On Vetting & Entry into a White Ethnostate

Image result for ethnostate

On Vetting & Entry into a White Ethnostate, Part I

2,203 words

Part 1 of 3

If we can forgive the optimism, I believe it will be useful to develop standardized vetting algorithms which could be employed during the formation of a white ethnostate. As it has become a matter of self-preservation in the face of mass immigration and the ruthless suppression of white racial identity by our globalist elites, the need for white ethnostates will continue to increase as will our need to determine who should be able to live in them and why. Further, this particular discussion will apply mostly to the presumably tumultuous period during which an ethnostate would be formed, and not to any peaceful post-bellum period. The assumption here is that vetting algorithms developed when the future isn’t in doubt will differ greatly from those in use when the future is. Desperate times do require desperate measures, and the following will be a discussion of what to do in desperate times.

The paradox when forming an ethnostate within a hostile environment can be summed up thusly: With greater racial homogeneity, comes greater promise of a successful ethnostate in the long term but reduced promise of actually achieving that ethnostate in the short term. As with any revolution, the group seeking change needs enough people on its side to effect that change. If the leaders of the revolution are too picky about who can join, then they might not have the numbers to be successful. On the other hand, if they are not picky enough, they will defeat the purpose of the revolution to begin with.

In essence, white nationalists will need to find a compromise between competing goals before entering through the gates of their fabled white ethnostate. This Ethnostate Paradox can be summed up visually in the graph below.

We must mention several things about this graph before continuing:

  1. It is not based on any data or research, nor is it drawn to any scale. It is simply a projection of the two competing ideas mentioned above:
    1. Racially homogenous nation states will function better over the long run than racially heterogeneous ones.
    2. Revolutions with more supporters will fare better than revolutions with fewer supporters.
  2. It pertains mostly to the United States but could be adapted for other countries.
  3. This graph does not have anything to say about specific subgroups of white people. Since this graph pertains to the United States, which was, for the most part, founded and populated by people of northern European stock, the epitome of a white ethnostate in this case only consists exclusively of people descended from the Anglo Saxon, Germanic, Celtic, or Nordic peoples. Had Italians and Frenchmen founded the United States and comprised the nation’s ethnic majority for two centuries, then ‘Southern and Western Europeans’ would appear on the far right of the X axis. In either event, no value judgment is placed on how well a certain group of whites can contribute to the success of a white ethnostate.
  4. Y axis on the left hand side may as well represent the overall genetic similarities between the groups of people clustered along the X axis, with high values signifying more similarity and low values signifying less similarity.
  5. The angles of both lines are drawn according to my intuition and have no objective validity. The Y axes can cover much distance between zero to one hundred or not. The point is to visualize a peculiar paradox not to achieve any mathematical certainty.

Judging from this graph, where the two lines meet may be a good compromise point between homogeneity and expediency. I call this the ‘Compromise Cross.’ By limiting the definition of ‘white people’ to people descended mostly from indigenous European Caucasians (including Hungarians, Finns, Estonians, and others not on the branches of the Indo-European language tree), whites will benefit from a reasonable amount of genetic similarity and reasonable chances for success.

Consider, however, the million or so Armenians and other Central Asian whites currently living in the United States. These people are technically Caucasian, if only in a more formal or geographical sense of the word. Many are also Christian and share with Europeans a mutual enemy in Islam. Such people could potentially be great allies. However, if the Compromise Cross in the above graph is adhered to, then these people and all their fighting-age young men will be excluded from the ethnostate. Presumably, this would impair the chances of the ethnostate from being formed to begin with. On the other hand, if these people are included, would their genetic, cultural, and linguistic differences with European Caucasians cause strife in white ethnostate once it is formed? These are things the leaders of any white nationalist movement must consider before determining who can join their exclusive club and who can’t.

A lot of this will depend on how desperate the whites are during the formation of a white ethnostate. If things are looking really grim, then the revolution’s leaders will have no choice but to cast a wider net, like so:

Before deciding to declare independence, white nationalist leaders should determine where on the Ethnostate Paradox Graph the dotted line falls. Anyone seeking entry on the left side of the Compromise Cross will have to endure far more vetting than someone coming from the right side of it.

Next to consider are people who are only partially white. What to do about them? Having been part of a multi-racial, miscegenetic America for many years, the reality that any white nationalist movement must face is a large number of people who either get ‘red-pilled’ after marriage and children or who are the products of such unions. There are also many ‘allies of color’ who are perfectly race-realist and sympathetic to white nationalism but are understandably concerned about their place in a white ethnostate should one ever come to pass. A white nationalist movement should have a standardized vetting algorithm in place to deal with such people before announcing its intentions to the world. It should also factor in the kind of non-white an individual partially is. Should someone who is half-white and half-Korean be considered the same way as someone who is three-quarters-white and one-quarter black?

Another thing to consider is how far back in time are we willing to go to determine a person’s race. Great examples would be the canonical Russian writer Alexander Pushkin who had an African great-grandparent. Another would the classical music composer and waltz king Johann Strauss, Jr. whose music has become symbolic of late-nineteenth century Vienna. One of his great-grandparents was a Jew. Would these historical figures be considered white?

I would say yes – even if they weren’t famous. I think it would be downright embarrassing—not to mention self-defeating—if any white nationalist organization were to look past a person’s grandparents for any reason whatsoever. Furthermore, who knows for sure who has what in their ancestral timeline? Do we really want to open that can of cemetery worms?

I addressed this very point recently in article entitled “How to Talk to Conservatives (And Why We Must)”, in which I introduced the “One-Half Not-Black” rule. This stipulates that a person will be considered white if they have at least one parent who is fully white and no parent who is fully black. Hence our interests in grandparents and only grandparents.

Another wrinkle in the vast white culture quilt we wish to knit comes in the form of spouses. What to do with non-white spouses of whites who have children with them? Do any of us have the heart to break apart families? What if one or both spouses agree to fight or donate money or expertise for the cause? When the time comes, are we going to be in a position to say no? My hunch tells me that as long as such a non-white spouse is not fully black, doesn’t mind having very few political rights, and passes all other kinds of vetting (e.g., criminal, ideological, etc.) then perhaps accepting such a person should be considered.

Then there is the daunting task of maintaining a white majority. If the white majority remains below a certain percentage (ninety, let’s say) should a white ethnostate accept fewer non-white applicants than if that majority is over, say, ninety-five percent? During peace time, I would say yes. During war, however, when things can get quite desperate, I wouldn’t be so certain either way.

There is also the temptation to simply say, “No non-whites, no exceptions.” But how practical is this? For one, as I have stated before, the more people whites reject during their time of need, the greater the odds of failure of achieving an ethnostate to begin with. Second, most civilized countries have ethnic minorities, including white ones. Do we want to invite reciprocation by deporting all non-whites in such an absolutist manner? Third, having a small proportion of law-abiding, financially independent, and politically unambitious people of a different race living within your borders won’t necessarily pose a threat to a nation’s health or social cohesion. Minorities which are more inclined towards crime, poverty, public welfare, or conquest (as blacks, Hispanics, and Muslim Middle Easterners tend to be) are an entirely different matter, of course.

There is another thing to consider. White people, especially those from Northern Europe, for whatever reasons, tend to produce the best statesmen and the least corrupt governments in the world. Whites also have produced and still produce the greatest thinkers on politics and statecraft. Whether this distinction goes back into ancient times, I don’t know for sure (my impression from Victor David Hanson’s Carnage and Culture and my studies of Ancient Greek philosophy is that it dose), but for the last couple hundred years at least, there is no doubt in my mind that nations run by whites are the most politically free and stable when compared to all the other nations in the world. Of course, there were exceptions such as the Soviet Union. Not all white nations fit the bill. On the other hand, most of the nations that do are white.

Don’t just take my word for it. According to Transparency.org, as of 2016, nine of the world’s top ten least corrupt governments were run largely by whites. And seventeen of the top twenty. Domination like that is never an accident. When Sub-Saharan blacks make up nearly ninety-eight percent of the fastest sprinters in the world or when East Asian students comprise nearly all of the top medalists in international mathematics competitions or when forty-three out of the top fifty limbo dancers are pigmies, we have to assume there is something about these people that causes them to excel in these fields, something genetic, which goes beyond mere luck and hard work. So, perhaps there is something about a significant subset of white people which makes them better able to wield power responsibly and not give in to corruption.

If this is the case, then as soon as any white ethnostate establishes itself, many non-whites in the vicinity will be petitioning to enter—because they know they will be better treated among whites than among their own kind or among other non-whites. I honestly believe that a white ethnostate could put the Confederate stars and bars on its flag, twist them into the shape of a swastika, and next to it write “FÜCK YOÜ!” in big heavy metal script, and that still wouldn’t deter much of the non-white horde.

As a result, when whites realize they can get the pick of the non-white litter on very advantageous terms and keep their ninety-plus percent majority, the temptation will be too great to resist. We can theorize all we want today about the benefits of racial homogeneity as we sit tapping away at our keyboards. And that’s great. But when real-world leaders fight real-world wars and receive real-world help from real world people to achieve real-world victories, I’m pretty sure they won’t be asking us for our opinions. They won’t be handing out too many brown paper bags either.

As a result, it might be a good idea to develop algorithms for vetting a small number of non-whites, even if they are not spouses of whites with children.

Final thought: I understand that summarily dropping human beings in racial bucket categories like this may appear cold-blooded. But this is the most humane way to extricate whites from the multi-racial mess we are currently in. Had the American elites in the 1960s not betrayed their own race by allowing non-white immigration in the first place, we would have kept our ninety percent white majority and subsequently no need for white nationalism.

Before we move on to part two, in which I will introduce and discuss my attempt at this vetting algorithm, I suggest everyone re-read Greg Johnson’s excellent essay on this topic called “The Slow Cleanse.” In it, he outlines a realistic and mostly peaceful transition from what we have in America today to a legitimate white ethnostate. Although, I envision a more violent and chaotic transition, many of the ideas in “The Slow Cleanse” I used as guiding lights for my vetting algorithm.

Hopefully, it will engender more conversation about a white ethnostate, and in more concrete terms.

Stay tuned.

 

On Vetting & Entry into a White Ethnostate, Part II

4,453 words

Part 1 of 3. For Part 1 of this series, click here.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was the American Founding Fathers’ first attempt at establishing a legal path towards citizenship for non-citizens. It stated that immigration to the United States, fledgling nation that it was, should be limited to “whites of good character.” Here is the breakdown according to Infogalactic:

In order to address one’s good character, the law required two years of residence in the United States and one year in the state of residence, prior to applying for citizenship. When those requirements were met, an immigrant could file a Petition for Naturalization with “any common law court of record” having jurisdiction over his residence. Once convinced of the applicant’s good moral character, the court would administer an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution of the United States. The clerk of the court was to make a record of these proceedings, and “thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States.”

For those who wish to prove that the Founding Fathers had intended the United States be a white ethnostate, an outreach of, at the very least, the burgeoning Anglo-Saxon world, they need look no further than this Act.

So, in establishing a vetting algorithm to help forge a new white ethnostate from the wreckage of the present one, it makes sense to start here: with good character. Does a person petitioning a white ethnostate for entry as a free man or woman have good character?

Author’s Note: Before we continue, please click below for an image of an incipient version of this algorithm in flowchart form.

The algorithm is fairly involved and needs to be viewed independently as a scrollable and zoomable document to be fully understood. Every effort was made to render the flowchart as neat and as visually appealing as possible. In general, the logic flows left-to-right, with two sets of terminal nodes for ethnostate applicants. The green ones on the right side of the flowchart indicate the possible destinations for people accepted into a white ethnostate, and the orange ones at the bottom indicate the possible destinations for those who are not.

The decision steps are shaped like diamonds and ask a single question to which the answer can either be a yes or a no. This is Boolean logic and the point behind the classic ‘if…then’ structure used in computer programming. A green arrow exiting a selection node indicates a yes, and a red arrow a no. The rectangular processing steps, in blue, refer to action which is beyond the scope of this flowchart. One of these, labeled ‘Racial Vetting,’ will be the topic of part three of this series.

Please note that this is one man’s studious take on an extremely thorny and bedeviling issue. Some decisions will be controversial, and some not. There may be trivial inclusions or consequential omissions. In any event, this is only the beginning, not the end. Only after much deliberation and debate can we derive a proper and comprehensive vetting algorithm from initial and solitary efforts like the one I present here.

So, Good Character. I would say there are three prongs of this question. One points to behavior, one to patriotism, and the other to ideology. The flowchart assesses good character at point C4.

Behavioral Character

To assess behavioral character, common sense should hold sway. Do you have a criminal record? Have you ever served time in prison? Have you ever been associated with known criminals? Are you a deadbeat dad? Do you have more than two illegitimate children? Have you ever worked as a pimp or a prostitute? Are you addicted to hard drugs or alcohol?

Answering yes to questions such as these shouldn’t necessarily disqualify someone right away, but should serve as a red flag for greater scrutiny from authorities. Good behavioral character should refer more to the absence of overtly bad character traits rather than presence of even minor good ones. As long as one is a good bet not to disrupt society after entry, then their behavioral character can be considered ‘good.’ For example, a white ethnostate shouldn’t declare someone of bad character simply because they are lazy or selfish or flunked high school or have been divorced six times. Likewise, suffering from medical or non-violent psychological issues such as anorexia or obesity or cerebral palsy or depression should have no bearing on the determination of one’s character.

Sexual orientation should come up, but in a relatively tolerant manner. Like anyone else, if a gay person can demonstrate a history of responsible living, then he should receive no black mark. On the other hand, someone who’s into bestiality, orgies, transgenderism, or shoots porn for a living definitely should. This, of course, applies to straights as well as gays and everyone in between.

We should also note that while homosexuality per se should not bar one from the ethnostate, the Vetting Algorithm does not recognize homosexual marriages or unions; only heterosexual ones. As we all know, a white ethnostate must do everything it can to encourage whites to have children through heterosexual marriages. Whites currently suffer from a reproduction gap with non-whites and can ill afford much leniency towards a smarter-than-average subset of its population that typically is not inclined to reproduce.

Patriotic Character

Concerns about race patriotism will cut to the quick for most non-whites. Of all the steps whites need to take to form a state of their own, this might be the most unfair. But if whites can’t harden their hearts over this, then they have no business belonging to an ethnostate to begin with, let alone forming one.

Essentially, if you are a quarter white or less and you’ve been in the United State less than a certain amount of time (twenty years, let’s say) and you are not married to a white, then most likely you’re out. And so are your children.

I know this will be a heartbreak for many. But it must be done—and sooner rather than later—in order to ensure a livable future for white people in the West.

This will entail shutting doors on many perfectly good people. But any white ethnostate in today’s climate must place race patriotism on an equal plane with racial homogeneity. What evidence do we have that non-whites would be at all loyal to whites? The Democratic Party is slowly becoming the anti-white party, and it’s rife with non-whites. Jews and blacks especially have shown great hostility towards white people. Jews make up 2.1 percent of the US population and only 0.3 percent of its military. The US military is currently only 3.7 percent Asian, while Asians make up at least 5.6 percent of the population. These numbers are too anemic to inspire any faith that people of other races would fight to the death to protect the racial interests of white people.

Ideological Character

As for ideology, questions should include the following. Are you or have you ever been a Muslim? Have you ever been part of or given aid to a radical left-wing, terrorist, anarchist, Jihadist, reconquistist, non-white nationalist, or anti-white organization? Have you ever taken part in a violent counter-protest against the Right in any of its forms? A yes to these or similar questions should bring about instant disqualification unless a person can prove they’ve reformed, but that should be made to be an extremely uphill battle. With such people, we should always err on the side of caution, even if that means losing potential allies.

Perhaps the most important question of all: have you ever expressed public solidarity to any racial group aside from whites? Being a member of or donor to groups such as CAIR, the NAACP, the SPLC, BLM, and La Raza would certainly qualify. So would hopping a flight to Tel Aviv for a religious pilgrimage or a stint in the IDF. So would serious worship in any religion that never was central to the character and people of Europe, such as Christianity or a variety of pagan religions. This would mean those who practice Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and many other religions will be labeled of ‘bad character’ and will most likely not be allowed into a white ethnostate.

It needs to be said, however, that honorable service in the US military or various forms of pro-white, anti-Left, or anti-Islam activism could be a sign of good character and counterbalance evidence of bad character.

As for regular, non-radicalized folk, simply voting Democrat throughout one’s life does not count as bad ideological character. On the other hand—and this is where things get a little dicey—what about professional Democrats? Wonks, lobbyists, activists, politicians, and the like. What about people who’ve worked in a meaningful way for left-wing media outlets such as CNN or NPR or the Washington Post? What about people who’ve contributed to Planned Parenthood or other left-wing entities? What about film producers or actors who’ve donated generously to Democrats and their causes? What about celebrities who constantly run their mouths on social media about how much they hate Republicans? What about high profile scholars who dedicate their lives to undermining the Right?

This is a thin, dangerous line. Coming down too hard would alienate half our base. Coming down not hard enough would be like inviting foxes into the hen house. The best solution, I think, is to declare all professional liberals as having bad character, but allowing reasonable odds for partial redemption later if any of these people are white and truly did fall through the cracks.

OK so you have good character, what then?

This is where we consider grandparents through direct interviews, legal documentation, and, if possible, genetic testing. The first hurdles should be whether one has three fully-white grandparents (point D4) and no black grandparents (E4), which, I would say, is the minimum requirement for being considered ‘white.’ The next should be whether one does not have a black spouse (also point E4). If the answer is yes to these questions, then the person can gain Full Citizenship with little difficulty.

(We will discuss the differences between Full, Partial, and Minimal Citizenship later in this article.)

Those who fail the three-white-grandparent hurdle go to point D5 where they must field the following question: Do you have one fully-white parent and no more than one black grandparent? Answering yes will guarantee either Partial or Minimal Citizenship, but an important distinction should not be overlooked. Having two white grandparents is not enough. Suppose a person has a mother who is half white and half Japanese, and a father who is half white and half Mexican? At this point, such a person is more mulatto than anything else. Most likely, they will have had little intimate contact with full-blooded whites growing up and will resist identifying as white, even when the chips are down. Therefore, they should be looked upon with great skepticism upon seeking entry into a white ethnostate.

A person with one white parent and one or fewer black grandparents must then declare whether they are a spouse with children to a white person (point E5). If the answer is yes, they gain Partial Citizenship. If not, they have a choice. They can volunteer for a stint in the military or similar service (E6) in order to earn Partial Citizenship, or they can abstain and obtain Minimal Citizenship (F7).

Next, what about people who are either half-white and half black, a quarter white, or not white at all? At D6 we ask if they have a white spouse with children and one or fewer black grandparents? If so, they can attain Minimal Citizenship. If not, we then ask if they are native-born Americans and over a certain age (C6). My algorithm pegs that age at sixty, but that can change. And what if they are elderly but not native-born (B6), like the retired Indian or East Asian parents brought over by their overachieving children who get jobs in the American tech industry? Can they stay? Perhaps if they are quite a bit older than sixty if only to discourage opportunistic exploitation of a white ethnostate’s presumably generous geriatric care.

The idea here is that no white ethnostate should be in the business of forcefully relocating senior citizens if they can help it. Such behavior is not only inhumane but makes for bad optics. Further, and this is not stated explicitly in the flowchart, if a person who makes it to point C6 is married to someone over seventy and is themselves over, say, fifty, then they should gain Minimal Citizenship as well. Much of this, I would guess, would have to be determined on an ad hoc basis, but with the understanding that breaking up marriages and families should not ever be done lightly. Of course, authorities in a white ethnostate should do all that it can to encourage the children of such non-white marriages to emigrate, but that is another matter. Greg Johnson provides a good account of this in his article “The Slow Cleanse.”

The final result of the good character logic tree takes us to point B5, the process of Racial Vetting. This occurs with individuals who have good character but fail all of the above tests, that is, any non-white, quarter-white, or half-white-half-black person under a certain age who is either unmarried or married to a non-white. If they harbor any hopes of Minimal Citizenship they must pass through the crucible of Racial Vetting. The details of this difficult process will be discussed in part three of this series.

And if you have bad character…?

First, we must tease out the ideological bad character. At point C3 we ask if a person possesses an ideology that is inimical to a white ethnostate. If so, they’re out and can never live in white ethnostate unless it’s behind bars. If not, they move to the next step. Paradoxically, someone who once murdered his girlfriend in a drunken range will move on to this next step, whereas an Antifa member who is guilty of nothing more than obnoxious, anti-white tweets will not.

Next, at point C4 the algorithm asks if a person has three fully-white grandparents. If so, they can move on. If not, they’re out. The point here is that it wouldn’t be right for a white ethnostate to foist its criminals and lowlifes onto the world if it can help it. An unavoidable downside to living in a white ethnostate is, of course, dealing with bad whites. This is the reality for any nation. So for the whites who make it this far, authorities should ask if they are currently incarcerated for a crime (F3). If so, they should remain incarcerated (F2). If not, they should undergo what I call ‘Criminal and Psychological Vetting’ at point G3.

Criminal and Psychological Vetting

This is beyond my field of expertise, so I will refrain to go into detail. Suffice to say, individuals will be checked out by police and, if possible, psychologists to determine if they can live peacefully among the general population. If so, they can attain Partial Citizenship at point F5. If not, then it’s a roll of the dice. Authorities should not be in the habit of incarcerating people without due process. However, during the chaos of revolution they may have no choice. If such a person is deemed likely to cause serious problems during such a stressful time (G6), they should probably be interned in some minimal security institution, at least until the future of the ethnostate grows more secure. For lower risk individuals, Minimal Citizenship might be appropriate.

The Four Kinds of Rejection

The final extension of our logic converges at the bottom left-hand side of the flowchart. This includes three and only three kinds of people: those who fail Racial Vetting, those who adhere to an inimical ideology, or those with at least two non-white grandparents who exhibit bad behavioral character.

The first destination, point A1, is meant for those with one or more American Indian grandparents. This would be a reservation similar if not the same as the ones we have now. There is no reason why the indigenous Americans cannot have their semi-autonomous regions within a white ethnostate if such a thing can be afforded.

The second destination, B1, is for those native-born people with one or more black grandparents. This would be repatriation, that is, awarding a black ethnostate somewhere in North America to the descendants of African slaves. Since these people were brought here largely against their will, it seems only fitting to allowing them to dictate their own destinies in their own sovereign state. Again, this should be accomplished only if the white ethnostate in question has the resources. Delivering American Indians to reservations or repatriated blacks to their new homelands takes a low priority compared to doing what needs to be done to form the ethnostate to begin with. Also, choice can also play a role here. If someone is part-American Indian and part-black, then they can choose the option that is best for them.

The rest is simple. Foreign nationals applying for entry get rejected (C1). Security risks get incarcerated (F2). And current residents get deported (D1), even if there is no place to which to deport them. The assumption here is that a white ethnostate will not occupy all of the continental United States when formed. Thus, such people can quite literally be dropped off anywhere if no other country cares to take them. If such people had the wherewithal to come here, then they have the wherewithal to leave. A cruel solution, yes. But less cruel than allowing whites to become oppressed and despised minorities in their own homelands. This distinction bears repeating always.

Another thing to remember: such drastic actions would only be called for during warfare when a white ethnostate is being formed in a state of urgency. If we are so lucky to achieve one during peacetime, then the processes of repatriation and deportation can happen more gradually and humanely with people being given more time to move out on their own if called to do so.

The Question of Children

The Vetting Algorithm is not appropriate for children. Therefore, separate rules should be followed for them. For example:

  1. Someone is considered a child if they are under the age of sixteen.
  2. The Vetting Algorithm does not directly apply to children in the care of either or both parents or a guardian.
  3. An adult sibling can act as a guardian.
  4. Where the parents go, the children must follow.
  5. If one parent is accepted into a white ethnostate, and the other not, then the children must accompany the exiting parent unless they are white.
  6. Children without any parent or guardian shall bypass the Vetting Algorithm entirely. Only if they are considered white, will they be accepted.
  7. Adopted children do not count at points E5 and D6.
  8. In the case of non-whites with adopted white children, white ethnostate leaders have the option to keep the children if the non-white parent or parents are rejected or required to leave.

It’s cruel, certainly, but non-white children simply cannot stay in a white ethnostate. It would better for all involved if such children grew up among their own kind and establish the identity and status that best suits them among their own people. A black or Asian child in a white world would be as unhappy and confused as a white child in a non-white one. This is perfectly natural, and will hopefully inhibit white parents who’ve adopted non-white children from seeking entrance in the first place. As for orphaned non-white or half-white children, one can only hope that something reasonable could be worked out for them outside the borders of a white ethnostate.

Minimal, Partial, and Full Citizenship

Next, I will offer a tabular breakdown of the different kinds of citizenship: Minimal, Partial, and Full. This is meant more to present the general idea of tiered citizenship rather than all the details. What I am offering is far from comprehensive, and I am quite sure a legal scholar could improve upon it significantly. Nevertheless, here it is…a start, at the very least:

Once in a tier, a citizen cannot rise to a higher one. However, as a result of criminal or subversive activity, sinking to a lower tier (or deportation, in the case of minimal citizens) should always be in the cards to encourage good behavior. Aspects of the Vetting Algorithm, however, could be adapted to determine how children of people with minimal or Partial Citizenship could rise to a higher tier by adulthood. This could be the subject of a later essay.

Six Case Studies

Finally, I will offer a number of hypothetical case studies to provide a more concrete understanding of the Vetting Algorithm. Each of these case studies will be iffy in one way or another, without obvious resolutions. I will plot each case study’s progress from the start node (B4) to one of the eight possible destinations.

Case Study 1: Anti-Islam activist and author Ayaa Hirsi Ali. Despite being black and a former Muslim, I believe Ali has what it takes to establish good character at point C4. Her harrowing story as an abused girl in a Muslim nation and the admirable steps she has taken to combat the West’s oldest enemy in Islam should be enough. However, she would fail at D4, D5, D6, C6, and B6 and head straight for Racial Vetting which makes it extremely difficult for non-whites to gain acceptance into a white ethnostate, especially blacks.

Once there, however, she might find her way to Minimal Citizenship via what I would call ‘the Huggy Bear Clause,’ that is, special exceptions for truly exceptional ‘allies of color’ who have served the cause in one way or another. The fact that she is married to a white man, conservative-leaning historian Niall Ferguson (who would presumably also want entry into a white ethnostate) would only help matters for her.

Case Study 2: Alt lite celebrity, journalist, and author Milo Yiannopoulos. As much as I like Milo and appreciate his tireless fight against the Left, I simply cannot see his getting past C4 during a time of war. Sure, he’s intelligent and hyper-articulate, even righteous. But what use would a white ethnostate have of him? Even if ethnostate authorities were to deem his flamboyant gay man schtick as “good character” (long odds at that), Milo has spoken out too often against the Alt Right and white nationalism to be trusted to keep his mouth shut when it matters most. That and the fact that he is ummarried and only half white would probably shut the door for him.

Case Study 3: Hollywood actor Charlie Sheen If he were a closet conservative (which may or may not be true, I have no idea). As an unmarried, white fifty-year-old known for a partying lifestyle, erratic behavior, and substance abuse problems, he would likely fail at C4, the taint of Hollywood being too much for anyone in that industry who isn’t at the very least an outspoken conservative. He would then pass at C3, D3, and F3, and head straight to Criminal and Psychological Vetting. There, he can presumably reveal the truth of his conservative leanings and peaceful intentions and make his way to Partial Citizenship. I’m sure his fortune would help grease the wheels of this process as well.

Case Study 4: American chess champion and world top-ten player Hikaru Nakamura. Despite looking Japanese and having a Japanese father, Nakamura has a white mother. He is also, at present, unmarried. If he could get past C4, he’d fail at D4, pass at D5, fail at E5, and then have to choose at E6 whether he wants to serve in the military. Either way, he stays if he wants to, and it’s up to him to determine what he gets out of living in a white ethnostate.

Case Study 5: Rosie Derbyshire, Chinese wife of dissident-right author and columnist John Derbyshire. Given the fact that she has been in America longer than the requisite twenty years, Mrs. Derbyshire would certainly pass at C4, but she would fail at D4 and D5 and then pass at D6, since she has two boys with Mr. Derbyshire. This would take her straight to Minimal Citizenship. If this seems too easy, we should probably refresh ourselves on how difficult it will be for many non-whites to get past the ‘good character’ hurdle at C4. Regardless of what happens, I would hope that ethnostate leaders would look favorably on her, given her husband’s accomplishments and her own good character.

It goes almost without saying that John Derbyshire could earn Full Citizenship if he wanted it.

Case Study 6: Conservative blogger, pundit, and author Michelle Malkin. Despite being a somewhat cucky mainstream conservative, I’m sure many racially conscious whites would grudgingly grant the lady respect for her staunch anti-immigration and anti-leftist positions. In Defense of Internment is a good book which needed to be written, and her articles turn up from time to time on VDARE. But she is a full-blooded Filipino who is married to a full-blooded Jew. There is no way someone like that can ever enter a white ethnostate without first undergoing Racial Vetting. This would still be the case even if her husband were half Jewish and half white. Being a spouse only counts if your better half is white. As much as I and surely many others on the Right like her, to make an exception for Malkin would simply undermine the entire vetting process and the very point of an ethnostate.

Whether she would pass Racial Vetting on the other hand is another matter, and will be explored in the next installment of this series.

Final Note

Like any algorithm, I’m sure this one has bugs in it. I’m sure there are loopholes which could produce unintended consequences. I’m sure many will accuse me of being too lenient here or too strict there or of cucking in one way or another. But my goal was to thread a maddeningly difficult needle: to standardize a reasonable and consistent method by which to treat people as fairly as possible during a time when absolute fairness is impossible. During the formation of a white ethnostate, even under the best of circumstances, many innocents will suffer. The Vetting Algorithm attempts to minimize this while still allowing whites to do what they need to do.

So, by all means, expose its flaws. Break it, please. This is the only way it is going to improve and ultimately take us back the frame of mind white people had in 1790, when the Founding Fathers got it right the first time.