Since Donald Trump was re-elected in November, many things that were rarely said in the mainstream are now being floated in public and taken seriously. Great examples include mass deportations, the US buying Greenland, Facebook ending its fact-checking algorithms, the phasing out of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs, flipping New Jersey red, and restricting immigration from India. Three months ago, who in the mainstream was discussing, let along debating, such topics? Whatever faults Trump has—and he has many—being wholly part of the Washington uniparty elite is not one of them. And that is a good thing. This reminds me of the Khrushchev Thaw period following the death of Josef Stalin in 1953. For a time, ordinary people and Soviet elite alike were let out on a longer leash, and could engage in discourse that had previously been frowned upon or forbidden. Yes, it was more of a Thermidorian reaction than anything real, but it still opened the door for at least some changes and improvements to the Soviet Union.
Of course, it didn’t last. Mostly likely Trump’s thaw won’t either (they never do, do they?). This is why white advocates should take advantage of this period of greater openness while we can. In other words, it’s time to push the envelope, even if that means getting the enveloped shoved back into our faces by a president who might identify more as orange than white.
My suggestion, beyond what David Zsutty has given us in his excellent three-part series “What White Nationalists Want From the Trump Administration,” is to propose a bill in Congress which would, on paper at least, protect the US white majority in perpetuity through selective immigration bans, mass deportations, and pro-natalist policies. Outlandish, I know. A white US minority is the very thing the Left craves and the mainstream Right is too afraid to talk about—a political third rail indeed. However, there are upsides to attempting to sell such legislation to US congressmen during the second Trump term—aside from it actually succeeding, of course.
For one, whites these days are waking up to anti-whiteism, and so a proposed bill to protect the dwindling white majority at least won’t be unpopular among whites in red areas of the country. Such a proposition in 2025 would certainly not come out of left field, and would make sense to many. Trump has recently spoken against anti-white racism, and so have conservative mainstream pundits such as Charlie Kirk, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Laura Loomer, Michelle Malkin, Matt Walsh, and Mark Dice. The Hodge Twins as well as former MMA world champion Jake Shields recently featured longtime white advocate David Duke on their podcasts. Jared Taylor had his Twitter/X account restored and has garnered tens of thousands of followers. Patrick Bet David recently hosted Patriot Front leader Thomas Rousseau. And here’s a report from February 2024 about a Michigan lawmaker Steve Carra who led a sit in outside the Michigan House Speaker’s office to protest his state’s anti-white spending policies.
So if there ever was a good time to go public with a pro-white initiative like this one, it’s now.
Secondly, even in defeat, such a proposal will provide a surfeit of rhetorical victories for the Dissident Right and pro-white camps. Any congressman who ignores or opposes such a bill can be fairly branded as anti-white. Not only this, they can be accused of not just wanting a white minority, but actually contriving to attain one. If you are not in favor of a white majority then you are in favor of a white minority. There is no middle ground. Yes, most Democrats would reject such a bill out of hand, gladly admitting that they look forward to the day that whites dip below 50 percent in America. Joe Biden did just that back in February 2015. With today’s whites being less likely to tolerate anti-whiteism than ever before, record of such a refusal would certainly help damage a Democrat ticket during a general election.
But the main use of such a bill would be to hector, bog down, or at best replace weak-minded Republican lawmakers who would also reject the bill. How much would it cost, really, to primary a Republican congressman who refuses to consider a pro-white bill because the mainstream narrative tells him it’s racist? How hard would it be for even mainstream Republicans with a little pluck to ding an incumbent over his purported hostility towards whites? Remember, we are in the Trump Thaw at the moment. So what seemed beyond the pale of public discourse three months ago, may no longer be. With enough energetic, well-funded, aspiring politicians beating the white majority drum, establishment Republicans would have to at least give lip service before rejecting the bill. And the more people talking about it, the better—even if much of that talk is negative. And for all we know it could even work well enough to reach a vote on the House floor.
Finally, there is the metapolitical change that such a bill promises to make. They say the process is the punishment, but in this case the process would also the reward. The goal here should not necessarily be to get the bill passed (although that would be great). The goal should be to introduce the bill into the long and arduous lawmaking process in order to make it its own news item. The goal should be to get people talking about it in the way the Soviet public began discussing the gulags after the publication of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich during the Khrushchev Thaw. The goal should be to get ordinary, everyday whites to begin to want or even expect a white majority in this country. They should consider it their birthright, given how the Founding Fathers were all white and the vast majority of people who have fought and died in America’s wars have also been white. And why not? Is there anything in the US Constitution preventing this country’s founding race from legislating its perpetual majority? Can that even be called racist? In the Trump 2.0 era, what really is preventing a critical mass of whites from adopting such a perspective? Nothing, I’d say. As I’ve pointed out above, all the signs are actually quite encouraging.
If you are reading this because you have white identity—even a secret one—and you’re not a researcher from the Anti-Defamation League or Southern Poverty Law Center looking to squeeze the vitality out of the entire white race, then ask yourself, why not? Why can’t whites discuss these things? Why can’t we expect such things? Are our jobs and incomes and social standings worth so much to us that we cannot at least throw a few shekels at politicians and pundits willing to buck the anti-white system and stand up for ourselves? Do we really want to live in a world in which we are outnumbered by hostile non-whites in our own hometowns? Is this the kind of world we’d wish upon our children and grandchildren?
If not, then . . . what are we doing?
Assuming that we all understand that we need to do something, is there a better idea than crafting some sort of incipient law and presenting it to prospective lawmakers who are willing to promote it while running for office? Now, I am not an attorney, and have little influence irrespective of that. But maybe somebody reading this does have influence and can make a difference? If so, then I offer a rough 10-point plan as a starting point. And before I get outraged comments about how my plan is some cucked Magna Carta, please remember that this is not a White Nationalist wish list, but a proposal for a real-world document to effect real-world changes in the here and now that even non-whites in America today could abide. It will basically be a promise from whites to non-whites to share the United States with them in good faith as long as the current racial proportions remain the same. It will be an effort to halt the white demographic decline, not to turn back the clock or start a race war. Thus, there will be compromises in it which many white advocates (myself included) will find odious. Please don’t let these get in the way of seeing the overall value of the plan.
Such a plan can go two ways: it can work or it can fail. In the former case, great. We won’t be back to 1960, but it won’t be 2020 either. Let’s split the difference and call it 1990, not exactly a terrible year in the life of white people. In the latter case however—which is much more likely—the heightened racial awareness of whites will necessarily increase friction with American non-whites, and will lead to one of two things: red state secession, which is the first step towards a white ethnostate, or (God help us) Civil War 2.0. Again, in the former case, great. And in the latter, we would at least have a fighting chance. This means that of the three possible outcomes of a bill like this, two and a half are positive. Not bad, right?
Anyway, here are my 10 points, and if someone thinks they can do better and still be realistic, I’m all ears:
BILL TO ENSURE THE PERPETUAL WHITE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES
- Require bi-yearly censuses.
- Define white by “one-half not black” rule (at least one white parent, and no fully-black parent). For the sake of this bill, “whites” would include people of white European descent, Jews originating in Europe, and Caucasians from Central Asia.
- Employ self-identification to determine race, and agreed-upon genetic markers to determine race in case of appeals.
- Establish African Americans and Indigenous Americans as “demographically exempt” populations. (This means that their populations can fluctuate naturally and are not counted when calculating the proportion of whites to the general population. This would be a good thing for both populations and should be promoted as such.)
- Require that the white majority remain no lower than 80% of the US population minus the exempt populations. (Using rough estimates taken from Wikipedia, the United States currently has 48 million blacks and 7 million Indigenous Americans, making 55 million demographically exempt citizens. Subtract this from the 340 million total population to get a denominator of 285 million. Divide the 205 million whites in America by that to get around 72 percent. If such a bill were to be signed into law, the main focus of government would be to push that number up to 80 percent as soon as possible.)
- Require that, among non-exempt non-whites, no more than 10 percent of the US population be of Mexican, Central American, or South American descent. All immigration from these places will stop if this proportion grows above this percentage.
- Require that, among non-exempt non-whites, no more than 10 percent of the US population be of Asian or Middle Eastern descent. All immigration from these places will stop if this proportion grows above this percentage.
- Require that pro-white immigration and pro-white natalist policies be put in place until whites reach 80 percent of the total non-exempt US population.
- Require that all illegal immigrants as well as legal immigrants with a history of violent or serious crimes be deported.
- Ban all immigration from places of origin of racially exempt populations (i.e., Indigenous peoples from the Americas or blacks from Sub-Saharan Africa).
Given how the Trump Thaw has already allowed whites more leeway to discuss their own racial interests (and Trump hasn’t even taken office yet), I think my 10-point plan might push the envelope far enough but too far in order to get white people to act their own racial interests as well.
