perspective, any future immigration-restriction efforts are meaningless.  Even if all immigration, legal and illegal, were miraculously halted tomorrow morning, our country’s demographic destiny would merely be delayed by a decade or two.  Put another way, we could win the immigration battle and nevertheless lose the country, and lose it completely.

And we shouldn’t focus too much on the “2050” date, when Whites will become a minority, as if once Whites drop to 49 percent, a bell will go after announcing the end of the American Dream. We are at a major crisis point now. And we are well past the point of no return with regards to “patriotic immigration reform.”

Furthermore, this insight into the irrelevance of immigration reform holds for the whole kit-and-caboodle of “conservative” causes. Should we, for instance, really be fighting for “limited government” or the Constitution, so that the Afro-Mestzizo-Carribean Melting Pot can enjoy the blessing of liberty and a sound currency? (To ask the question is to answer it.)

SYMBOLIC POLITICS

Beyond failure, there’s always been something . . . mendacious about immigration reform. Leftists (who sometimes understand us better than we understand ourselves) have always sensed this; they know that when we talk about immigration, we’re not really talking about immigration.

There are very good reasons, of course, for any nation to oppose lawless entry. And there are unalterable mathematical factors at play: all things being equal, more workers equals lowers wages. These are (and should) be the concerns of the “respectable” immigration-reform movement.

But these are not our concerns.

The issues the Beltway immigration reformers focus on are essentially quantitative in nature, as you can see by the names of their organizations: “numbers,” “carrying capacity,” etc.

Our concerns are qualitative. As they should be. For in war, art, and enterprise, great quality can predominate over mere “numbers.” Our race’s history is replete with examples of this: of continental or overseas empires—the globe itself—being administered by a central elite. More impressive still are the examples of one man with little money or support—whether it be Copernicus, Martin Luther, or Nietzsche—overturning whole schools of thought and institutions and society’s most basic assumptions.

Quality should have a practical effect on how we think about the immigration issue. What would we say and do, to take a hypothetical example, if a million Swiss or Russian “boat people” washed up on a seashore, due to some international catastrophe?  Would we oppose granting them citizenship, out of some devotion to legality and fairness? I wouldn’t.  I would become a bleeding-heart liberal and argue that these refugees would improve our economy and enrich our culture (as they likely would). And such an example might not remain hypothetical. In the foreseeable future, we may very well face this exact situation with the Boer people of South Africa.  We need to think now about how we will react and articulate our position.

For us “immigration” is a proxy for race. In that way, immigration can be good or bad: it can be a conquest (as it seems now) . . . or a European in-gathering, something like White Zionism.  It all depends on the immigrants. And we should open our minds to the positive possibilities of mass immigration from the White world.

Taking a step back, it seems that for everyone immigration” is a proxy, a mask, a lie.  Perhaps all of political activism and wonkery are manifestation of deeper, largely unconscious desires for power. When we hear any professional “Latino” support this or that social program, we sense in our guts that her policy proscriptions are rationalizations for nationalism. She might say “more immigration is good”; she means “The Anglos are finished!”

In turn, we are right to view “conservative” activism—especially those hokey and embarrassing events like Glenn Beck rallies—as symbolic in-gatherings of America’s historic majority, as ways for Whites to feel a sense of belonging and identity in a world that is increasingly cold and hostile. Generic “conservatism”—despite itself—has become a kind of White identity politics.  And however flawed, all of its prominent ideological features resonate in the hearts of decent White people: self-reliance, freedom, uprightness etc.  And when White men talks about “restoring the Constitution”—or, more so, “Taking Our Country Back”— leftists and non-Whites are right to view this as threatening and racialist: it implies a return to origins and that the White man once owned America. However much we might critique these conservative ideas, we cannot deny this basic symbolism.  Indeed, it is due to this symbolism—and not policy—that conservative leaders like Glenn Beck have to envelope all-White events in “Martin Luther King” and the most useless political issues possible. They can’t let the natives get out of hand. . .

* * *

Now, if we accept that generic conservatism is symbolic, we should ask a higher-level question—Is this proxy actually good for our movement and, more important, for our race and civilization?

We were able to understand the futility of the immigration issue by asking not what would happen if the movement lost, but what would happen if it actually won.  In t
urn, we should ask an analogous question: what exactly would conservatism “restore” or “take back”?

We can look to history for answers.

In 1789, we had the Constitution. We had a government that was a mere flea in comparison to the elephant that rules us today. Confiscatory taxation was unheard of; the invasions of personal privacy we experience today wasn’t only rare but was, for the most part, infeasible.  We had a more republican, indeed, aristocratic, political system. We had bounteous natural resources and no threatening world power bordering our country.

Yet, within 75 years, we had inflicted upon ourselves a devastating Civil War—one that decimated the Founding stock of the country.  Within 125 to 150 years, our political system had become dominated by same kind of liberal egalitarianism it is today.

Why should we believe that, if we could “restore the Constitution,” the outcome would be any different? One should not rewind a movie, play it again, and then be surprised when it reaches the same unhappy ending.

Of course, history is not determined; it is not a film reel or script. But looking dispassionately at our current situation, we can only conclude that if we could hit a political “reset button,” this time around, the outcome would be far worse.

We are entering a world of resource scarcity (not abundance), and we are not dealing with Blacks that are socially and politically inferior, but some hundred million non-Whites who are empowered by our political system.

Thus, we don’t have to speculate about whether Rand Paul (and any other “right-wing” Republican) really wants to restore constitutional government or would actually be able to do so. This is all irrelevant.  The goals themselves are wrong and must be abandoned.

Supporting Paul, or whatever version of the Tea Party or Republican “immigration hawk” comes up next, is not “pragmatic”; it is, to the contrary, entirely impractical.  And it would be devastating for our movement politically: we would be spending our limited resources of time, energy, and money on politicians whose rosiest conceivable outcome would not change anything.  “Restoring the Constitution” and “patriotic immigration reform”  are just more in a series of safety valves and escape hatches preventing us from confronting the real issues facing our race.

Before we can move forward, we must come to terms with some rather dismal truths. There are no policy proscriptions or politicians currently open to us that will fundamentally alter our destiny.  And, most likely, within our lifetimes, we will not see the kind rebirth of Occidental civilization that we in this room know is necessary.

What we can do now is begin to set a new and different course.  Our challenge is to reorient our people, spiritually as much as intellectually and politically, to a world that will be hostile towards them and towards a future beyond the United State of America.

MINORITY REPORT

I’m sure that when many heard the title of my talk, “Facing the Future as a Minority,” they cringed at the very notion.  It insults our pride and dignity to think that I might be suggesting we go out and find ourselves a White Al Sharpton, who could speak at demonstrations after various hate-crime hoaxes and badger politicians until Whites got a seat at the trough.  Perhaps I might start calling my “The Reverend” Richard Spencer and hold prayer vigils after some celebrity misused the word “cracker.”

Believe me, I find this just as offensive as you do.

The good news is that the “Al Sharpton” option will never be open to us.  Whites are and will always be the exception to multiculturalism; we will never be allowed to play the game.

We must also recognize that not only will we always be at odds with the multi-cult, but, at least at the beginning, we will be at odds with the people we seek to defend.  In White America’s unconscious, they are America.  And the process of letting that dream go will be painful.

Moreover, the era of mass immigration into Western countries coincided with stunning advances in consumer capitalism, technology, and access to higher eduction. In the public’s imagination, multiculturalism was linked (however irrationally) with increased living standards and general “progress.”  For some, a White society might seem to be a retreat, towards less prosperity and dynamism.

Suffice it to say, this will be a hard path.

One characteristic that we must adopt as White minority advocates is a new openness to alternative political forms, even things that have previously made us cringe. One of those was suggested by our friends outside protesting our gathering.  No, not “Bomb Dresden Again!” but “Go Back to Europe!”  Emigration with an E is, of course, not practical for all Whites in North America; and at the moment at least, it seems that Western Europe is dedicated to its destruction almost as much as America.   But we should be open to this option.

Back to Europe? Not a bad idea... Back to Europe? Not a bad idea…

I would also direct you to the work on racial separatism of two men: Michael Hart and Rabbi Mayer Schiller, both of whom have presented real plans for dividing up the existing United States, mostly on the basis of race and partly on ideology.  (Michael generously offers Liberals the chance to live in “Diversity” canton if they so desire. . .)

There is, I admit, a certain pie-in-the-sky quality to these proposals, as if a map-maker in his study could create new countries.  But we should remember that in the last century, racially defined nation-building was a major “progressive” cause. We now think that the so-called “liberal elites” have always been dedicated to multiculturalism and race-mixing.  This is not quite the case, as liberals have a history of adopting “national determination” and even “ethno-nationalism” as their causes.  In 1919, following the Great War, the world’s statesman met in Paris to (for lack of a better term) re-map the world after the dissolution of the defeated empires. New countries were invented (the Kingdom of Croats, Serbs, Slovenes), old ones were reborn (Poland), and ethnicities got their day in the Sun (Czechoslovakia).  Related to this process was the Balfour Declaration and British mandate for a homeland for the Jews in Palestine.  Nationalists of many stripes captured the hearts and minds of political actors.

Today, in the public imagination, “ethnic-cleansing” has been associated with civil war and mass murder (understandably so).  But this need not be the case.  1919 is a real example of successful ethnic redistribution—done by fiat, we should remember, but done peacefully.

OUR CAUSE

Like the nationalists of a century ago, we need a cause—and one that’s different, greater, and more advanced than the conservative “hot button” issues that are fading into irrelevance.  We need to be more than mere “reactionaries,” who spasmodically ignite in the face of some new liberal innovation—all the while being gradually pushed in their enemies’ direction, towards accepting their enemies’ assumptions, towards defeat. We need a telos, an outcome or end goal—something that we are working towards, that channels our energies. We need an ideal. And ideals are greatest when they at first seem “impossible.”

The ideal I advocate is the creation of a White Ethno-State on the North American continent.

Vis-a-vis most contemporary states that are putatively based on the Rights of Man and “democracy,” our project would be a new kind of political and social order. It would be a state for the 21 century—or 22nd: reflecting advances in communication and transportation, it would be a home for Germans, Latins, and Slavs from around the world. On one level, it would be a reconstitution of the Roman Empire. The Ethno-State would be, to borrow the title of a novel by Theodor Herzl (one of the founding fathers of Zionism), an Altneuland—an old, new country.

* * * 

I’m sure there’s no shortage of people, most likely even people in this room, who’d inform me that an Ethno-State would be beautiful but, alas, “infeasible.”  In the face of this, we need to remember something very important: the creation of a White Ethno-State on the American continent is perfectly feasible. Indeed, it is a modest project in comparison to brining democracy to the Middle East, narrowing the SAT score gap, or inspiring young women to become mathematicians, or countless other looney and infantile trillion-dollar initiative with which the American government is currently engaged.

We shouldn’t forget that before the current government dedicated its resources to equalizing mankind, it channelled billions—created industries, created whole cities—for the goal of space exploration. (It has since given up this project in favor of boosting the Muslim world’s self-esteem.)

When I travelled to my hometown recently, I noted that the wealthy Whites of Dallas, Texas, have dedicated their disposable income to a charity hospital skyscraper, built in the hopes of taking care of other peoples‘ children and other peoples‘ problems. (It’s hard to get them to give 100 bucks to AmRen or NPI.)

Action is, in a way, the easy part.

Channelling action, setting a goal, identifying a telos—saying yes and saying no—that is what is difficult.

In this way, our challenge is one of the spirit.

Our task is to capture the imaginations of our people (or the best of our people) and shock them out of their current assumption of what they think is possible.  The means of doing this is not to promise a 20-percent reductions in immigration or sales taxes—or the narrowing of the scope of government. To the contrary, we need to offer our people what Herzl called “the voluptuous idea.”

We need an ethno-state so that our people can “come home again,” can live amongst family, and feel safe and secure. But we also need an Ethno-state so that Whites can again reach the stars.  Before the onset of the “equality” sclerosis, Europeans had a unique ability to risk everything for ends that are super-human. We must give up the false dreams of equality and democracy—not so that we could “wake up” to reality; reality is boring—but so that we can take up the new dreams of channelling our energies and labor towards the exploration of our universe, towards the fostering of a new people, who are healthier, stronger, more intelligent, more beautiful, more athletic.  We need an ethno-state so that we could rival the ancients.

In Altneuland, Herzl wrote, referring to his “utopian” plan for a Jewish state in Palestine: “If you wish it, it is no fairy tale. . . If you don’t wish it, it is a fairly tale and will remain one.”

Or, to quote another historical figure: “I have a dream.”

No Comments on Facing the Future As a Minority

The Global Favela

Reality has a well-known racist bias. And the White minstrel and courtier Stephen Colbert veered a little too close to what leftists used to call the reality-based community when describing…

Reality has a well-known racist bias. And the White minstrel and courtier Stephen Colbert veered a little too close to what leftists used to call the reality-based community when describing the chaos of the upcoming Rio Olympics.

To the laughter of his SWPL audience, Colbert hammed it up and made silly faces as he recounted the violence, corruption, and incompetence as Brazil scrambles to put together the infrastructure needed to host the Summer Games. He noted billions of dollars were sent to companies which are currently being investigated for price fixing and kickbacks. He smirked about Brazil having one of the “highest violent crime rates in the world” and, making sure to trill his r’s for comedic effect, quoted the soccer player Rivaldo telling foreigners to “stay in their country of origin” because “here you will be running the risk of your life.” The meme-ready warning from police to arriving tourists “Welcome to Hell” was also featured. And though Colbert didn’t mention this, body parts recently washed ashore next to one of the key venues for the games.

Brazil, as de Gaulle said, is the country of the future and always will be. It will never be the First World nation its boosters fondly imagine. For racially aware American whites, this ironic prophecy has always held a more ominous connotation. Brazil was always the nightmare racially aware American Whites were seeking to avoid, a frenzied völker-chaos of crime and social dysfunction where the poor slaughter each other in the streets and the rich hide behind gated communities and militarized police.

As Colbert’s snark indicates, even the most deeply insulated shitlib shares this premise at some level. Leftists might find something like City of God romantic, but they don’t want to live there anymore than they want to spend time in the Baltimore neighborhoods they fetishize in The Wire.

Yet Brazil might actually be a best-case scenario. At least in the highly Germanized south of the country, there are areas which are wealthy and relatively free of crime and corruption. Not coincidentally, there is also a simmering secessionist movement. And in the recent controversy over impeaching leftist Dilma Rousseff, most of her opponents came from the whiter south.

Interestingly, The Hive leaped into action to defend Rousseff during the impeachment crisis, with the Huffington Post, Salon and other sources of Cat Lady morality warning against the “right-wing” coup. As the subtleties of Brazilian politics are poorly understood by American reporters and even less by American audiences, the situation was explained using the same Narrative applied to politics in every other nation. Rousseff’s defeat, warned one leftist, would mean a “roll back [of] affirmative action and efforts to redress discrimination against peoples of indigenous and African descent.” In other words, the pro-impeachment forces were Bad Guys because they wouldn’t steal enough of White people’s stuff. And Rousseff’s opponents were mostly males with light skin, ipso facto proof of malicious intent, racism, and sexism.

In a way, this Narrative captures something essential. Race creates the underlying conditions of all politics. The great deception of race relations in the West, the lie which justifies the entire political apparatus, is that people of European descent somehow benefit from the presence of “black bodies” and people of color to exploit. In reality, the most consistent pattern we see from Latin America to Europe is the desire of whites to escape multiculturalism, all while they continue to praise it in the abstract. Even in Sweden, the natives move away from “diverse” neighborhoods after only a small number of non-European immigrants enter. And this what really drives contemporary policy disputes, even if it is framed in terms of “limited government,” “local control,” “property values,” or “good schools.”

We flee, they follow, and then they complain we’ve oppressed them. From communist cult leaders to deformed actresses, the response we get is as to why these people are running to join us racists is the same – it’s Our Fault their society is the way it is.

But the truth is their societies are undesirable because they live there. If enough of them come here, our societies will be indistinguishable from theirs. Even if they were given a structural or environmental advantage, the outcome will be the same.

They need us. We don’t need them. We never did.

On those occasions in history when Europeans sought to integrate nonwhites into our system either as equals, slave labor, or something in between, we’ve always paid for it collectively. Whatever wealth was generated by slavery or colonization is nothing compared to the wealth and lives lost in the fratricidal conflicts and rebellions ultimately engendered.

Perhaps more than any other society in human history, status in the modern West is shown by loudly preaching egalitarian principles while isolating yourself from their effects. It’s not just right-wing snark to point out how Mark Zuckerburg is shilling for more immigration while buying property and building walls so as to protect himself from the rabble. This is the governing principle of our world.

The Open Society is a lie. It always was. The only question is where the borders will be drawn. We can have larger barriers outside the neighborhoods, countries and civilization we want to preserve, or we can have innumerable barriers around each home, shop, and gated community as we try to carve out a little space where we can watch our screens and live our virtual life as everything crumbles around us. And even if you’ve managed to find a decent community to raise a family, the American government has already made it quite clear it is coming for you.

In response to Brexit, we’ve seen a few “mainstream” columnists get excited about the idea that “nationalism vs globalism” will define the coming century. The “National Question” is certainly what Trump is staking his campaign on. In the aftermath of the EU Referendum, it was especially amusing to see the far Left shriek about the result on the grounds it would endanger the profits of stock jobbers. The mutual dependence of global finance and Cultural Marxism has never been more apparent.

But the conflict goes deeper than simply a dispute over sovereignty. While Brexit was certainly a sign of hope, the overwhelming support by young voters for remaining within the European Union is ominous. As the rapid progression of concepts like gay marriage and transsexuals in the military through the Overton Window has shown, most Millennials are quite comfortable with accepting the given Narrative. If “nationalism” is to triumph, there’s a time limit to recapture the state and the commanding heights of the culture to push new values.

Whether this is the beginning of some new age or the last gasp of the old Western order is wholly dependent on the electoral fate of figures like Donald Trump (who also relies heavily on elderly voters) and Marie Le Pen. If they win, they may set something in motion. If they don’t, things are going to get much worse before they get better.

If there are not victories in the short term, we’re going to see something far more existential and dangerous. Technology and transportation allow the elite to travel from global city to global city, unmooring them from traditional loyalties and reducing any stake they have in their native countries.

We have a ruling class with “no skin in the game” and to them, our entire society is expendable. The gamble most are making is they will remain invulnerable from the chaos of multiculturalism and global economic and technological progress, broadly defined, will continue. And if a self-conscious elite can beat back their own peoples, as Foreign Policy recently argued, they believe they will able to change the demographic situation such that their position will be invulnerable.

But as global society becomes more integrated and complex, it also becomes less stable. And now, the Western core countries are beginning to rot away, subsumed beneath a never ending and heavily subsidized tide of Third World humanity. The German government will spend over $100 billion to support “refugees” over the next five years, most of whom are worthless in terms of their ability to economically contribute. Sweden is already buckling under the weight of what they have admitted. And this is only the beginning of what is coming next, as Western subsidies have ensured an African population boom.

Assuming a nationalist or populist backlash can be beaten down by the System and Muammar Gaddafi’s prophecy of a “black” Europe is realized, what future does the West have, even for the wealthy? The global utilitarianism pursued through open borders is becoming a worldwide scheme of dysgenics, creating a deracinated, mediocre, and helpless human race.

If you were a wealthy South African businessman who didn’t care about his people, the end of apartheid was good for you. No sanctions, more opportunities for trade, and no social penalties. What do you care about the white trash leaving in squatter parks or gross Boers being butchered on their ancestral farmlands in front of their wives and children? You can watch the Springboks from your hotel in London.

But even these options are going to be cut off when bastions like Germany, the United Kingdom, and America itself buckle under the weight of demographic transformation. And can the “elite,” especially Jews, be as confident they will be able to penetrate East Asian markets as they did the West?

The events in Rio are simply a harbinger. A nation like Brazil can’t host something like the Olympics. As the West turns Brazilian (or worse), there will be fewer countries who can.

And as even though the Olympics themselves are just a variation of corporate degeneracy, it means something when a global fête backed by billions of dollars can’t guarantee the basic safety of its athletes, let alone guests. Even when the Soviet Union couldn’t supply supermarkets, it could accomplish great things if it bent every effort. Now, the “country of the future” can’t accomplish one big project.

When White America was about to fly to the moon, a group of blacks showed up in a mule wagon at the launch site, demanding welfare. As the entire world is converted into a giant favela, we’re going to see this on a mass scale. The astonishing advances in technology and health care which appear so close will never be realized. Instead, we’ll use the astonishing resources at our command to subsidize populations who hate us and make our lives worse by their sheer presence.

And as the walls close in, at least some SWPL’s are going to start to get it. Even Boulder, CO suddenly finds itself in the crosshairs for being insufficiently diverse. More broadly, we can only hope some of those who do have the ability to escape this dystopian future realize, some class traitors from the “elite,” realize what is coming is not worth living in and take action to build a different world.

The Alt Right is not just about grand dreams or some glorious destiny for our people. It’s the sole movement that can even consider real solutions to the problems destroying the lives of millions. Every father looking for a safe place to raise his family, every mother who worries about what will happen to her children, and every red-pilled Millennial who is beginning to understand he has no future has to look to us because no other movement offers him anything but annihilation.

We have a system that actively punishes virtue, destroys families, abolishes communities, and imports foreigners precisely because they have nothing to offer except votes for the leftist political party. It’s a conglomeration of monstrous evil. It has to be entirely destroyed not just so we can pursue the highest aspirations of our race but so a decent life is possible for ordinary people.

It’s not just a battle between nationalism and globalism. It’s about what kind of people we want to be. We can carve out a future for ourselves. Or we can acquiesce to being part of a global slum. But if nothing changes, we can see the “country of the future” and what it always will be.

It’s corpses washing up on a polluted beach. It’s hostile mobs using their dependence as a weapon. It’s a cultureless wasteland choking on its own filth. And unlike every other time in history, there will be nowhere to escape

No Comments on The Global Favela

Census of Europeans in Europe

Where Europeans live, European civilization exists.

As part of an ongoing demographic project, I am conducting a census of all human beings of European descent throughout the Earth. I believe this is a topic of supreme importance not only for (neo-)reactionaries and New Right types, but also for all mainstream conservatives and any decent human beings willing to attempt to preserve what is left of Western (European) civilization across the globe. European civilization, which brought the entire world unprecedented advances in government, medicine, science, technology and philosophy, is something worth preserving. But how can we know how to preserve it unless we can locate and quantify it? To identify the areas where it flourishes and the areas where it is eroding? Where Europeans live, European civilization exists. When Europeans disappear, European civilization disappears with them. Anybody remember Rhodesia?

I begin my census with the homeland of the European peoples, Europe itself. It is almost sad that it is necessary to conduct a census of Europeans within their own homelands, but since the onsets of modernity and post-modernity (and the wonders of immigration, alienation and social dysfunction they brought), native European populations have dropped in many countries to points where it is no longer safe to assume native Europeans constitute overwhelming majorities of the population. To prevent any confusion, allow me to define who is a “European” before I continue to the data.

Who is European?

The range of definitions for who is “European” or “white” is very broad. The United States Census Bureau is happy to include North Africans, Middle Easterners and Jews in the “white” category, while a Nordicist may even exclude Irishmen, Greeks, Italians or Slavs. For this reason, I will avoid using the term “white,” and all its connotations, and focus instead on identifying people of European descent. People of European descent are defined as those people whose ancestral homeland is located on the continent of Europe, the jagged edge of the Eurasian landmass bordered by the Ural Mountains in the East, the Atlantic Ocean in the West and the Mediterranean Sea in the South.

Approximate border of Europe in red

Approximate border of Europe in red

Those people whose ancestral homelands are North and West of the red border in the map above I will count as people of European descent i.e. Europeans. This may or may not be coterminous with others’ definitions of “whites” or “Europeans.” To be even abundantly clear, I will include all Latin, Germanic, Slavic, Celtic, Hellenic, Baltic peoples in my definition of European, as well as European linguistic/ethnic minorities such as Hungarians, Finns, Sami, Basque and Albanians. I will not include Jews, whose origin is in Palestine, nor will I include the Romani (Gypsies) who ostensibly came to Europe from the Indian subcontinent. Caucasian peoples such as Georgians, Chechens and Armenians are also excluded, since their homelands are just beyond the European border in West Asia. Non-European minorities such as sub-Saharan Africans, Arabs, Turks and East Asians who emigrated to Europe in the last century or so are obviously excluded.

I will include Muslims of European descent in my definition of “European.” Muslim Bosniaks, Albanians, Kosovars and any other converts will be counted as “European.” Although religiously not European, these peoples are native to Europe in the same way their neighbors are, and they have generally assimilated to wider European civilization and its undulations. Furthermore, seeing as they were once historically non-Muslim peoples, I do not find it extraordinary to believe they could someday once again be non-Muslim and more fully in tune with the rest of European civilization.

My definition of “Europeans” is purely geographical, and although there may be a certain degree of arbitrariness in terms of religion, culture or genetics, I think the geographical definition is the one most consistent with the group of people who create and sustain Western, European societies and civilization — Europeans.

With all that in mind, I present you Mark Yuray’s Census of Europeans in Europe. Data on the official percentage of Europeans in each state was collected, calculated, interpreted and estimated according to various sources (with various dates, mind you) and tabulated by yours truly. The percentages were then multiplied with the 2012 Google population counts for each country to get a ballpark estimate of the actual lump numbers of Europeans living in each country. Data can be accessed in excel format here. A PDF easier on the eyes is here. The important maps are presented below:

Percentage of population of European origin in European states.

Percentage of population of European origin in European states.

Percentage of population of European origin in European states, with size-scaled percentages indicated.

Percentage of population of European origin in European states, with size-scaled percentages indicated.

European states with the top ten most and least proportions of inhabitants of European origin.

European states with the top ten most and least proportions of inhabitants of European origin.

Top Ten Most European States:

  1. Poland
  2. Czech Republic
  3. Lithuania
  4. Albania
  5. Croatia
  6. Estonia
  7. Slovenia
  8. Greece
  9. Iceland
  10. Finland

Top Ten Least European States:

  1. Cyprus
  2. Russia
  3. France
  4. The Netherlands
  5. Bulgaria
  6. United Kingdom
  7. Belgium
  8. Sweden
  9. Austria
  10. Spain

Final note:

Estimated population of Europe and Russia: 780,000,000 (i.e. including some 10 million Turks in East Thrace, all non-Europeans in Russia and the non-Europeans in the small bit of Kazakhstan technically East of the Urals.)

Total native European population of Europe and Russia in 2012 according to data: 675,251,937

Percentage of population of Europe and Russia of European descent: 86.6%

Europe and Russia Eurasian areas historically and currently dominated by Europeans. I include the metric above simply because I think the historical domain of European civilization is the continent of Europe and the areas of Eurasia settled and ruled by Russia. That the domain is still 86.6% European is a good sign for Western civilization.

Eurasian areas historically and currently dominated by Europeans.

Eurasian areas historically and currently dominated by Europeans.

Some commentary:

The range values for proportions of native Europeans in European states varies considerably. The island of Cyprus has a Turkish minority that runs a separate republic on the Northern end of the island, while Iceland and Poland are still >99% European. West European states such as France, the United Kingdom and Belgium have the highest levels of non-European immigration, which is reflected in the larger proportions of non-Europeans in their borders. Sweden is the one Scandinavian state with an abnormally large number of non-Europeans, although it’s not exactly a surprise considering the recent riots that happened in Stockholm. East European states have large numbers of non-Europeans, although these are not new imports but historical non-European minorities such as Jews, Romani, Turks, Tatars, etc. Bulgaria and Russia are most significant in this regard.

The states with the lowest numbers of non-Europeans interestingly seem to run in a line from North to South down the center of Europe, as if they were not Western enough to jump on the immigration bandwagon but not Eastern enough to have left-over non-European minorities.

The Axis of Indigineousness

The Axis of Indigineousness

The greatest demographic threats to Europe still remain the channels of third-world immigration maintained by left-wing politicians and bureaucrats in West European states and the institutions of the European Union. France, a nation that didn’t come into contact with non-Europeans for more than a millenium between the Battle of Tours in 732 and the beginning of colonial immigration after the Second World War, has been reduced to a demographic status similar to Bulgaria, a Southeastern country bordering Turkey that spent half a millenium as a province of the Islamic Ottoman Empire.

Of the two traditional nomadic non-European minorities in Europe, the Jews and the Romani, only the Romani represent a notable demographic threat. Kudos to Steve Sailer, who has pointed out the Romani fertility rate in Hungary in 2003 was 3.0 children per woman compared to the national average of 1.3 children per woman. The Romani are small in population, but are spread throughout Europe and notoriously poor, fecund and criminal. The Jews have never recovered from the Holocaust all the way back in the 1940′s, which saw their European population reduced from some 9.5 million to around 1 million today. Except for the even smaller percentage of Orthodox Jews, Jewish fertility rates are about as low as those of other Europeans.

The great expanse of the Russian East, suffering from low fertility rates (like all of European civilization), is facing a new demographic threat from a rising China, with some 1.5 million Chinese reportedly illegally crossing the Russian border with China in the last few years. I am personally, however, not overly concerned considering the true vastness of Russia, China’s own obsession with population control and falling fertility rates and the staunchly anti-progressive and anti-liberal sentiments that rule Russia from Moscow. Russia will not be starting a government-mandated restructuring of society into a ‘vibrant, multicultural, diverse paradise‘ like Britain anytime soon.

I leave you with that thought, dear readers. Study and share the maps and data above; perhaps you can alert some other Westerners to the slow erosion of their civilization in its own homeland.

This article was originally published at Mark Yuray’s blog, Ara Maxima.

No Comments on Census of Europeans in Europe

Type on the field below and hit Enter/Return to search