Normie-friendly ideas for achieving an ethno-state

Let’s do something constructive for once. This thread is for collecting ideas to get rid of undesirables (especially those with citizenship) in the western world that would be possible to implement in the near future. Most people are still living fairly good and comfortable lives, they won’t support a race war or anything that would disrupt the current system too much. Therefore right now we need policies that don’t violate current human rights laws and wouldn’t get stopped by our constitutional courts. Examples:

Close borders, no immigration: This should be common sense and is already fairly popular in many western countries.

Deport illegal immigrants, especially criminals: Same as above.

Reduce social benefits for children: This will disincentivize poor people to have many children. Since foreigners are mostly part of the lower classes this will help reduce their massive birth rates.

Pay foreigners who are citizens to leave: Calculate the average cost of a foreigner during their lifetime and offer them a portion of that amount if they renounce their citizenship and leave the country forever.

Criminal foreigners with citizenship: Offer them a lower sentence for renouncing their citizenship and leaving. For example if an Afghani with Austrian citizenship commits a robbery and gets a sentence of 5 years we could offer him to go back to Afghanistan after 2,5 years. Since they lack the ability to think about the future many of them would take the offer.

Policies against Islam: Ban burqas in public (already happened in Austria), ban the Islamic headscarf in schools and government jobs, don’t allow any new mosques to be built, criminalize the halal method of animal slaughter, pic related etc. These policies would incentivize many muslims to leave western countries.

Other urls found in this thread:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2837493/
whitakeronline.org/blog/topic/mini-mantras-pro/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>Close borders
It's difficult to close a border when said border has hundreds of kilometers of coastline.

It is possible to close the mediterranean route. Ban NGOs from sending their ships there and send all arrivals back to Africa.

ok

Paying them will probably work very well. Offer them something like 5000-10.000 € and all the retarded ones will jump on it

>Reduce social benefits for children
My impression is that the middle class responds more to financial cues. Poor people and immigrants just have kids without thinking.

Reducing social spending will also have the effect of lowering taxes for the middle class which might help increase their birth rates.

I agree that many immigrants will continue having children, but we won't pay for them anymore. Because of that they will become very poor. That's when we offer them money in exchange for leaving the country.

But you need to keep social benefits for children for the natives of the country, otherwise their birth rate will plummet even more.

Yeah you could pay the typical migrant family with 10 kids 100k to leave. There is no way the father will not take that offer. Hell, we could even offer him a million and it would probably still be worth it within a few years.

Obviously there would have to be a cut-off date so that this policy doesnt create an incentive to have more kids.

The Right wing needs to shed some policies. The Religious Right.

Namely Abortion, Contraceptives and LGBT.

Firstly. White people are generally of higher economic status and thus can afford to travel to have abortions inter state or across the border. The Minorities that Sup Forums hates are normally worse off, and more controlled. So Abortions being curtailed, doesn't impact white birth rates that much, BUT does minority birth rates. And if Abortion becomes a universal in the developed world, it will spread to the non developed world as a mark of prosperity.

Secondly, the West uses Contraceptives and other methods of lowering birth rates like family planning. The Third world doesn't fully. This is largely because of the First World Religious Right. They went to Africa and campaigning against contraceptives and for abstinence. Which doesn't work. Seriously.

Finally LGBT. Firstly it is a wedge issue that the LGBT community does care about, but most people just don't anymore. So it wastes votes. Secondly if it becomes universal in the first world, and no longer have preachers from the US stirring up the third worlders against it, it would spread to there as well. Finally look at these stats.

Sure and our boarders must be close as fuck, or they will try it again and again

No because once we reduce social spending taxes will be lowered. This will lead to more jobs and higher earnings for everyone who works. The natives will profit from this way more than cutting social spending will cost them. This has the added benefit of curing some of our other social problems like the rise of single mothers.

We could provide some additional tax benefits for parents which will also only benefit those who work (natives).

Yeah paying citiziens to leave obviously only works if no foreigners get citizenships anymore

Spreading degeneracy to the third world would have 2 effects:
1. being degenerate would be connected with poverty so people would turn away from it
2. we could the poverty in these countries on their degeneracy

Paying them to leave is probably not a good idea. They'll come back with up to 20 different identities and it's an incentive for people to migrate in general just to get the money and leave again.

Before this policy is implemented the borders have to be closed.
Only poeple who are in the country when this policy gets implemented will get paid.
To prevent any kind of fraud have them give finger prints or get their dna or anything like that.

>Namely Abortion, Contraceptives and LGBT.
Abortion is the deliberate taking of a life, it should not be available for White women unless due to rape or disease.

Kind of with you on contraceptives, definitely LGBT can gtfo

You seem to be stuck in some universalist mindset where it's not ok to apply double standards to our group and out groups. do you think that?

Saying there is one rule for you, and one for me publicly will lead to people ignoring your points. Especially if done in racial terms, which will instantly trigger stiff opposition.

perhaps

>Saying there is one rule for you, and one for me publicly will lead to people ignoring your points. Especially if done in racial terms, which will instantly trigger stiff opposition.
do you think it's ok to have double standards, or are you a universalist in that sense?

I'm not convinced that democracy will crate change, since all sides are jew funded, and beholden

I'm not a universalist. But this thread is about marketing the idea. Double Standards are unpopular fairly widely, especially on a hot button issue like race.

fair enough, but we have to have a double standard in order to put ourselves first

how do you get round that? what's wrong with saying "we're going to put YOU first"?

We could sterilize them if they commit crime, are dumb or depend on welfare

We are not putting us first. We have a right to our country and they have a right to their country.

>"we're going to put YOU first"?
well, US

we HAVE to put US first, over them, this is the most important thing to do, if not how can we morally suggest THEY have to leave? if WE are not more important?

The crux of my argument is that It would affect them far more, and that we can't realistically roll it back in the first world. So the rational strategy would be to finish rolling it out on the third world. Who will be impacted in birth rates more harshly.

>You
>We
>Us
Do you realise whit what kind of population you have to deal. Those above all sound like having to take responsibility and adapting to others, not the best way to sway an Uber individualist population. You need to stress the "I" in we/us

>we can't realistically roll it back in the first world
chekkked, why not?

>. So the rational strategy would be to finish rolling it out on the third world. Who will be impacted in birth rates more harshly
the solution to fixing White genocide is to create a worse situation in non-White countries, then they will not want to come to our country?

It's in the interest of all to segregate. No one benefits from multiculturalism, it destroys everything for everyone. This is a "universalist" argument rooted in demonstrable facts.

that's kind of a goodpoint, but if you listen to blacks like sotomayer, and his guests, they acknowledge that blacks need to live around Whites, and I think this is probably true, that blacks like getting gibs from Whites

so what I mean, is that you are wrong in this belief, but it might be a good idea to pretend you are right. making me think now

>not the best way to sway an Uber individualist population
we don't have to sway everyone

That's what is great about movies like black panther. It makes blacks believe that they could create their own Wakanda if whitey wasn't holding them down.

chekkked, that's a good point

LGBT rights grow more popular year by year and is normalized. Abortion is less steady, but is still trending upwards. I really don't see how it is going to change. Every argument has been thrown in, and has failed.

Just saying, focusing on Us/We/You is ineffective. My/I are better to mobilize and suggest receivers that it is about them personally. The trick is to implement it into a trendy we/us phrase with the focus on the individual reading it. Make America Great Again is the best example from the resent present.

Pro-life is white genocide. You're literally destroying a people because you are incapable of seeing the bigger picture. Sad!

>I really don't see how it is going to change. Every argument has been thrown in, and has failed.
we should stop trying then? just give up?

then we disagree, I still think people are tribal, but perhaps I'm missing your point

how about pro-White-life?

I think collectivism is going to make a comeback. People are seeing that extreme individualism leads to a country without any order or direction.

I suppose my main idea would be that things are getting increasingly more polarized, and we should take advantage of this, but also try and bring some moderates and leftists with us somehow

>tribalism/collectivism
Yes in the cases of a population that has already done the step into thinking about the relation between I and we, the we message is better to give them a directed positive feedback, like great for internal propaganda. When it comes to external propaganda, to get individuals to think about the I - We relation and the positive effects of the we for them personally, baiting them with a state of mind they are more familiar with is imo more effective than going on them with the sledgehammer of collectivism after decades of individualist brainwashing. Unless of course if the goal is to work with fear, but that must be realistic treats like in "I may die if I don't comply" situations

We could offer incentives for sterilization:

Minority women are more likely than white women to choose tubal sterilization as a contraceptive method.
In unadjusted analysis, African American and Hispanic women had significantly higher odds of undergoing sterilization.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2837493/

You also don't have to close the borders completely. We can incentive europeans with high birth rates to come in.

I tend to disagree, we NEED to stoke tribalism in our favor

meh, maybe, would prefer incentives to deport

it seems the main contention in this thread is whether to go full out WN, or try to appeal more to normies

You're going to want to use as many tools as possible. If they won't leave, then you can at least sterilize them so that in the future there will still be less non-whites around.

>If they won't leave
user I ... not sure I care about their wants

That's the long and hard road. You are talking about then. A smaller population which can't really compete about the cattle herds and rather needs to be highly specialized in some niche areas where they can out compete the current power structure and set bars of entries where it becomes too costly for the opposition to try to conquer your niche. In addition the niche must be one that grows faster in the next decades then opposing niches to be able to get enough human resources to keep it efficient and effective

Then why are you even using the word "incentives"? If you're just going to use force then the conversation is already over
>just throw them all out hurr durr!
okay then we have a war on our hands and that means white people are going to die along the way, I'd rather preserve the white population as much as possible and just get these people to leave.

End H1B programs. End international student visas.

Abortion has the biggest impact on minorites

It is the most effective way of reducing their birth rates

what the fuck are you trying to say pham?

>okay then we have a war on our hands
been going on for a while, how do we wake our people up to it? what else is mass-immigration but hostile invasion?

sounds fair, why should we train foreign people rather than our own?

ok, just ban it for Whites then

>Not having coast guards patrolling your seas to redirect foreign boats away from your national waters

When you have fuck huge borders, you will never have enough man power

Collecting things like dna/blood/fingerprints and creating a database will be much more efficient and helpful in the long run

>been going on for a while, how do we wake our people up to it?
You're equivocating. Perhaps there is a war but it is a war of demographics not of bullets. We could make it an explicit war where we're killing each other but that's going to cost white lives and I'd rather do the whole 14 words thing where we actually preserve white lives... If we're going to participate in the kind of war that's going on now, then using incentives like sterilization and leaving voluntarily and importing more whites is what will win, not violence.

>Perhaps there is a war but it is a war of demographics not of bullets
that's not equivocating, in fact you seem to agree

of course there are different kinds of war, and there is plenty of violence from the invaders to our lands

not sure how we force these foreign people out without at least some violence

>that's not equivocating, in fact you seem to agree
Read what I write, friend. We're not in some war like we're used to seeing. It's a covert war of policies and demographics, not of storming beaches and bombs and guns. Stop equivocating.
>not sure how we force these foreign people out without at least some violence
well yeah if you're using force then by definition you're using violence. But we need to go for what will actually work, what will actually be effective. Right now, we're not in this explicit war zone where we're all killing each other left and right in some race war. Instead we're in a more covert war where we need to take advantage of policies to fix the demographics.

We don't need to "force", just make the option of leaving a better choice

the policies i described in my original post would be a first step. we could get rid of a lot of foreigners without violence. sure we wouldnt get all, but does it really matter if a few per cent are left? i would be perfectly happy with 95% homogeneity in my country.

As I understand it, the goal is to construct institutions that favour white tribalism and collectivism trying to directly compete in an environment that favours individualism. For this to become viable you need a certain stream of resources - material, immaterial and human - while you say that you are refusing to fish in the waters of the individualist and just recruit already tribalistic thinking persons.

What I like to say is, that such a strategy, if the goal is not just to survive in the individualist globalist society but some day have relevant power over territories, it is necessary to find an economic niche that can outgrow the hegemonic niches simply by being "in the trend" and make it irrational for the hegemonic forces to just conquer that niche to guarantee their survival, which they will try and a possible tribalistic group of institutions need to be able to counter to survive.

the normie friendly idea currently pursued is to make europe as shit as possible

maybe we should consider a non-normie friendly idea

>It's a covert war of policies and demographics, not of storming beaches and bombs and guns. Stop equivocating.
that's not equivocating, you are implicitly agreeing that there are different kinds of war

>well yeah if you're using force then by definition you're using violence.
or threat of violence, but that is how all governments work, monopoly on force etc.

>But we need to go for what will actually work, what will actually be effective. Right now, we're not in this explicit war zone where we're all killing each other left and right in some race war. Instead we're in a more covert war where we need to take advantage of policies to fix the demographics.
ok? so is it better to be unapologetically pro us, or attempt to be pro-everyone? that's what I am getting from this discussion

why not just tell everyone what the endgame for White displacemnt is?

Exactly.
If we can remove the reinforcement that's keeping them here and making them want to move here, and we provide other reinforcement to get them to leave and not come here then the problem will solve itself

>that's not equivocating, you are implicitly agreeing that there are different kinds of war
I've always noted there are different kinds of war, I'm the one who brought that up. You're acting like we're in a classical war with guns and bombs. That's not what's going on here. We're not in a "race war" where we're all gunning after each other. We're in a war, but it's not like what you're trying to make it out to be so using explicit force is just a misunderstanding of the kind of war we're in.

>or threat of violence, but that is how all governments work, monopoly on force etc.
You can have that to an extent. Like for non-white criminals we can sterilize them and using force would be legitimate.

>so is it better to be unapologetically pro us, or attempt to be pro-everyone?
What I'm talking about is pro us. I'm just talking about using smart and effective strategies for the kind of war we are in.

>why not just tell everyone what the endgame for White displacemnt is?
I'm all up for that. From there we can make certain policies that will increase the white population and decrease the non-white population and this can all be done voluntarily or through state legitimized force.

chekkked

>I've always noted there are different kinds of war, I'm the one who brought that up
yeah, you aren't the only one who acknowledges that, wht are you suggesting I am equivocating about?

we ARE in a race war, look at the non-White on White crime, it might not be a hot war yet, but that seems to be on its way

>I'm all up for that. From there we can make certain policies that will increase the white population and decrease the non-white population and this can all be done voluntarily or through state legitimized force.
ok

>while you say that you are refusing to fish in the waters of the individualist and just recruit already tribalistic thinking persons.
I see, why not both?

double checked

>wht are you suggesting I am equivocating about?
I was talking about using voluntary means, you responded that you don't care about their wants, I noted then we'll have a war on our hands, and you said we're already in a war.
I get that we're in a war of sorts, but when I said the word war I was talking about explicit combat and fighting and killing. You interpreted my use of the word "war" in an equivocal way. I acknowledge we're in a war of sorts, but not the kind of war where we're all killing each other left and right in some race war.

>we ARE in a race war
If you're talking about this whole demographics war that's going on with policies, yes. Are we in some explicit war where there's 2 sides of a field (whites and blacks) and they're charging each other like in a traditional war? Of course no, we all know this, come on now.

>ok
Alright so you're up for using voluntary means and enacting policies that would legitimize force in our favor. What other recommendations do you have?

>I was talking about using voluntary means, you responded that you don't care about their wants, I noted then we'll have a war on our hands, and you said we're already in a war.
>I get that we're in a war of sorts, but when I said the word war I was talking about explicit combat and fighting and killing. You interpreted my use of the word "war" in an equivocal way. I acknowledge we're in a war of sorts, but not the kind of war where we're all killing each other left and right in some race war.
ok, that sounds fair

>If you're talking about this whole demographics war that's going on with policies, yes. Are we in some explicit war where there's 2 sides of a field (whites and blacks) and they're charging each other like in a traditional war? Of course no, we all know this, come on now.
also ok, have you read "civil war ii"? I see it as part of the sme thing, hot war is almost bound to erupt from this demographic war, imo

>Alright so you're up for using voluntary means and enacting policies that would legitimize force in our favor. What other recommendations do you have?
pro-White propoganda, e.g. the mantra and IOTBW

not sure if you find this effective, but this kind of thing worked on me:

UN Law doesn’t specify METHOD of genocide, for the good reason, that sneaky people would find sneaky ways to get around that law.
Trying to make identifiable groups disappear, using any METHOD is genocide.
The UN calls what the Chinese are doing in Tibet, Genocide.
Without a vote, or discussion allowed, the Chinese are using massive immigration and forced integration,against the Tibetans until they all disappear.
Force assimilating MILLIONS of non-Whites in EVERY&ONLY White countries IS geNOcide

>I see, why not both?
Bingo. That's why I argue to have two lanes to marketing the ideas. External propaganda represented by some moderates playing in the fields of narratives of the individualists, the "I" message inside the we, and internal propaganda represented by radicals with a strict focus on the "we" messages.

I know this is pure abstract semantics and not close to any real politics, but it might help us getting a more realistic view on the games we play and create more efficient strategies to enlarge the room of action

would you prefer 20 milquetoasts, or 10 hardcore though?

The one biggest obstacle to restoring European demographics, in my opinion, is the prevailing civic nationalist idea that being born in a country makes you a rightful citizen of that country. If a radical Muslim is arrested in Britain, as long as he was born in Britain and has a British accent people will not even consider deporting him or taking his citizenship, after all isn't he just as British as anyone else there? We should focus on combating this idea and stressing the importance of ancestry over birthplace, until the majority of white people come to their senses on this real progress will be impossible.

I'd agree, this is important

cows born in the sea don't become dolphins

Personally? I'll take the hardcore because I believe, that fear and terror are the most efficient ways to conquer a herd of cattle. But realistically, the milquetoasts are needed, as long as they remain under the control of the hardcore

ok

no it isn't.

>also ok, have you read "civil war ii"? I see it as part of the sme thing, hot war is almost bound to erupt from this demographic war, imo
I agree in the sense that I can see what you call hot war occurring, though I don't think it's necessary. We've had civil war before, it can happen again. Though I want to preserve as many white lives as possible.

>pro-White propoganda, e.g. the mantra and IOTBW
Right I think education will be a big one, especially if we can get it on a state level and promote homogeneity all the more.

>not sure if you find this effective, but this kind of thing worked on me
I see the point there. What we're saying about white genocide they'll say we're committing genocide as well. Though that will only grant us legitimacy by their own admission since we actually have decreasing birth rates. the number of black people across the globe are going up exponentially, so getting rid of african americans for instance wouldn't put a dent in that trend. But getting rid of the few whites in europe and the anglosphere definitely has an impact given our birth rates.

>I agree in the sense that I can see what you call hot war occurring, though I don't think it's necessary. We've had civil war before, it can happen again. Though I want to preserve as many white lives as possible.
I'd like to too

>Right I think education will be a big one, especially if we can get it on a state level and promote homogeneity all the more.
not sure how we could do that through official or mainstream channels

>What we're saying about white genocide they'll say we're committing genocide as well. Though that will only grant us legitimacy by their own admission since we actually have decreasing birth rates. the number of black people across the globe are going up exponentially, so getting rid of african americans for instance wouldn't put a dent in that trend. But getting rid of the few whites in europe and the anglosphere definitely has an impact given our birth rates.
yep

whitakeronline.org/blog/topic/mini-mantras-pro/