The theme of this conference—the year 2050—is a difficult one for any speaker, but especially for one like myself who rejects all forms of historical determinism. I do not believe anything is foreordained, neither our own triumph nor that of our enemies, and our task as a movement is not to try to see into the future, but to prepare ourselves as best we can for whatever it throws our way. Let me give you an example of the harm that can result from thinking otherwise.
Most of you are probably aware that Americans of European descent are currently expected to make up less than half of the United States population by around the middle of this century, if not a little sooner. Such forecasts are nothing new, however. Only the publicity surrounding them is new. The legal changes that ushered in America’s demographic revolution occurred back in the 1960s. Projections already made clear over a generation ago, during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr., that whites were destined for minority status by some time in this century. A few far-sighted people attempted to warn of this looming catastrophe, but the response from the Reagan and Bush administrations was that such a thing was simply impossible. Whites would never be reduced to minority status, and it was idle even to talk about it.
In 1993, Bill Clinton was inaugurated President of the United States, and announced to the American public that “in a little more than 50 years there will be no majority race in the United States” [Commencement Address at Portland State University in Portland, Oregon, June 13, 1998]. His administration explained that this change was inevitable—and, of course, it was going to work out wonderfully for all concerned. So we have here what looks like a total change of attitude: The capture of America by nonwhites is impossible vs. that capture is inevitable. But note that from a practical point of view, these two apparently opposite positions function identically: both amount to an injunction to do nothing. First we were supposed to do nothing because there was no need; then we were to do nothing because nothing could be done.
Shouldn’t there have been at least a brief interval during which whites were indeed headed toward minority status in the United States but might have changed course by taking appropriate action? To hear our government tell the story, no: America’s demographic revolution went straight from unimaginable to unavoidable on the day Bill Clinton became president.
This is an utterly inhuman doctrine. Life is given to men for the purpose of action, to work and struggle, to attempt to leave a better world to their children. Anyone who tries to convince you there is no point to your efforts is denying an essential part of your humanity and attempting to wage psychological war against you. Don’t let them. What our world looks like in 2050 will depend on what our own people do between now and then. So I cannot make predictions. At best, I can consider a few possible scenarios. So that is what I shall try to do.
The most optimistic scenario for the future of Europe and its offshoots might involve learning a few things from our Estonian hosts. This small but peaceful and prosperous European nation is governed under a constitution which lists among its purposes to “guarantee the preservation of the Estonian nation, language and culture through the ages.” It speaks of the Estonian people’s right to national self-determination as “inextinguishable,” and describes the Estonian state as “a pledge to present and future generations” of Estonians. I am told that Estonia is unique among the nations of contemporary Europe in having perpetual national self-preservation explicitly enshrined in its constitution.
The country’s legislators were wise to do so. At one time it might have been superfluous, for such sentiments have usually gone without saying. Salus populi suprema lex, as the Roman orator Cicero put it: “the survival (or salvation) of the people is the highest law.” National survival is a more fundamental principle than democracy, for instance. The existence of a nation must be secured before the question of its form of government can be meaningful. This is not just a theoretical point. Many European countries today still hold more or less free and fair popular elections, yet the parties returned to power are working consciously toward the demographic displacement of the nation that elected them. Under these circumstances, I fail to see the value of democracy. Popular controls on government are a means of national self-determination. Where they have been perverted into a means of national suicide, they lose all justification. Indeed, we ought to be asking ourselves whether this present-day perversion of democracy does not point to the existence of some serious flaw in the system unsuspected when it was instituted.
So if I were designing my utopia for 2050, I would project a world in which all European and European-derived nations made self-preservation their conscious goal, severely limiting further immigration and encouraging the humane repatriation of African and Asiatic immigrants. Those telling us this is impossible are simply waging psychological warfare against us. It would be easily feasible if the will to accomplish it were sufficiently widespread, although it would undoubtedly take some time. The obstacles are not material or practical, but spiritual. Our people have lost faith in themselves, and no electoral victory will change that. Rather, it is only a spiritual renewal of our civilization that can, eventually, change the political landscape. My greatest wish for the years between now and 2050 is to see such a renewal of the European spirit well begun.
I am sorry to report that the present situation in my own country is alarming. America was established as a republic, but republican government presupposes a unified people. A republican constitution lays down the ground rules for competition between loyal members of the nation with differing understandings of the public good: hence the concept of loyal opposition. Where differing political programs are replaced by competing and mutually hostile tribes that lack any overarching loyalty to the whole, a republican system becomes unworkable. This point has now been reached in the United States. The ruling elite is hostile to the European-descended majority of those it governs, and is now open about saying so. Some call the result American communism, and it does present analogies with early Soviet Communism.
The political ideology our elite uses to justify its power is not identical, of course, to that of Lenin and the Bolsheviks a hundred years ago, but significant overlap can be found. The French-Jewish philosopher Alain Finkielkraut has described today’s antiracism as “the communism of the twenty-first century.” I believe he is correct. “Antiracism” claims to aim at fairness to all racial groups, and thus to deserve the support of all decent and reasonable people. But this is like saying that communism aimed to protect workers from exploitation by greedy factory owners. One finds the same total disconnect between the outward moral appeal of the ideology and the sinister political reality it serves to conceal.
Antiracism also resembles communism in its defiance of certain constant aspects of human nature. As communism ignored economic self-interest, antiracism is built upon ignoring or suppressing our tribal bonds. These are an extension of family bonds and serve the same evolutionary function, viz., helping weak individuals survive in an indifferent or hostile world. Building upon such natural affections, traditional moral thinking inculcated the virtue of patriotism, or loyalty to the tribe into which one has been born, a loyalty that was expected to extend to self-sacrifice where necessary. Antiracist ideology aims to persuade European-descended people (and them alone) that such loyalty is actually the most inexcusable of moral failings. The ideal antiracist is supposed to cultivate perfect indifference to his tribe, to the point of preferring other groups to his own when directed to do so. Even within our own dissident circles, I fear many fail to grasp just what a breathtaking revolution in moral thinking this represents. Perhaps only the shift from paganism to Christianity in the fourth century A.D. was comparable. It is a revolution being pushed on us by people conspicuous for both their own tribal loyalties and for carefully maintained historical grudges against us. It leaves Western man disarmed in a competitive world, and that is precisely its purpose.
For all its happy talk about tolerance and enrichment, anti-racism, like all political ideologies, serves to justify the rule of some people over others: specifically, the rule of various non-European groups (and a few useful white sociopaths) over Europeans. In America, anti-racist propaganda is heavily administered to the population of all races through government-run schools, news broadcasts, and the so-called entertainment industry. Popular themes include the killing of American Indians, the enslavement of Africans, and the Holocaust. On a superficial view, anti-racists appear to be intensely concerned with historical injustice, but a closer look reveals that their concern is extremely selective. For example, the entire story of twentieth-century communism is ignored. Hollywood makes no movies about it. Government schools do not teach it. When communism collapsed around 1990, most younger Americans had no idea what the fuss was all about. None of this is an accident. It is all because the anti-racist ideology currently dominant in the West is communism’s legitimate heir, and is being promoted by the very same kinds of people.
The current ideology concerns itself only with historical crimes where it is possible to make it appear that Europeans were uniquely guilty—whether they actually were or not. Slavery, obviously, has been practiced around the world, but only the European enslavement of Africans is of interest to anti-racism. The goal of such propaganda is not historical understanding, but the cultivation of hatred and resentment against our people and of guilt and shame among ourselves. This has had considerable success. Racially motivated crime against whites is now a serious problem in the United States, but cannot be freely discussed in public. White self-defense is sometimes prosecuted. One also hears stories of children returning from school crying disconsolately over being white, or of young white women who refuse to socialize with white men because they believe it would be immoral to give birth to a white child. These aberrations are evidence of serious psychological abuse, but such abuse enjoys the full sanction of the American regime itself.
Americans’ historical monuments are being systematically desecrated and destroyed, and the antiracist activists doing so enjoy legal impunity. Sometimes local police do not understand this and make arrests, but within 24 hours they get orders straight from Washington to release the criminals without charge. Newspapers do not report on this phenomenon, but it has become known through word of mouth.
It is no longer possible to mount effective opposition to this regime through electoral politics. Elections are simply rigged where necessary, and those who protest are jailed. The efforts of the best-informed whites are now directed to disengaging from the system as much as possible through homeschooling and the boycotting of hostile corporations. Recently—and this I find shocking—some Americans have quietly begun to take an interest in growing their own food once again. But if history is any guide, those who merely wish to be left alone will not be. They are likely to find themselves in the position of the so-called kulaks under Soviet Communism.
The Washington regime is currently making plans for a Central Bank Digital Currency that would give it the ability to monitor all Americans’ financial activities down to the smallest detail, and to confiscate the wealth of the uncooperative with the press of a button. This is power Lenin could only dream of, and most Americans do not even know what is happening.
So, yes, the political situation in America today is grim, certainly the worst it has been in my lifetime. But, as I said at the beginning, I do not believe in historical inevitability. Some of the very excesses of the current regime look more like desperation than abuses of a power felt to be secure. Since the rise of Donald Trump, our rulers have become painfully aware that they do not enjoy the support of most Americans. They are frantically letting in foreigner lawbreakers to make up for their weakness in numbers. Recently it has come to light that the regime has been heavily involved in the illegal censorship of Americans’ internet communications. For our rulers, politics is now a race against time to make their power unchallengeable before the European-American majority can organize effective resistance. They are more frightened of white dissidents than our present numbers or influence would seem to warrant, for they understand that popular attitudes change rapidly in times of economic stress. And symptoms of economic decline can be found everywhere in the United States today. Roads and railroads are no longer being properly maintained. Americans are having difficulty affording groceries or fueling their cars. Their savings are being eroded by the government’s deliberate inflationary policies. For all the work we dissidents have been doing to discredit the regime, it has proven far less influential than the regime’s own failures.
Our people tend to be good-natured and reluctant to think badly of others. It is one of our weaknesses. Some say this is due to an evolutionary history of cooperative struggle against nature as opposed to the tribal rivalry characteristic of other regions. If so, such a history did not prepare us well for the challenges of multiculturalism. Most Europeans have been slow to realize they are already in a struggle. We cannot blame our enemies for this. Every time they call us haters and white supremacists, they are doing more than we have any right to expect to awaken our people to their true situation and rouse them to opposition. Any failure in this regard can only be blamed on ourselves.
We, like our hostile and disloyal rulers, are in a race against time. By 2050, the issue may already have been decided of whether we are going to thrust the enemies from our midst or submit to playing the role of kulaks under a neo-communist regime that scapegoats us for its failure to deliver a utopia to everyone else. However difficult our situation may appear, we know that our people have triumphed over even greater odds. I have long found inspiration in the struggle of the Russian patriot Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Much of The Gulag Archipelago, his harrowing exposé of the Soviet forced labor camp system, was written here in Estonia, where the author came to hide from the Communist authorities. It was wintertime, as much as thirty degrees below zero, and Solzhenitsyn was kept alive and enabled to continue his work by the assistance of a few courageous Estonian friends. It is not easy for us to imagine how bleak the situation must have seemed at the time: one man against the might of the Soviet Union. Yet Solzhenitsyn persisted with his task and actually lived to witness the downfall of his enemies. This must truly be an example of what the Bible calls “the faith that moves mountains,” and some of us may be called upon to practice a similarly heroic faith before our day of triumph arrives.
I do believe that a crisis of some kind is approaching. Our rulers are custodians of a multimillennial civilization of which they are unworthy, and the roots of whose greatness they cannot begin to understand. In place of such an understanding they have only a slapdash antiracist ideology of recent construction that lacks even the intellectual seriousness of Marxism. They will never change direction or reconsider what they are doing. Men whose minds are possessed by an ideology are like drivers trying to control a car with no brakes and no steering wheel. Their only response to difficulties is to press down harder on the accelerator: more immigration, more preferences for hostile foreigners, more guilt and shame for whites, more speech codes to silence critics, more of everything they are already doing. All of this simply drives more of our people over to our side and brings the moment of crisis closer. We will get our opportunity. While we cannot predict exactly when it will come or what it will look like, we can prepare ourselves for it today. In 2050 I hope our victorious children will be remembering the historic Tallinn conference of 2023 as a turning point in our people’s renewal.