Essay Competition: Secession and Racial Nationalism
The Occidental Quarterly
Essay Competition: $1,000 prize
One of the goals of TOQ is to encourage the exploration of concrete and workable alternatives to multiracial and multicultural societies. To that end, we are sponsoring an essay contest on the topic of “Secession and Racial Nationalism.” Submissions may explore this topic from any perspective: philosophical, economic, historical, political, psychological, biological, ecological, etc. One can defend or attack the desirability of secession; examine and criticize past or present secessionist movements from a racial nationalist perspective; evaluate existing secessionist and partition proposals (e.g., Wilmot Robertson’s The Ethnostate, Harold Covington’s Northwest Quartet, the proposals of Michael Hart, Edgar Steele, and others); address specific problems that secessionist movements must solve, etc. One can focus on any form of racial nationalism, so long as it is relevant to TOQ’s specific concern with white racial nationalism.
Essays must be in English.
Essays must be at least 2,000 and no more than 5,000 words.
Essays must be submitted electronically in Word or RTF format.
Authors may use pen names.
Only one entry per author.
Essays must not have previously appeared in print.
The winning essay will be chosen by the Editor of TOQ. All decisions will be final.
The contest is open to anyone worldwide, except the Editor of TOQ.
The winning essay and other worthy entries will be published in TOQ. (Each Runner Up will receive a standard TOQ honorarium.)
The deadline for submissions is June 1, 2009.
Winners and Runners Up will be informed by July 1, 2009.
Address submissions and inquiries the Editor .
(Posted on February 20, 2009)
Comments
I won’t bother to submit my ideas. There are much better minds than mine to cover this subject. I will only say this, Whites should and need to nationalize along racial lines due to the fact that ALL other races and peoples have already done so. They look after themselves. They hit the streets and make their voices heard. Whites should do the same thing. Whites owe it to their future generations to open roads for a better life for white people. Nobody stands up for whites, except whites. As far as secession, we may have no other choice but to seceed from the union to form a homeland for whites. We are being taxed into oblivion as it is, and we receive nothing for it. Our government is NOT concerned about the welfare of the white people. They care ONLY about their precious minorities. The reasons for this thinking on the part of the government are too long to discuss here. I’m sure anybody whom frequents AmRen on a regular basis needs no explanation. Good luck to all the participants on this essay. I can’t wait to read the entries once they are posted. Racial nationalism followed by secession will be the saving grace of the white people. Without it, kiss our race goodbye. Patriotism should be for our race, not the country. The country abandoned us, now we must abandon it if we hope to survive. I never thought these words would ever come from me. But then, I would never have imagined in my worst dreams that our government would treat us this way.
“One can defend or attack the desirability of secession; examine and criticize past or present secessionist movements from a racial nationalist perspective; evaluate existing secessionist and partition proposals (e.g., Wilmot Robertson’s The Ethnostate, Harold Covington’s Northwest Quartet, the proposals of Michael Hart, Edgar Steele, and others); address specific problems that secessionist movements must solve, etc.”
There is no need for this, none at all!
I am a white man and an American, and this is my country, end of discussion!
These: blacks; Asians; “Latinos;” Arabs; and all the other assorted individuals “of color,” or otherwise “differently aggrieved” political positions, can simply get lost as far as I am concerned!
I do not see splitting this country up and handing chunks of it to the nonwhite breeders and feeders, as an “equitable” solution. Quite the contrary, my position is the same as that of the late and great Dr. Samuel T. Fancis; this being, that whites should reconquer their country.
As Dr. Francis himself noted in his March 1995 article for American Renaissance, “Prospects for Racial and Cultural Survival:”
Reconquest:
The answer is, quite simply, the reconquest of the United States. This reconquest does not involve any restoration of white supremacy in the political and legal sense that obtained under slavery or segregation, and there is no reason why nonwhites who reside in the United States could not enjoy equality of legal rights. But a white reconquest of the United States would mean the supremacy of whites in a cultural sense, or in the sense of what is nowadays called “Eurocentrism.” There are essentially three things that whites must do in order to carry out this reconquest of the nation and culture they have almost lost:
(1) Whites must formulate a white racial consciousness that identifies racial and biological endowments as important and relevant to social behavior, and their own racial endowments as essential to the continuing existence of Euro-American civilization. The formation of a white racial consciousness does not mean that whites should think of themselves only as whites, to the exclusion of ethnic, national, religious, regional, class, or other identities, nor that individuality should yield to the collective category of race. It means merely that we recognize racial realities, that we recognize that racial-biological endowments are necessary to certain kinds of human behavior (e.g., the political and civic behavior appropriate to stable self-government, the work habits and life-styles appropriate to a dynamic economy; the intellectual behavior that is necessary for science and scholarship, etc.) and that because these endowments are largely unique to whites, the behavior they make possible cannot be replicated by most nonwhites.
Nor does the formation of white racial consciousness mean that we should conceive of ourselves only as biological beings to the exclusion of religious or metaphysical identities. Racial consciousness means that we add recognition of biological and racial factors to our traditional concepts of human nature and modify both our biological and non-biological conceptions of what man is, as evidence and reason dictate. It may be true that some traditional religious and metaphysical conceptions would not survive recognition of the scientific realities of race, just as some did not survive earlier scientific discoveries in astronomy, geology, and biology.
But the formation of white racial consciousness does mean that whites would recognize themselves as a race and their racially based behavior as legitimate, and hence it would mean the end of tolerance for nonwhite assaults on white people and the norms of white civilization. Whites would simply no longer countenance nonwhite aggression and insults or the idolization of nonwhite heroes, icons, and culture; white children would be raised in accordance with what is proper to being white, and norms openly recognized as appropriate to whites would be the legitimizing and dominant norms of American society as they were prior to the 1960s. Racial guilt and truckling would end.
(2) Based on this racial consciousness, whites must counter the demographic threat they face from immigration and nonwhite fertility and whites’ own infertility. This means (a) an absolute halt to all future legal immigration into the United States, deployment of the armed forces on the appropriate borders to cut off illegal immigration, and deportation of all illegal immigrants (and perhaps many recent legal immigrants); (b) the end of subsidies for the nonwhite birth rate through welfare programs, obligatory use of contraception by welfare recipients, and encouragement of its use among nonwhites, and (c) encouragement of increases in white fertility.
(3) Whites must correct the political and legal order to end the political power of nonwhite minorities and their white anti-white allies. This political effort would involve a radical dismantling of all affirmative action and civil rights legislation as well as a good part of the federal governmental superstructure that entrenches minority power. It also would require recovering an understanding of constitutional law that permits local and state governments to govern, and private institutions to function independently of government.
In short, as I see it, the legalized and enforced development of a “white racial consciousness,” that is unapologetic. Moreover, that also employs, for lack of a better term, “punitive ostracism” against all whites who refuse to comply with it as a governing policy of the USA. That would be the overriding key element here, the total smashing of the totalitarian “multicultural” dynamic that we now live under.
From there, and as Dr. Francis also notes, white majority preservation and enhancement should be embarked upon. Along with ever tightening and strict reductions in nonwhites’ pernicious influences on our culture and country at every measurable level. It does not have to be bloody, or even require excessive force, as a break-up might; it only requires a determined understanding that “freedom” for nonwhites has limits in the USA. These limits being, ‘live by our established rules and standards, or get out.’
Enough said!
John PM:
I’m glad that you both broached the subject and used The Bard’s own words to do so. However, this is going to have to relate to the one and only issue with which I disagreed with The Bard, that being the White History Month debate between he and Lou Calabro.
On the one hand, The Bard advocates the “punitive ostracism” strategy when it comes to whites reimposing themselves on the entirety of what is now known as the USA. However, he thought that whites should not have a history month because it would relegate us to a month when the whole year should be about us.
Whites are going to need to think of themselves as whites if they/we have any chance at the punitive ostracism strategy. To get that, I would gladly take a month, hell just a day. Anything FUBU (For Us By Us).
I do agree with the premise. What use would it for an aracinated egalitarian white population to get its own partition of the former USA when they screwed up the whole USA with their race liberalism. In other words, any whites that could “whiten” up to rule a partition could just as well have the whole thing.
John PM,
I don’t have a problem w/whites seceding from the US as long as we take “our” nukes w/us. Otherwise a future Obama or Mugabe type might use them against us.
Secession will never work and is a waste of time and mind energy for three simple reasons; 1. We would be surrounded by hostile neighbors who would constantly threaten us and would make it a goal to attempt to conquer us once new borders were settled or somehow demarkaded and defending those borders would be exhausting. That is assuming a large war of secession did not result in reason number 3 below. 2. We would have to be self sustaining and supportive of one another in order to have any chance of survival, that smacks of functional Marxism for too many White secessionists (from what I gather) and so we would be a gaggle of individuals arguing over things like whose religion was the most correct and who should be included in the movement and who is a traitor, crypto Jews, etc., and probably kill each other off, or at least prepare us for reconquering. 3. If America broke up into two or more smaller states with no connections, instability in the entire world would result. A scramble for new advantages would ensue and large wars (not just one) would likely break out. Trade ties would collapse and large numbers of people would begin to starve and quickly grow desperate. The amount of nuclear weapons left about would likely lead to one - more likely many more being used. Aside from the nuclear threat, we would likely see common diseases become pandemics.
I forgot reason 4. 4. There would be no television, no sports, no NASCAR, no Hunting/Fishing network, no back yard barbecues, and no Nashville as is known today or yesterday.
Secession would likely result in a roll of the dice and more than likely result in a huge human catastrophe. But that has already been predicted by certain scientists/philosophers like Issac Asimov.
Think twice before indulging in secession fantascies.
Now, send me my $1,000.00.
“It does not have to be bloody, or even require excessive force, as a break-up might; it only requires a determined understanding that “freedom” for nonwhites has limits in the USA. These limits being, ‘live by our established rules and standards, or get out.’”
Posted by John PM at 9:25 PM on February 20
John PM, I love your ideas and they are well articulated. But, I’m afraid it won’t work now, that window closed with the death of the great Dr. Francis. I too, was an admirer of him. But the government is against us, as is 40% of our own people. What , other than secession, do we have left as tools to work with considering the circumstances? Racial nationalism would be a great starting point, as long as we have a sustainable power base to work from. And I really believe that racial nationalism was what Dr. Francis was talking about. Bottom line, we need a homeland. I would love nothing more than to retake the entire country. But, with the numbers working against us, is it possible? Congress and the White House will be no help what-so-ever. At least in my eyes, 21 states have or are in the process of giving the federal govt. notice that they are sovereigns. That is a positive move. As the movement progresses, more states will join, and give notice to the feds to cease and desist their absolute power grab. If the feds cut off federal funding, cut off all taxes paid to the federal govt. Regardless, something must happen, and soon.
@ John PM,
Well thats all well and done, but that cannot happen. It is an impossibility. I am an “American” and I hold no love for this morbid nation at all! I am for an all white nation in the Pacific Northwest.
Secession means handing over large tracts of American territory to mexico,china,india,pakistan and india. Or to put it another, China’s borders borders will extend a couple of hundred miles into OUR America. Who gets the miltary bases in California? Secession is infantile thinking. There has to be a plan to push post-1965 non-whites out of OUR America.
Secession offers the delusion of security and safety. But it is just that,a delusion
The purpose of this contest was to encourage thought and discussion, and by the looks of things here, it is already a success.
For John PM to say “I am a white man and an American, and this is my country, end of discussion!” is empty bravado unless a sufficient number of other people are willing to stand up and say it with you. It does not have to be a majority, but merely a sufficiently active and powerful minority.
The chances of bringing together a group like that sufficient to take back the whole United States strikes me as minimal. And if it did coalesce, then it would have to face the question of where to put 100 million nonwhites, some populations of which were here before we were.
The breakup of the United States would make help with both of these problems. Imagine that the US federal government collapsed like those of the USSR or Yugoslavia, and sovereignty reverted to the individual states. There would be a number of newly-sovereign states with virtually all-white populations. These states would no longer have Washington, New York, and Hollywood dictating their political, economic, and racial politics. In states like this, it might actually be possible to institute the policies necessary to save our race, whereas there is virtually no chance to do so in the present United States.
To Whiteplight: You need to look at what happened when the USSR and Yugoslavia broke up. There was some bloodshed, to the extent that secession and partition were resisted by locals and the international community, but nothing apocalyptic.
(1)Somehow the difficulties of demarcating and defending borders have not caused the nearly 200 nations in the world today to throw in the towel, and I do not think it would stop white men who wish to take control of their own destiny.
(2)It is not news that the large contingent of cranks and kooks in today’s racialist movement are an impediment to racial progress. Perhaps the movement needs to secede from them right now.
(3)Given the United States’ role in today’s world, the end of the US would probably make the world a safer and more stable place.
(4)Famine and pestilence are not held in abeyance by the all-wise Feds. NASCAR, BBQ, etc. do not flow from the Federal Government, unless you are a ward or employee of the Feds. All of these would continue in some form or another. But we have to face facts: people for whom these are the most important things in life are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I think a valid third party effort is needed to break the deadlock of the duopoly which invites domination by oligarchs and suffocates political dissent. I am concerned since by midcentury the consequences for our country of this latest binge of deficit spending will become clear. The debt service is going to be paid to sovereign wealth funds, not to “us” as it is usually described. A revolutionary situation will develop because all solutions proposed by the then-establishment will clearly be counterproductive, and make that extremely so. When we pay our taxes in the future, much of the wealth we consign over to the federal government will be shipped to overseas accounts of countries such as China who likely will be in fierce economic competition with us for remaining global markets and resources.
So the reason people will pay taxes then is …to hasten our demise? I don’t think so; and to prepare for that eventuality a powerful third party must be started now so there will be a legitimate channel for the ultimate dissent: secession. Our backs will absolutely be against the wall by then.
Reasons? Well,the federal government will have to resort to an army of Treasury Police to enforce acceptance and usage of the dollar in economic transactions, all of which will be subject to onerous value-added taxes. Additionally, in order to regularize the economy further there will be extensive wage and price controls once the inflation generated by this “stimulus” takes hold. This will of course result in a huge black market, in turn a further reason for policing of the economy in a soviet-style manner. Dissent will become linked to economic crime and will be outlawed.
But as I have said above the revolutionary situation may develop because the USA is a debtor nation; essentially a financial colony of the sovereign wealth funds of China and other holders of our TBills. Taxation, already onerous, will become unbearable in light of the fact that the collection of taxes itself will hasten our economic demise. The “original 13 colony” mentality will reassert itself. Prosperity will frankly be seen never to be realizable unless a re-ordering of the borders takes place to enable the productive to separate themselves and rid themselves of dollar debt.
Ergo, secession.
One thing I know. And I know it very well. The war for hearts and minds will not be won through rational thought or science. Much as Humans flatter themselves with such names as Homo Sapiens Sapiens, the reality is that the vast majority of Humans are highly emotional beings. We could have a million “Race Evolution and Behavior”s on our side but one “A Time to Kill” outweighs them all in the mind of the masses. We must appeal to emotions.
Mark’s post is excellent.
We will have no progress until whites realize that the United States is no longer “our country,” and has not been our country for a long, long time. We had a revolution when enough people realized that they could govern their own affairs for their own interests, rather than being governed for the interests of the British establishment.
Now white Americans are being taxed to support non-whites, our jobs are being exported to non-whites, we delay or limit or forgo reproduction because we are being forced to subsidize non-white reproduction, and our government and moneyed elite have sold us out, by turning our society into a colony of international capitalism.
If our race were to reestablish political control over the United States, we might be able to end non-white immigration and preferences, but we would still be stuck with a plutocracy that has sold us into debt servitude. White people deserve better than that.
To do better, we have to stop thinking like conservatives and think more like revolutionaries.
Why not figuratively liquidate the regime (or let it liquidate itself), repudiate the debt, and start from scratch? Why not seize the fortunes that have been made by dismantling the our industrial economy, and use it to recapitalize local industry? Why not create a host of new nations with greater racial homogeneity and more manageable sizes? Why not let the vast urban colonies of liberal whites and their pet non-whites fend for themselves, as independent city states?
I see no reason for piety over the Constitution. We can come up with a better one. White people create ordered liberty like blacks create chaos and tyranny: it is in our genes. Besides, the Constitution did nothing to prevent us from arriving at the present situation. If we were merely to turn back the clock 200 years, our descendants would be in the same mess 200 years from now.
Whether it’s secession or taking back America, there’s an urgent call to do something NOW. I joined the White Nationalist Movement in 1994 and the changes that have happened in the 15 years since have been astonishing. America as a nation is in decline, our culture is almost obliterated and our economy is in shambles.
I have to say that, although I agree with Dr. Francis for the most part, I have two disagreements with him:
1. I, like many others on this forum, think that secession is the only feasible option. We will lose quite a bit of land and pristine country, but it’s ultimately worth it.
2. I disagree with his contraception policies, as I think that they are immoral. We should not require people on welfare to be on contraception for a number of reasons, besides the moral ones.
Firstly, it simply wouldn’t be feasible—if a woman wants to become pregnant, she can do so—not to mention the fact that you’re asking a welfare woman to take her birth control pills systematically/dutifully—yeah right.
Secondly, even if you could find a way to get a woman to remain without child while she is on welfare, you’d end up punishing whites as well as nonwhites. The Romans called their poorest citizens “proletarii,” which comes from the Latin word “proles,” which means “offspring, descendant.” Anyone care to venture a guess as to why they would so name their poorest citizens? It’s because the proletarii’s only attraction was that they could produce Roman babies for the state—that was their sole duty as poor citizens.
I am a fairly well-off young guy, but even I am acquainted with (very) large white families who rely on the state for certain “gimmes”—and, quite frankly, I’m glad to give those gimmes to them since they’re white. After all, they are contributing white bodies to our society.
Also, only considering white people, the poorer a woman is, the more likely she is to have children. Therefore, by requiring white women to be on contraception while they are on welfare would actually decrease our own fertility rate.
Now, someone might object to this, saying: “But there are more nonwhites on welfare than whites. Therefore, such a policy would decrease the birthrate of nonwhites more than it would that of whites.” Granted. But let’s keep in mind that the birthrate of whites all around the world is already significantly below replacement level. This means that WE ARE ON OUR WAY TO EXTINCTION. We can’t afford to take many more hits on our own birthrate.
This, of course, ties into the idea of secession. The world is plenty big enough to hold a bunch more people, despite what the liberal population control experts say. Let them have their land, and we can have ours. Let them reproduce as they wish, and let us reproduce as we should.
Other more militant people might also say that we could simply only require nonwhites on welfare to be on contraception. Indeed, Dr. Francis thought that we should encourage nonwhites to be on contraception.
With all due respect to the eminent scholar, this makes no sense—that is to say, it makes no sense to have such an overt policy that specifically targets the reproduction of a race, but at the same time, expect to live with (any of) them peacefully in one society. Wouldn’t it be easier just to secede and not live with them in one society?
But, morally speaking, if we are to succeed, we have to have principles, and those principles cannot be merely mundane. We have to instill in our people a reason to go on, and that reason cannot be only aesthetic, earthly, or, as a more cynical man might say, nostalgic.
As for you who think that birth control is not immoral: It would do you well to consider this question: How can a (white) traditional Roman Catholic ideally live in a society that he shares with a (white) pagan? How can a (white, for the sake of argument) Muslim live harmoniously in society with a (white) quasi-liberal Protestant? I ask these questions because we have to agree on what’s right and what’s wrong before we can be successful. In other words, we have to overcome our own diversities before we can overcome things like racial diversity.
To criticize other people is to invite criticism of ones self. This fact is central to the denial we see about inter- as well as intra-racial differences.
Whites however, have the most to be proud of. If we remind the upper as well as the lower class whites of this fact, they will be less afraid to criticize others and get down to the truth of the matter. Also, they will be less afraid to stand up for our race.
Present them with facts and statistics that they do not hear in the multicultural media machine. Encourage them to confront their own fears of inadequacy so they will not be devestated when angry multiculturalists (among others) call them out.
Also, we must either persuade controlers of the mainstream media to advocate for white nationalism or we must become the mainstream media.
This will help us reach a far wider audience than we currently do.
People with only limited experience of diversity are vulnerable to whatever they think polite society will allow them to believe. If television advocates a point of view all the time over several decades, then many will be inclined to follow it.
Our efforts to convert others should first focus on influential people who can reach large audiences as well as soldiers willing to stand up and defend the white nationalist cause.
I believe a non-white deportation order, enforced by the military will the the only way to create a true white nationalist society!
This will not be an easy path but with persistance we will cast off the non-white burden imposed upon white nations by greed, force, fear and propaganda.
Great article, Great idea, Great posts! Personally, I think everyone should contribute an essay, even if we can’t write all that well, just to show our support and to bring ourselves closer to the issue at hand through direct participation.
First - one thing the comments have made certain is that the first question to be settled is Secession or Reconquest (I don’t like that last word but it’ll serve for now).
Second - another important point that emerges from the comments is something that, though initially a bit disturbing, could actually help us to sit up straight in our seats, so to speak and really take this thing very seriously. And that is - it is very possible that none of this is going to end very well. That this crisis might not have a happy ending. In short, it’s make or break time and we have got to be in to win.
For now though one thing is sure;
I believe is was Steve Sailer who defined Race as an extended family. So, then, a good question would be “What is the state of the Family today - specifically that of Whites?
I think strategic thinking should be on the question:
“What Can We Do To Wake Up Our Fellow Whites?”
That is the essay contest I would like to see.
It can start with little things like tee-shirts and bumper stickers, and letters to newspaper editors. But there have to be more powerful approaches . . .
@Anonymous / 8:34
I think you are completely wrong about contraception politics.
First, it’s not just white skin which we should care about, but civilization and culture, therefore it’s extremely important who has children and who doesn’t.
Actually you hear something like “the poorer a woman is, the more likely she is to have children” quite often, and it’s always presented as an universal law of nature, which is completely wrong. Throughout history it was almost always the smart, rich and industrious who had the most children - that was actually the reason why we were able to get past the stone age and build civilization.
Only in periods of decay (and when you talk about the proletarii in Rome you talk about such a period of decay) this is reversed. And it cannot go on forever: If a couple can only survive with subsidies, it’s pretty likely that on average their children will be similar. If those people become more in every generation, they will need more subsidies every generation - sooner or later the whole system breaks down, which is exactly what happened in Rome and which will happen in the Western world probably before 2020.
Second, the main reason why intelligent people have so few children is that they are forced to sacrifice themselves for the poor. The whole non-white welfarism is just an extension to this theme. Now I’m all for welfare for those who had bad luck (a family who lost their father because he was killed in a car accident is the most typical example which is happening literally every day.) but this must be strictly voluntary, therefore strictly private.
Before the welfare state, intelligent Whites had enough children.
The welfare state has caused this period of decay we are in. It must be destroyed before it destroys us.
I would love to be in a position to contribute whatever I could in order to accomplish a return to what we had and what we SHOULD have. But the problem I see for myself, and likely also for JewAmongYou is: will us non-Christian whites be allowed? Do some of you even consider us white?
Or will the movement be bogged down with “who is white enough”? I say leave that nonsense to the race pimps.
I am both Jewish, and one other type much vilified on this site by people who pigeonhole people by what they are, not who they are.
I also have a love of, and a longing for, what this country was, and would like to have it back. A return to the low crime rates, ability to walk or drive the streets in relative safety, live in a neighborhood for the remainder of my life without it going into decline. A society of people who can articulate their thoughts without resorting to gutter language. One where I am not told what car I will drive or how many gallons of water can flow out of the kitchen tap.
Will you allow my kind to help bring back what is rightfully ours? I’m more than ready.
Kudos to so many of you for the exceptional commentary and analysis. This is one of the most rousing set of postings I’ve read anywhere. Thanks to all.
Just a few thoughts:
To RdC:
Thanks for your response. I appreciate your opinions.
You say: “First, it’s not just white skin which we should care about, but civilization and culture…” What civilization? What culture? The Jonas Brothers? Sex, drugs, and rock ‘n roll? Modern art (which is dominated by white males, by the way)? 1.7 children per woman? Diversity of religion (which means, by definition, that there are more than one culture/civilization)? Feminism? Environmentalism? Animal Rights Movements? Because if that’s the civilization that you want to preserve or secede to, you can count me out.
As for your second point, I’m not an historian. However, it is a sociological fact that, right now, at least, women who live in America and who have little education and financial resources have more children than women who have more education and financial resources. I suggest you look into a book called “The Bell Curve” if you need further proof of this.
You say: “Only in periods of decay (and when you talk about the proletarii in Rome you talk about such a period of decay) this is reversed.” This is simply not true. The proletarii were known throughout Rome’s existence for providing a great stock of new citizens for the state. Again, this was the case even in Rome’s rise and peak.
Also, I must say that I simply disagree with your neo-liberal, capitalist mentality. The reason why a substantial number of good, hardworking (white, if you prefer) people are on welfare is because of the greedy financial elite. Ultimately, if the greedy financial elite are going to acquire a stranglehold on all the wealth, they are going to have to either kill the excess poor people, or they are going to have to provide them handouts.
You say: “Second, the main reason why intelligent people have so few children is that they are forced to sacrifice themselves for the poor.” Again, not true. The “main reason” why intelligent people have so few children is because they’re selfish. Period. When I look out my apartment window and see all the luxurious cars drive by my window, I realize just how good people have it (financially, at least) in this country. When I see all the young adults with their laptops, ipods, video games, movies, etc., etc., I simply cannot help but be led to the conclusion that people simply don’t want children. Children cut into their relaxing evenings, their expensive dinners, their toned bodies, their hopes of purchasing a nice house, nice car, boat, etc. With all due respect, I think that it’s pretty clear why the upper-class, intelligent people don’t have children, and the reason ain’t what you say it is.
Greg Johnson
Secession is infantile idea. Anyone who thinks that secession is a serious idea is ignoring a massive amount of reality. Secession will result in the borders of China, Mexico,Paksitan,India, the Muslim Word and Korea extending deep inside America. This should be patently obvious. How would this make Native Born White Americans more secure is beyond my comprehension. Previous posters in this thread have pointed out some of them non-trivial complications and problems with secession.
There is a very deep point that you and other secessionists seem to be oblivious to and it is this:White Nationailist are suppose to encourage their fellow White Amerians to FIGHT BACK!!!! WE are suppose to set an example of uncompromising resistance. WE are not suppose to offer and encourage surrender option.
In the strongest possible terms, I oppose sitting down with representaves of the chinese,muslims,hispanics,african, hindu and pakistani race-based nation states within the borders of America having a discussion as to how far china’s borders should extend into America. Do you not have any fightng spirit within you?
Resistance to post-1965 immigrants has grown significantly since 1990. To be honest,it is a night and day difference. Obviously, the level and intensity of the revolt against the invasion has a long way to go. Catastrophic events will shatter many illusions and expose the double standard in a far more powerfull and dramatic way than all the warnings of catastrophe that have come from the White Nationalist and immigration reform movements over the past years.
The combination of White Secession and a rapidly growing non-white population in the raced -based microstaes on the boundary of the White Homelands will create an unstable and explosive situation within the borders of the former USA. Think about the different scenarios. Whites will have a smaller living space. What if the White population starts to increase in this reduced territory. There will be massive stress on ecosystems. The amenties will be lost. National and State Parks within the reduced territory of Native Born White Americans will be paved over so as to provide middle class housing for Native Born White Americans. There will be severe-there already is in the Southern states. It will eventually fell very overcrowded in the reduced living space of Nativ Born White Americans. Existence in the White Homelands will become hellish. These are the scenarios I hsve written many times before on this website. Sprawl is rapidly creeping out from Charlotte towards both Ashville and towards Boone. Moreover, where is the H20 to sustain a growing Native Born White population in the South suppose to come from? In the non-white areas of the former America ,one can say with 100 percent certainty that there will be a massive ecological catastrophe. It is infantile to think that the White areas of the former America will be unaffected.
It is also treasonous to advocate- as Clyde Wilson has recently advocated- handing over American territory to Mexico,China,India,Pakistan,Korea and the Muslim world.
America is going to break up anyway no matter what we do or
“The choice is yours: to go or wait.”
I used this analogy from Tolkiens great trilogy The Lord of the Rings. For it seems that we have reached a similiar point in time. This seemed appropriate to me.
I read great arguments here at Amren for and against the subject of seccession. Some very astute minds here!
What will the central gov’t do? I am sure that they will not allow this to happen. They need the tax base. washington also seems bent on the subjugation of our people. Any attempt at seperation will probably result in bringing the full force of the post american govt. and military to bear against us.
What a confused state of affairs!
Maybe a partial combination of seperation and reconquest, combining the most viable parts of each.
Keep trying may brothers and sisters at Amren.
I continue to be astonished at the number of white nationalists who claim that seccession is an unreasonable pipe dream yet claim that white’s should “take back the country” as a whole.
I, for one, am not interested in world conquest. I simply want a nation, even a small one, were I can live out my days in peace and know that my children will grow up in a safe culture that represents their ethnic identity. The quest for global domination is what got us into this mess to begin with.
In my opinion, the best option currently available is an independent South. The region already has a history of independence and most whites here are, at least implicitly, racially conscious. After the South secedes, the blacks here will most likely flee north rather than live in a nation with no welfare state and a strict criminal justice system that reflects the will of the majority white Southern population.
Unlike some posters, I think the creation of a state like Aztlan will be greatly beneficial to our cause. Most of the nation’s Hispanics will be isolated in the newly created nation. There will be a corresponding crackdown on illegal immigration in the remaining U.S. which does not bode well for Hispanics because most of them outside of the Southwest are illegal. Also, large numbers of white trapped in Aztlan will flee towards the U.S., increasing the percentage of America made up of whites.
Not only will seccession create new white homelands on this continent, it will also give us a chance to watch the socialists whites live with the mess they’ve created. When they come crawling to get into our new nations, I say seal the border. They’ve made their bed, now they can lay in it.
“…a powerful third party must be started now.
Is it possible? We’d be fighting the likes of powerful, massively funded organizations such as the SPLC, ACLU, ADL, JDL along with the Justice Department—those who forcefully prevent our organizing at the present time and would happily prosecute, bankrupt and destroy our lives in the name of Hate Crimes and trying to foment a Fourth Reich.
And the Federal Government is about to become a whole lot more powerful.
“…Reasons? Well,the federal government will have to resort to an army of Treasury Police to enforce acceptance and usage of the dollar in economic transactions…”
Mark, I wanted to thank you for the most brilliant post of the entire week, and I couldn’t agree more.
Along with the things you mentioned, I believe there will be gold confiscation, gun confiscation, enaction of the Fairness Doctrine, censorship of the Internet, federal regulations to prevent the movement of money out of the US, a new ID system requiring the government’s permission to travel internally—along with coming riots and violence, lots of violence. Is it any wonder we often write here about arming ourselves while it is still possible along with the best ways to hide our gold and guns?
Martial law will be declared and there have been reports of an internal, government-sponsored militia being formed to deal with the coming Civil Unrest.
All in the name of increasing the government’s power over our lives. We are not emulating the failed USSR, we are becoming the USSR with all its attendant horrors.
Bon
I typed thousands of words, and erased them several times before finally settling on these. I don’t really know why, but I think it’s because I’m tired of saying it over and over.
I fear for our people. I fear what I will eventually have to do. But most of all I fear that many who say they are with me will be gone when I act.
I am not a public speaker. I am not a leader by nature, even though my career forces me to be. I plan for possibilities; Especially life altering ones. I lay in waiting for it to happen. And I truly believe that a great majority of our people do the same without ever mentioning it.
I am still waiting for a leader.
Brian G.
The reason white people have this self loathing is because over the last fifty years the communists have slowly taken over the agents of change. They have taken over the media and the schools, and particularly the journalism schools. The news media is infested with self loathing whites. This is not by accident. The level of programming a young white person is subjected to in their first 22 years of life is hard to overcome, but not impossible. Most of us on this forum were probably subjected to this same propaganda, but as we became adults reality hit us in the face. We quickly decided we didn’t want to live in the multicultural suburb, and left it at that. With years and age however, came wisdom and the idea slowly grew that race is real; and that we want to be with our own kind, and we needn’t feel quilt about it.
In the 70’s there was a made for TV movie “Roots”, which kicked white guilt into high gear, and at the same time inspired blacks to a greater racial identity than they previously had.
What we need is a sort of stealth version of “Roots” for white people. An outright racial statement would of course be ruthlessly censored, but a well done movie or book with an underlying theme of the white races’ accomplishments and likely future demise might work.
Interesting, I seemed to have created some “buzz” with my Friday comments and my support for Dr. Fancis’s position. Well, I am glad that at the very least I have stimulated some debate on this topic here at AR, if for nothing else, since it could potentially not only impact us soon, but a vast number of future generations to come.
To Question Diversity, regarding:
“Whites are going to need to think of themselves as whites if they/we have any chance at the punitive ostracism strategy. To get that, I would gladly take a month, hell just a day. Anything FUBU (For Us By Us).”
I think you make an interesting point here and I do not disagree with it out of hand. However, I would like to ask you if might not this point have become somewhat moot, if a large majority of whites did suddenly begin to think of themselves as the collective and unquestioned dominate racial group of the USA again, as we once did barely 60 years ago?
Just a thought.
To Anonymous at 11:03 PM on February 20, regarding:
“Secession seems to be the only viable option. Force these stupid Whites to go live among their precious minorities.”
And it may well be?
I just don’t think that it has come to that yet, or that things are as bleak as you currently see them. Indeed, this election was an utter shock to me as well; I honestly was so upset about seeing this “magic” mulatto and his comrades in the Democratic Party win, that I threw up when the results were clear on election night. But, another hard fact is, that whites still do make up about 65% of the total population, some 200 million people. Moreover, Comrade BO has a lot of work to do and even if he does it well, it is not a given that he will reap any rewards for it. From what I have seen so far of his (and his congressional comrades’)
If in four years we are still: in a “deep recession,” suffering from an increasing inflation, and deeper in debt, what then?
Perhaps, a vast majority of whites will have a different kind of wake up call?
To white man, regarding:
“You seem to be confused John as to whose country it actually is. That surprises me with you being from Detroit Michigan - er, used to be in Detroit Michigan.”
I am not sure what you exactly meant by that WM?
Are you referring to the general blackness and chaos of the city, as being representative of the country as a whole; or are you questioning my cynicism as an ex-Detroiter?
Just wondering and sorry if I am missing something WM.
To Anonymous at 8:29 AM on February 21, regarding:
“At least in my eyes, 21 states have or are in the process of giving the federal govt. notice that they are sovereigns.”
Two quick questions Anonymous,
1.) Just wondering which states do you see doing this? I know that: Texas, Alaska, and Hawaii all do have active independence movements, but which are the other 18 that you see as moving in this direction?
2.) Are you the same Anonymous 11:03 PM on February 20?
To Nicholas, regarding:
“Well thats all well and done, but that cannot happen. It is an impossibility. I am an ‘American’ and I hold no love for this morbid nation at all! I am for an all white nation in the Pacific Northwest.”
Just wondering, how long do you think it would take for nonwhites to try and enter that “all white nation in the Pacific Northwest,” that you advocate? How long before what remained of this multicultural and “morbid nation,” tried to force that new “all white nation” to accept them in along with Mexico and Canada, and God only knows who else on the world stage, like the EU or that Red fools’ parde that is the UN?
That is just something to ponder.
And finally to Mr. Greg Johnson, regarding:
1.) “The chances of bringing together a group like that sufficient to take back the whole United States strikes me as minimal. And if it did coalesce, then it would have to face the question of where to put 100 million nonwhites, some populations of which were here before we were.”
As I have noted above, the USA remains about 65% white and we are entering into uncertain times to be sure, with the current jackass pack in the White House and the US Congress. It is neither “empty bravado” or unreasonable to speculate that a significant white backlash could begin to form in this country, that has had enough of the Marxist/multicultural “ideal.” With such a popular backlash, you could see a serious “restructuring” (or even the implosion) of the current rainbow: political, media, and business establishments’ triad and the beginnings of a white “Reconquest” movement.
Along with this, overtime, it would not be impossible to end nonwhite immigration into the USA, or establish conduct and population restrictions on the 100 million of them currently living here as well. It would also remain essentially a country based on freedom of choice and thus, a significant number of them could voluntarily leave, if they found our race’s new standards and laws “intolerable.”
This is as equally possible as speculating that:
“The breakup of the United States would make help with both of these problems. Imagine that the US federal government collapsed like those of the USSR or Yugoslavia, and sovereignty reverted to the individual states. There would be a number of newly-sovereign states with virtually all-white populations…”
Both of our questions/solutions ask a rather large “if” Mr. Johnson, and within that “if” are an even greater number of permutations and/or evolutions.
All the best to all of you,
John PM!
Jupiter-It’s a done deal friend. Our local Global Elite
Again, I am pleased to see that merely announcing this contest already has people thinking and talking about the pros and cons of secession for ensuring the future of the white race on this continent.
I have several comments.
First, as to the charges that secession or taking back America as a whole are utopian pipe-dreams, I think that clearly secession is more likely to save our race than keeping the US intact and somehow taking it over and rectifying its policies.
But beyond that, none of us should be intimidated by the charge of utopian dreaming, since most of what happens in human affairs was first imagined or “dreamed” by someone. We are not going to save our race without imagining concrete, workable alternatives to the system that is killing us. The world is full of naysayers, so there is no need to install one in your own head, to stifle your imagination and strangle your brainchildren in the cradle.
Second, secession will probably not be feasible if the US Federal government is at full strength. But it might happen if the central government is paralyzed by an overwhelming crisis or series of crises. Governments fail all the time. A rather large number have failed in the past century. The most spectacular collapses in recent history are the USSR and Yugoslavia. A little further back, we have the collapse of the British, French, Portuguese, and Dutch colonial empires. Before that, we saw the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, German, and Russian empires.
Third, a glance at the results of the recent presidential election broken down county by county are quite remarkable. The Democratic areas of the country are far smaller than the Republican. The largest concentrations of non-whites map out almost exactly on the majority Democrat counties. If white America were simply to slough off those areas, somewhat like Malaysia simply cut loose Singapore with its Chinese majority, whites would retain the vast majority of the US landmass, including the vast majority of its natural resources and watersheds.
Fourth, wouldn’t it have been a wonderful world if New England went through with its threats of secessions before the Civil War? When Bush II was re-elected, I remember Democrats whining that the Blue states should secede. My reaction was: Let them! Because the same liberals would be calling for nuclear war if the red states secede, lest they discriminate against some of their pets. If white nationalism actually begins to gain some traction in the country, perhaps the non-whites, liberals, etc. will take their toys and secede from us. A beatific vision!
Finally, to the charge that secession is treason: My race is my nation, not the United States. The United States is a system that is killing my race. Loyalty to that system is treason to the race.
“Why not figuratively liquidate the regime (or let it liquidate itself), repudiate the debt, and start from scratch? Why not seize the fortunes that have been made by dismantling the our industrial economy, and use it to recapitalize local industry? Why not create a host of new nations with greater racial homogeneity and more manageable sizes? Why not let the vast urban colonies of liberal whites and their pet non-whites fend for themselves, as independent city states?
I see no reason for piety over the Constitution. We can come up with a better one. White people create ordered liberty like blacks create chaos and tyranny: it is in our genes. Besides, the Constitution did nothing to prevent us from arriving at the present situation. If we were merely to turn back the clock 200 years, our descendants would be in the same mess 200 years from now.”
(End quote)
‘Next American Revolution,’ as to your first paragraph. Until we name the name and call the blame for those that gave us fractional reserve banking in the first place, we can NEVER ‘start from scratch’. Strangely enough, that unwillingness to call as “Other” that first group, is guaranteed us by the second paragraph of your comment, in which you say the Constitution is not worth saving.
Hardly. If we had followed the proscriptions given us by the Founding Fathers over matters such as gold and silver coinage, and allowing Congress to do her job, as well as the concept (enduring) of ‘3/5ths a person’ before Lincoln’s megalomania, we would never have gotten to this mess in the first place! Emancipation and a Central Bank were never features envisioned by Washington, Adams, Jefferson, etc.!
However, i will say, that for such tepid talking as goes on at this site, the fact that the ‘Obamanation’ has woken up a bunch of you sleepers, is verified by the fact that such honesty as this one entry displays, would never have been seen, before last November!
For that much, God bless you all, who are of the race that calls upon the name of the Lord, and His Messiah. You know who you are….now if you can just see who are Obama’s ‘handlers,’ we might be on the road to recovery.
Anonymos at 4:39
Here is the blueprint for reclamation:
1)complete shut own of immgration,right down to 0
2)mass deportation of illegal aliens
3)Get rid of the muslims
4)get rid of the Indian,Chinese and Pakistan an fifth column. This includes most of the Indian,Pakistan and Chinese fifth column. If asians are perceived as working aggressively to advance their racial interests at the expense of Native Born White interests-under the right circunstances-they will be encourged to leave.
On 9/11, the lid of civility came off White America. The asians were terrified. They were terrified of being rounded up and deported. Their terror was justified. Native Born White Americans were in such a nasty mood that it freaked out the Bush administration. The Bush admistration acted fast to stem the massive tide of zenophobia. Right after 9/11, the Bush adminstration brought dozens of leaders from the muslim community to do photo ops with Jorge Bush. This was Bush’s attempt to embrace the muslim community as fellow Americans. The Bush adminstration was very lucky. If one of American Airline jets had slammed into Indian point power plant along the Hudson, the backlash against muslims and asians would have been unstopable.
In the weeks after 9/11 there was also a vicious backlash against asians. At tech companies, hindus were recieving vicious anonymous hate mail from their Native Born White coworkers. The hindus were so traumatized by this, that the tech companies were forced to hire clinical psychologists to counsel the traumatized hindus.
The lid of civility came off very briefly on 9/11. Under the right circumstances, it will impossible to put the lid back on.
There is enormous pent up rage and anger towards asians and muslims in America. Secession is surrunder. It is also foolish. I will not sit down repesentatives from from the hispanic,asian,muslim and african community to dicuss the terms of surreender. I want a very large ocean between America and…china,india,pakistan,the muslim world and korea.
If you have ever voted for the Republican party, you voted for the death of Native Born White America. No excuses for foolishness.
Both Ron Paul and the Libertarians are on on board with the racial dispossession of Native Born White Americans. For the kook Ron Paul and his fellow Libertarians, America is reducible to free market transactions. Very strange characters, aren’t they.
“America as a whole will NEVER be a white nation again”
Sir, America was NEVER a white nation. At many times in our history their were more non-whites than whites. Now, if you were from England or Germany you would have an argument. Over their the natives are Sitting Bull…
Eric the Red
In previous post I have called for a Cordon sanitaire policy. Seal of the borders. Let the non-white parts of California rot and rot and rot. After that self-deportation.
Greg Johnson
The continued existence of Euro-Americans will even less secure if china,india,pakistan,korea and the muslims world extend their borders one thousand miles deep into America. In effect, Euro-Americans will be encircled. The non-white areas of the nation will experience experience population growth. There will be large scale ecosystem destruction,plagues…you name it. With a very large ocean between US and THEM…WE are and have been protected from this.. It is infantile to think that the White areas will be protected from the violence,disease and chaos right next door. Also…what if Native Born White Amerians get over their cognitive dissonance and decide that they want their country back from sea to shinning sea? It is not to difficult to imagine the conditions that would provoke this new way of thinking.
Secession would result in the loss of trillins of dollars of military,industrial,technological educational infrastructure that took many years to pay for and build. Native Born White Americans will experience a rapid decline in their standard of living in the overcrowded White areas. You and your fellow secessionist think you can just snap your fingers and recreate this infrastrucure in the White territory. You and the other secessionist clearly have not given any consideration to the real world consequences of secession for the larger Euro-American family. And don’t assume that the vast majority of White Southerners would be interested in being reduced to feudal serfs and right-to-work wage slaves ruled over by Southern Men of means(the type of society Clyde Wilson is enamoured of). I do not trust secessionists.
I’ve got a question. What would we secede to? Would our country be Catholic, Protestant, or pagan? Would our new society have a dominant religion? If so, would the dominant religion be expected to tolerate minority religions?
What would be our social mores? Would we tolerate homosexual behavior, pornography, sex outside of marriage, contraception, abortion, etc.? Would we have feminism?
I think it’s pretty important to come to solid conclusions about these issues before we even start to think about seceding. If we can’t all agree on most (if not all) of the aforementioned questions, we can forget about being successful.
John PM:
I agree, it’s a moot point. If whites think of themselves as whites and act in their best interest as a group, and unload this pity mentality towards other groups and races, then we can have what we want — not just one state or 21 states, but all 50 states. In fact, a good chunk of the world. If we don’t have this mentality, then we’ll get partitioned down to 0 states.
I think what Jupiter and Whiteplight mean when they state that secession is “infantile” is that secession for the sake of racial surrender is infantile. I don’t know if they necessarily mean that the American secession from the British Empire in 1776 or that the Confederate secession from America in 1860 was infantile, in those instances it involves white people creating another new white country.
Greg Johnson:
I was waiting for someone to mention this. When you look at the red/blue map by county, you see a vast ocean of red. The blue is limited to a few splotches here and there. Take home point: there is a vast white hinterland out there, stretching from sea to shining sea. On a planet that is overwhelmingly non-white, it seems insane to cede and abandon, from the get go, this vast white hinterland.
Maybe things will indeed shake out in such a way that we only end up with a small homeland, but we certainly should strive for more. Much more is attainable. Again, I encourage people to look at the map if they have not already done so. It’s an eye opener. Particular shockers are the vast red hinterlands in “solidly” blue states like Oregon, Washington, Minnesota and others. And people shouldn’t fall for the line that the South is mostly black. It isn’t. Even in the relatively few black belt counties where whites are the minority, populations are small. More blacks live in New York state than live in Alabama. Or Mississippi. Or both combined for that matter. We keep the South.
I realize that the Republican Party has been an absolute disaster for white people on this continent. It has zero credibility with me, and it needs to go. However, I would still maintain that the red areas of the country serve, however imperfectly, as a rough proxy for where our ideas are more likely to gain support and traction - or where implicit support for our views already exists.
So what we might end up seeing is a sort of “force the other guy to secede.” We take back the bulk of the continent which is covered by the vast red hinterland, while leaving parts of the West Coast and pretty much the entire northeast (BosWash corridor in particular)for the libs/non-whites. A common expression is “Well, you can’t expect to be given downtown Manhattan.” We’re generous: let’s give them downtown Manhattan, but we take flyover country. The libs aren’t invested in flyover country anyway - why cede it to them? If the SHTF, is the typical lib going to want to hang out in rural Alabama, or head to Boston or San Francisco? The question answers itself. Always leave your opponent a way out. In the BosWash corridor, he’ll have one.
Another point is this: do we really want to secede and leave a vast multi-cult powerhouse, armed to the teeth with nuclear and biological weapons? No thanks. It seems likely that in order for whites to survive on this continent, we need to control most of the landmass. Fortunately, with the vast red (white) hinterland, such a possibility exists. So don’t get me wrong, if it comes down to a small homeland, I say great. I’ll take what I can get. But we need to think bigger. The Left thinks big, and we should too.
We don’t need to be thinking about what hole we can slink away into, we need to be making our own selves stronger and getting other whites to be stronger.
I wonder if thinking about secession doesn’t spring partly just from a desire to continue our comfy existence (in some safe territory) that we became accustomed to for several decades in the good old U.S.A.
Those times are GONE.
If I had children or grandchildren, I’d be wanting to move them to some safe place too, but there is no safe place, and maybe the time has come to start training them to be warriors.
One can feel the relationship to one’s race wherever one is, and in whatever circumstances. In white areas all over the world there is white racial resistance to what is happening to our race.
Any new organizing of whites that isn’t fashioned primarily on how to better fight back against what is happening to us all over the world is doomed to destruction. There isn’t and won’t be any safe place to run and hide.
“I simply want a nation, even a small one, were I can live out my days in peace and know that my children will grow up in a safe culture that represents their ethnic identity.” (Posted by Anonymous at 4:39 PM on February 22)
Sorry, ain’t gonna’ happen!
(But I agree with your critique of why intelligent whites are having few children—mainly, they’d rather have lifestyle goodies. Or—my thought—they feel they would be poor parents if they can’t supply those same goodies, and assurance of a safe and comfortable life, to their children.
What kind of planet do such folk imagine they are living on?? Not one bloody in fang and claw, I guess. At this point we should be wanting to raise warriors, not cosseted seekers of creature comforts.)
I can’t figure out why my previous comments against secession weren’t published but there’s more to be said. The posters on this board who say we have to abandon America because it’s destroying our race are no different than the superficial Leftists who mistake the corrupt, self-selected elite for the whole country. By these posters logic the Spnaish should have abandoned Spain because of the corrupt, self-selected Moorish elite; by thier logic the Greeks should have abandoned Greece because of the corrupt, self-selected Turkish elite.
For 40 years people like these posters have been saying that our enemies are too powerful, that our country has too many non-whites to retake the whole thing; even 40 years ago when America was 90% white they were saying this; in that case Nick Griffin and the BNP should give up saving all of Britian because thier only 90% white. Secession will be the final declaration of defeat and the final testament of a “movement” that’s been too scared and lazy to retake our whole country. Our forefathers shouldn’t have bothered expanding beyond the 13 Colonies because we’re not even bothering to retake it. We’re unworthy of the heritage they passed down to us.
The secession movement must first convince the majority of whites that race is more than a “social contruct” and that the white race is a unique biological entity worth preserving. How can you possibly talk of the white race separating itself when most whites don’t believe they are worth saving or are members of a group with special traits?
Win back the minds first, win back the machines of indoctrination first- the schools, the media, the arts. This is how the left did it, but it remains to be seen if we have the time. A nation can survive wars, famine, bad laws and bad systems(think Russia) but a nation cannot survive demographic extinction.
I’m convinced that at the beggining of the cold war the Soviets looked at the US and said we cannot beat their combination of religion, culture and genes; we must destroy them from within. All of the major social movements of the last sixty years have aimed at the destruction of traditional American values. If Martin King’s records are ever unsealed they will reveal the extent of communist involvment in the civil rights movement.
For the last twenty years we have believed we won the cold war, but which country now has a more free economic system? Russia does. Which world leader last week lectured the US on the dangers of a centralized controlled economy and that however painful, failed enterprises must be left to fail? Vladimir Putin.
They planted the seeds of this cultural cancer sixty years ago, and have since moved on to embrace the ideals of the country they sought to destroy. We are now in a life or death struggle with the ideas they have abandoned.
To Mr. Greg Johnson, regarding:
“Fourth, wouldn’t it have been a wonderful world if New England went through with its threats of secessions before the Civil War?”
A very interesting point, particularly when considering that the states in New England hoping to do this (in reaction to the election of Andrew Jackson as US President in 1828) had also hoped to enlist England’s help and form a country with Canada. Given Old Hickory’s role in the War of 1812, one can only wildly guess at what his reaction to that might have been?
Moreover, it is interesting that the Red freaks in the coastal “blue states” did propose forming a country with Canada again in 2004, when they suggested their “break away.”
Do we have some of the echoes of history here?
All the best sir,
John PM!
The notion that a select number of whites (in the upper Northwest or elsewhere) will eventually break away from the United States and create an “ethnostate” is delusional. It is a worthless exercise and a complete waste of time to devote one’s creative energies to some blind-alley thought experiment that will simply never materialize.
John PM’s analysis is quite right. As the first editor of The Occidental Quarterly (who worked closely with our first book editor Sam Francis) I can safely say that Sam’s views are accurately summarized by John PM. In fact the first publisher of TOQ was enthusiastic about the prospect of seccession, which prompted a heated exchange with Sam Francis. Sam concluded that we tried this and not only failed, but lost over 600,000 white Americans as a result. A vigorous seccession movement would be smashed by federal authorities.
The idea that whites will collectivelly form a political region in the U.S. and will gain political leverage to secceed from that union is simply nonsense. Sam Francis knew that such an exercise was a waste of time.
The American trait that makes us least lovable to foreigners is the chauvinistic conviction that “We’re number one!” Most Americans really think this is the greatest country on earth, even though by every objective measure of well-being we are not number one. And where we are number one, it is often nothing to be proud of: number one in incarcerations, number one in destructive capacity, number one in global interventionism, number one is arrogance.
This chauvinism actually makes American patriotism a very brittle thing. The majority of people on this globe love their homelands even though they are not imperial superpowers with nuclear arsenals. But can Americans still love their country if it is not number one?
I think that this sort of chauvinism, perhaps largely unconsciously, is structuring this discussion. What I am hearing from some posters is the inability of Americans to even conceive of being part of a society that is smaller and weaker than the United States. Anything less than a nuclear superpower seems non-feasible, even though most existing countries, including the best of them—the true number ones in terms of human well-being—fit this description.
Now, I would like any white successor nation to the US to be as big, and as rich, and as powerful as possible. Trainspotter is right: we might as well think big. But that does not mean that a smaller, poorer state bereft of nuclear arms is simply not feasible. And if I had to trade size, wealth, power, etc. for the salvation of my race, I would not hesitate to do so.
If white, red-county America took control of its destiny from liberal/minority blue county America, and sloughed off the urban centers of diversity and decadence, this would have tremendous social benefits for white America, and we should to everything we can to maintain the existence of these city states. Every healthy and sanitary house needs a working sewer, and a fringe of liberal, multi-cultural coastal city states would serve an analogous purpose: as a permanent place to drain away unhealthy elements from the body politic of America’s white successor state.
I’ve neither the time nor the talent to enter the contest, but to throw a few suggestions out there… it is not only Whites who want to separate, but the other Races as well; for example, the Hispanics with their notion of Aztlan, and Farakhan’s bunch the Black Muslims, the Hawaiians are already making noise about secessionist movements, and I’m sure the various Native American tribes would leap at the chance to get a homeland or homelands, not to mention various Asian groups, who have no more desire to live amongst each other than they do in their own homelands.
Yep, count me in among those who also think it’s time to go ahead and toss in the towel on the US. No more “Pledge of Allegiance,” no more “Star Spangled Banner,” no more “God Bless America,” no more “Statue of Liberty,” etc. etc. etc. Who among us who frequent this site here really feels that these truly define who we are anymore anyway? As others have noted, MY people come from Canada, Australia, England, most of the European countries, and personally speaking I will stand shoulder-to-shoulder beside a like-minded Jew any day.
Sadly, however, as others have noted, realistically, I think any “White-only homeland” would never work. Assorted quibbles among the more “militant” minded to exclude one particular group or another particular group as somehow “not White enough” would lead to the whole idea … and then the new nation itself… falling apart. Russians? Yes or no? What about Hungarians? Romanians? Someone mentioned Michelle Malkin…. well, what about like-minded Asians? Or does it mean only ethnic “Whites”? How about Blond-haired, blue-eyed Croatians? Wait, remember they’re Muslim! And that’s a whole other can of worms right there. See, it starts getting complicated real quick. Herein lies… and will always lie… the Achilles Heel of any realistic pursuit of a “White Homeland.”
Separate States and collective, across the board racial and ethnic voluntary emigration then, while maintaining the facade of the “United” States? Nebraska, for example all White, and, say, California, all Mexican… since it largely already is? Washington State, all Asian? And so on? Herein lies the absolute failure of multi-culturalism anywhere, anytime, forever, friends. And herein will lie the inevitable and inescapable failure of the United States… perhaps within our lifetime (60% odds?… bets anyone?), but absolutely within our children’s lifetime (100%… if it would make a difference, I’d bet the house on it). And it ain’t a-gonna be a pretty site at all when the whole house of cards once known as the U.S. of A comes tumbling… tumbling down. Expect the absolute worst you can imagine, and then increase that ten-fold… this is what we can expect.
For what it’s worth, the “strongest” nations that either did stand …or could have stood … astride history like a Colossus… militarily, economically, culturally… have always been those of one race and one people.
One of the secrets of martial arts is to concentrate force.
Of course, what passer by stated in his post is a bold-face lie. Also, I have no sympathy for the Ameridians. They had conquests and genocides within their racial group long before Europeans became a large prescence in North America. Europeans in North America may have been the first victims of Ameridian violence.
The following quote is from William James’ The Will To Believe. You can find it online easy enough and the passage comes in section IX, last paragraph. It is highly relevant to this discussion and will certainly have to take place whether we favor secession or taking the country back. For this reason, I would be very interested to hear what Mr. Lamb, Mr. Johnson, and the others posting here have to say about it.
“Wherever a desired result is achieved by the co-operation of many independent persons, its existence as a fact is a pure consequence of the precursive faith in one another of those immediately concerned. A government, an army, a commercial system, a ship, a college, an athletic team, all exist on this condition, without which not only is nothing achieved, but nothing is even attempted. A whole train of passengers (individually brave enough) will be looted by a few highwaymen, simply because the latter can count on one another, while each passenger fears that if he makes a movement of resistance, he will be shot before any one else backs him up. If we believed that the whole car-full would rise at once with us, we should each severally rise, and train-robbing would never even be attempted.”
John PM
Yes, that is exactly my position. I do not trust the League of the South types. It would be devolution to hillbilly clan fratracide…a lot like Afghanistan. It is also infantile to think that after losing trillions of dollars of military,educational,scientific and technological infrastructure that Euro-Americans can snap there fingers and recreate this infrastructure in the White Homelands. The White population in the greatly reduced homeland will overnight be several decades-who knows how many-behind the pan chinese and pan-hindu populations.
At the beginning of 1989, I am sure that the expert consensus was that communism in the USSR and Eastern Europe was going to last a long, long time. I am sure these same experts would have dismissed thinking about scenarios about the collapse of communism and what sort of governments might follow it as delusional, a worthless exercise, a complete waste of time, a waste of creative energies in some blind-alley thought experiment that will simply never materialize.
They were wrong of course, and they should have known better. Communism, after all, was built on lies, and it was foolish to bet that a system built on lies would be sustainable in the long run.
Our present system is built on lies too, many of the same lies a Communism, in fact. Our economic system is built on false premises too. America is an unsustainable system. We don’t know when it will crash, but we know that it will. It is only a matter of time. And if history is any indication, the experts and the rest of us will be surprised when it happens. Perhaps Barack Obama will be the last president of the United States.
Given that, is it really a waste of time to ask ourselves questions about how the collapse might come and what might come after it? Is is really a waste of time to ask ourselves who is likely to determine the political course of a post-collapse America? Is it really a waste to time to try to put ourselves in the position of having a say about the future of our race—because we have a coherent political vision—because we actually bothered to THINK about what might be done in such a situation?
For those who trash the idea of secession I would ask whether, if you had it all to do over again, you would place the boundaries or the United States where they are now?
Really? Including Hawaii? Puerto Rico? Guam? If Hawaii and Guam, why not Tahiti, or ALL of the Pacific? Aren’t we “take it ALL back” tough-guys?
If Puerto Rico, why not Cuba, Jamaica and Hispanola…the Caribbean? Tough guys?
If we have our current borders with Mexico, why not ALL of Mexico? All of the isthimus? ALL of the western hemisphere? Too tough for you, tough guys?
Why not the whole world?
Or, if you scratch Puerto Rico, why not reconsider the Florida Panhandle? The Louisiana Purchase, taken as a whole? The southwest acquired through the Mexican conflicts?
Take WHAT “back”? Are any of these places where white men belong? Deserts, jungles, swamp-lands and fly-speck islands? If they are, where DON’T we belong?
Saying that a White America is synonymous with ALL the lands ever acquired in the American Narrative is a donkey’s POV - like saying the British Isles are less for a vanished empire.
There have been two terrible mistakes, which have doomed the United States - one was the import of African slaves, and the other the acquisition of territories that whites alone never convincingly occupied. The two mistakes were inter-twined - Florida, Lousiana and Tex/California were acquired to artificially boost the political pre-eminence of Slave-power against the natural expansion of white settlers into temperate climes.
Greg Johnson
I basically agree with your last post. No pun intended, but with very high probability we are entering a new Dark Age.
We should start identifying losing political strategies. Start with the delicate types over a Taki.com who are trying to build an alternative to the Republican party based upon economic abstractions. For these clowns, pro-LEGAL ASIAN immigration enthusiast Ron Paul is their messiah. Serious discussion of the issue of race replacement has been expunged from Taki.com. Opposition to the race replacement of Native Born White Americans has got to be a fundamental framework for the political alternative to the Republican party and the Ron Paul worshipers at Taki.com
Taki.com has asian supremacist Razib Khan as a regular blogger.
Here is something that I will state with 100 percent certainty:the day is surely comming when the apathetic part of the Native Born White American population will wake up one moring in a state of stark raving fear and say”Toto, we are not in Kansas anyone.”
Winning strategy:post-1965 non-whites are organized aroud their racial interests. If Native Born White Americans do organize around their racial interests, they will end up being a conquered people. This is the core of White Nationalism. It maybe a better idea to focus on this political strategy than advocating secession.
Homelander
This may come as a shock to you but:California and Texas had a Native Born White majority prior to the passage of the 1965 immigration reform act.
Here is the answer to your question:from sea-Atlantic Ocean-to shinning sea-Pacific Ocean. Yes, get rid of Hawai,Puerto Rico and Guam.
Your own -private -Idaho will be surrounded by hostile chinese,hindus,sihks,muslims,pakistanis and hispanics. I prefer a very wide ocean between America and china,india,pakistan,korea,japan,africa and the muslim world. I highly recommend that you read the very serious critisms that have been made in this thread against secession. Or perhaps, you are in complete denial of reality.
I highly recommend that everyone who posts here to start reading The Occidental Quarterly. Take a look at Michael O’Meara’s essay Crisis 2009
Homelander,
I think it comes down to a simple question: what gives us the best chance of success? We need to be concerned with what gives us the best chance of survival as a people.
I’m not against secession per se. I’ll take what I can get. If obtaining a small homeland is the best that we can do, and if it works, so be it. However, I happen to believe that it would be foolish to concede to our enemies the vast white hinterland that stretches over most of North America. I address this more in my post above.
You seem to hold the position that white men don’t belong in “deserts, jungles, swamp-lands and fly-speck islands.” Well, white men have occupied similar places for thousands of years. There is no geography in which we “don’t belong.” We can plausibly thrive in all sorts of environments, perhaps one day including other planets. Conversely, nonwhites don’t concede cold northern areas to us because they “don’t belong.” They are happily filling up Canada, Scandanavia, and other frigid climes. They’ll take what they can get. We, on the other hand, question ourselves. Any surprise who is winning? It ain’t us.
You state that whites never “convincingly occupied” certain areas like Florida and California. I disagree. Whites became the overwhelming majority in those areas. We built a modern civilization. That seems pretty convincing. Maybe I’m an easy mark, but it sure convinced me. It seemed to convince the rest of the world, who acknowledged our control over those areas. Today, we are losing control because we are voluntarily allowing ourselves to be displaced, from Florida to Stockholm. Who cared about La Raza fifty years ago? Nobody, it was a joke. Only once we allowed our voluntary displacement has La Raza come into its own.
It’s about raw power, not historical nuances. In the U.S., nonwhites will make historical claims to undermine white legitimacy, but these claims are just icing on the cake - they aren’t at all necessary. Non-whites will pour into white nations no matter what, as long as they are allowed to do so.
Nonwhites have no historical claims on Norway or most of Northern Europe. They don’t even bother making claims up. Yet, they are filling Northern Europe up just the same. Again, raw power at work. Historical claims are just something to use when they can. If they have some that are plausible, such as in the U.S., they use them. If not, as in Sweden, they move in just the same. It’s a joke that we even take such things seriously. It’s clear that nonwhites don’t. It doesn’t affect their behavior in the slightest. They are going to take what they can, wherever they can.
Having said that, I’d love to come up with a mutually beneficial solution that could accomplish our goals peacefully. In such a scenario, various shades of historical nuance or questions of where the white man belongs (or doesn’t) might have some place. But unless we are even at the negotiating table (and as of now, our opponents will not deign to negotiate) it seems senseless to cede vast swaths of our territory without so much as a shot being fired or, in the hopes of a peaceful solution, a single chair being pulled up to a single conference table. The Left cedes nothing, they go for it all. They are looking to eliminate whites all across the planet, in every single white nation. They think big. Are they just “tough guys?” No, they are winners. We need to become winners as well.
And the winner is-John PM. Kevin Lamb has made clear what
Trainspotter et al
When whites held claim “from sea to shining sea” they comprised 30% of humanity, and 90% of America’s residents. We let the rest of the world out-breed us, while allowing our own numbers to deline.
People here sound like Nazi nostalgists who bewail the crime of the Versailles Treaty…neglecting that more Germans live better within German borders today, than fewer ones did within German borders in 1918 (or 1900).
No sensible German WANTS the Sudetanland, Silesia, Schleswig-Holstein or Alsace. What would they need them for? German population numbers peaked, together with the world’s third-largest economy in sometime around the 70’s - and the absolute numbers going forward will decline sharply by mid-century…even when you INCLUDE immigrants.
Germany doesn’t need lebensraum - they need more white people, and fewer immigrants.
This is a good analogy for the position of the entire white world. We don’t need to control large areas, as such. We need to control defensible areas. What is magical about a border on the Rio Grande?
It makes sense to keep ALL of Australia - but why ALL of a California defined by the accidents of history?
Sure, a Northwest Republic would have to coexist with a Meztiso Republic SOMEWHERE to the south…same as now.
A Northwest Republic would have to coexist with trans-national/multi-culti freaks in Washington DC and Ottawa. Would you prefer to be RULED by them?
As for some imaginary Asian beachead on the Pacific Coast…I don’t get this objection, at all. Nobody - not an enhanced Mexico, a rump US, or a Northwest Republic is giving away any part of the Pacific coast to an Asian society. How does that figure as a credible possibility?
As you can tell, I favor a Northwest Republic which, to be realistic, would HAVE to include western Canada and probably Alaska. So my idea is provisional - but failing that, I don’t see much hope for a white society in North America. A Canada that DOESN’T break up will wash itself away in immigrants even faster than America. And the NEXT black president is sure to give the south-west to Mexico some time…and sooner than you may think.
In the modern world, it is politically and militarily useless for an ehtnic group to lay claim to an area where they have already conceded a local majority, absolutely…and almost as dicey when they’ve conceded the major cities.
It would be easier to expel Mexicans from Oregon to California, than from the US altogether. It would be easier to expel blacks from British Columbia to Illinois. (How else are you going to seperate from blacks?)
In Europe, it is similar. Can you expel Muslims from a Moslem-majority Birmingham? If you’re sending them to Toulouse or Madrid…maybe. If you’re sending them to Lahore or Mumbai…not!
Homelander
If there is a will, there is a way. It is just a question of how many Native Born White Americans want to expell a large population of post 1965-nonwhites. Your Nazi comparison is crackpot. These areas were not cenceded. Native Born White Americans were driven out. Time to regroup and drive the invaders out. You are also assuming that allowing China,India,Pakistan and the muslim world extend to its borders deep into America will make Native Born White Americans even more secure than when the borders of these nations were thousands of miles away. Again this infantile thinking.
The asian beachhead is a demographic beachhead and its well over the cliffs. And these asians have a strong identification with India,Pakistan and China. This is what one normally calls an invasion. And your aresponse to an invasion is surrendering territory-permanently. And you refer to to patriots who want to repel the invasion Nazis.
You and the the secessionists have not answered the serious issues that I and other anti-secessionists have raised in any serious way. For the most part, secessionist ignore the issues we have raised.
Native Born White Americans are suppose to be encouraged to fight back not sit down with chinese,asian,pakistani and mexican nationalist to discuss how far china,pakistan,india,the muslim world can extend their borders deep into America.
The Canadians have allowed Inida to extend its borders into Canada. Vancover is rapidly being colonized by India and China. I have been to Vancover several times on business trips. I felt like I was in India and China. Just turn on the evening news while you are Vancover and you will know what I mean.
Indian Nationals running for office in India now regularly campaign for votes among the hindu -sikh population in British Columbia. So much for running North to the Pacific Northwest…more encirclement.
The reduced White territory within the borders of the former America will feel very ovecrowded…almost immediately. Do you think White Americans will be able to deal with living on top of ech other? They weren’t able to do that in the years leading up to the American Civil War. This is what the Free Soil, Free Labor movement was all about. Millions of Whites are going to feel very unfree in the overcrowded reduced territory of the new White homelands. And to prevent violent conflict among overcrowded and stressed out Euro-Americans a Totalatarian type State structure will emerge. There will be very few amenities in the reduced territory for Euro-Americans. All the great National and State Parks in these White homelands will be paved over to provide middle class housing for Whites with middle class aspirations. In the non-white areas, there will be unmitigated destruction of open space and of national and state parks. Good-bye Yosemenite and Smokey the Bear. The millions of Iranians will need housing for their large families. You secessionists haven’t got a clue.
Those people on here who think we can just get rid of 100 million nonwhites in this country are just kidding themselves. Secession is the only way to establish an independent White America again. Losing infrastructure is secondary to preserving our race. Twenty years from now they’ll outnumber us and if we don’t act now we lose everything. The amount of territory lost would be minimal. If we slice off a sliver of California from coastal San Francisco down to the border we lose about 20 million nonwhites or about 1/5 of their population in the country. Northern AZ is mostly White so if you cut off the area south of Phoenix you lose about 2.5 million and New Mexico another million. Lose anything southwest of Midland, Austin and Galveston and you’ll lose another 10 million. New York City, Philadelphia and Trenton triangle area is another 14 million. These areas account for half the nonwhite population in America. Of course, this leaves mostly the blacks in the South to deal with. Dealing with them is a thorny issue since it’s very hard draw borders in the region to segregate them. Overcrowding is not an issue. Once we extract the bulk of them from our population the rest can be coerced to leave while Whites living in nonwhite areas will move to new nation state.
I highly recommend that everyone who posts here to start reading The Occidental Quarterly. Take a look at Michael O’Meara’s essay Crisis 2009
Posted by Jupiter at 3:17 PM on February 25
When I went on vacation first half of January I downloaded a number of essays in my pen drive so I could have some reading material while away (no Internet where I went).
Mr. O’Meara’s was the first on the list. What a great read. Excellent essay.
Dedalus
Michael O’Meara’s essay “crisis 2009” should be posted on American Renassaince and VDARE.COM as soon a possible. It would generate an enmormous amount of discussion.
Peter Brimelow, be a good sport about it:POST MICHAEL O’MEARA’s ESSAY:CRISIS 2009 ON VDARE.COM.
Wouldn’t it be great if Pat Buchannan made the Michael O’Meara’s essay “crisis 2009” the centerpiece of his next book.
Listen to me folks and leaders of the movment:if you want to mobilize a White backlash againat post-1965 immigration policy you need to start-in your public performances-stating the issue exactly the way Michael O’Meara does in his essay. The hispanics and asians will go ballistic and this will be a good thing for they will never stop talking about the White Nationalist movement in th mainstream media. Millions of Native Born White Americans will connect with these ideas. WE can mobilize a whole lot of Native Born White Americans. BE CREATIVE!!!!!!
Homelander,
Again, I am not opposed to secession per se. I happen to believe that it is better to not concede the great white hinterland that extends across most of North America. See Richard’s post above - nonwhites are heavily concentrated in a few relatively small areas of the country. Looking at the red/blue electoral map by county will give a nice visual demonstration of this. The liberals are heavily concentrated in those same areas (Northeast and San Franciso Bay area - the Northeast being their real power center, particularly along the BosWash corridor). Why should we cede the great white hinterland to such types, and increase their power and potential?
As to the viability or your suggested option, the Northwest, I say great if it can be pulled off. I disagree with some posters who say that a smaller white homeland is absolutely not viable. I think it may be viable - but I also think it would suffer from severe disadvantages. If it’s the best we can do, then fine. But the long term survival of our people will be better secured if we are willing to take back all white lands. It’s been done before: the Arabs expelled from the Iberian pensinsula, the Turks from Southeastern Europe, the Mongols from Eastern Europe. It can be done. It has been done. These invaders were, both demographically and otherwise, far more entrenched in European lands than those of today. Yet they aren’t there anymore (well, until we voluntarily opened the doors to them in recent decades). This idea that once invaders become a majority that the land is lost forever to them is simply false. It’s just not true.
So, again, I don’t disagree with a Northwest imperative, but simply point out that we can do far better if we simply gain the will to do so.
What I DO disagree with strongly is this:
“In Europe, it is similar. Can you expel Muslims from a Moslem-majority Birmingham? If you’re sending them to Toulouse or Madrid…maybe. If you’re sending them to Lahore or Mumbai…not!”
This makes no sense to me. If we regain sufficient will to expel Muslim invaders from Britain, why would we be limited to sending them only to other European countries? It’s a non-sequitur, it simply doesn’t follow. It’s really a question of whether we as a people can reclaim our will to survive. With that will, we can take back all of our homelands. Without that will, in time, we will lose all of our homelands.
Essentially, my view is that both sides overstate their criticisms. I disagree with the idea that a smaller white homeland, like a Northwest Republic or something similar, would be impossible. Small breakaway states are clearly possible, and who knows, it might just work. Yet I also consider that the “small homeland” advocates overstate the impossibility of reclaiming broader white lands. It’s been done before, it can be done again. The only missing ingredient is the will to do so. Again, this idea that just because nonwhites have become a majority in a given white land that they therefore own it forever, have title to it forever, and can never be removed, well, it’s just not true. History says otherwise. If they come, they can leave. If they displace others, they can be displaced. That’s just the way of the world. We better get hip to that, Daddy O.
I think we are so demoralized right now (especially for those of us who are Gen X and younger), having spent our entire lives seeing whites in decline and nonwhites ever expanding, that we find it difficult to imagine life being any other way. We see neighborhood after neighborhood fall, school after school, miscegenation every day in the streets. It can seem like an invevitable law of the universe. It’s not. It’s a freakish aberration, and it can and must be stopped. Let’s not allow the very unusual aberrations of the last few decades to distort our views too much about what is and what is not possible. If we do, we are playing right into the enemy’s game. They want us demoralized and convinced that there is nothing that can be done to reverse what has been done to whites. History begs to differ, and so do I. As hard as it may be to believe, it is entirely possible to reclaim all white homelands. The Left thinks big, so should we.
Trainspotter makes a brilliant point about the utter dishonesty of non-white appeals to historical “entitlements” to justify their invasions of white lands: Mexican appeals to the myth of Aztlan, or the alleged injustice of Mexican War, to justify their invasion of the United States; non-white appeals to colonialism as a justification for invading the former colonizing power, etc. He points out that where no such claims can be made, non-Whites are still flooding into white lands, e.g., Africans into Sweden and Ireland, neither of which had African colonies.
This shows the real reason that non-whites are coming. Mexicans are not coming to the United States because they have “roots” here. Their roots are in Mexico. Instead, they are coming here because the United States is so different from Mexico: the US is richer, less corrupt, less filthy, less violent and lawless than Mexico. Why is the US superior to Mexico in so many ways? Because it was built by white people.
If the US were politically and economically inferior even to Mexico, then no Mexicans would want to come here, and we would hear nary a peep about Aztlan and the Mexican War.
The lesson to white people is: whenever you hear the alleged sins of your ancestors recited as a justification for why your country has to be flooded with the genetic detritus of the Third World, remember that your country is being targeted not for the alleged sins of your ancestors but for their very real virtues. Instead of an occasion for white guilt, treat it as a cause for white pride. And have the pride to just say “no” and send them home.
Whites were a tiny minority on this continent when Jamestown was founded, and yet somehow we took the whole continent eventually. There is no reason to think that we could not take it back some day. It is really just a matter of will.
Trainspotter
I think it is saluatory to talk about the competing proposals in terms of probabilities, considered from several angles.
What is the probability of enlisting contemporary whites for an all-out race war, involving millions of innocent deaths on both sides, and the destruction of a vast amount of that infrastructure you are so concerned about?
If you rate that as probable, you are one of those neo-Nazi “romantics” who fantasizes that Viking raiding parties and screaming Hitler-Jugende represent some sort of default setting for whites…and you don’t know whites at all.
Race war, conceived as the broadest possible confrontation is a non-starter. To WAIT for whites to embrace this idea is to WAIT all the way to the graveyard. Even if you could get whites to endorse it, it would be a dubious idea under the circumstances. So you won’t get any significant portion of whites on board…partly because it’s impractical - partly because it’s unsavory (more).
Secessionists believe in some degree of Reconquest too. They argue only that reconquest doesn’t begin with a messy series of civil wars across Europe and North America. They also don’t identify a LIMITED Reconquest with the agendas of slavery and 19th-Century colonialism.
Secessionists beleieve a Reconquest comes from successful and expanding white societies, not desperate factions fighting a confused, last-minute civil war.
A path to Secession exists in America - a Convention can amend the Constitution to allow all and several states to secede. A stretch? Perhaps - maybe white survival is a stretch?
It’s a proposal that would acquire momentum from ongoing developments: climax conflicts in Europe, the break-up of Canada, and especially a willingness by our Federal government to grant independence to Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Aztlan…or proposals to admit bastard new states like the Columbia district, Virgin Islands, Samoa and PR.
My proposal contains about as much practical detail as a political discussion will support at this point. I would love to hear a similarly detailed proposal from the “take it all back” gallery.
Does it go something like this? John McCain’s 43% expands to 65% - that’s something like 80% of whites, right? - then we make a national project of expelling millions of current residents (with enough napalm, or tactical nukes we’ll get there)…and do “something” about blacks. And you’re going to LIKE the society that emerges from the turmoil-turned-to-victory?
(Lemme guess - the Role Of The Jew will be exposed, right? You can always aspire to persuade tens of millions of educated whites in North America to adopt Jew-conspiracy theories in ome generation.)
All of the above is tracked on a time-table which extends to not much more than a single generation, or it’s game over.
Is this YOUR plausible scenario? Something like it?
Greg Johnson
There were empires,conquests exterminations within the Ameridian racial group. You know what the Left says:race shouldn’t matter. Well then it shouldn’t matter when it comes to passing judgement on Ameridian morality over the centuries. The story of Chaco canyon is a story of extermination and the extermination was not at the hands of Europeans.
Leftists and Liberals romanticize the Ameridian. Pro-secessioinst and race -replacement enthusiast-a leftist basically- Kirkpatrick Sale is very guilty of this. Take a look at the book “The ecological Indian”. This book demolishes the myth of Ameridians being outstanding stewards of the land. Everyone…GET OVER THE GUILT TRIP!!!
Yipes, where to begin?
Well, I guess it is best to start with Mr. Kevin Lamb, and then work down.
To Mr. Lamb, regarding:
“John PM’s analysis is quite right. As the first editor of The Occidental Quarterly (who worked closely with our first book editor Sam Francis) I can safely say that Sam’s views are accurately summarized by John PM.”
Thank you sincerely!
That was my point in writing what I wrote last Friday: that there are workable alternatives to a US break up, and that Dr. Francis had detailed one of the best of those alternatives. He was right, why give up our country, when we can take it back?
Or put another way, 200 million can dictate to 100 million any day of the week!
To Question Diversity and Jupiter,
I think you two, have some issues to sort out between yourselves, before I hop in? It suffices to say, I support a stabilizing and then expansion of the white majority in this country. Better still, would be the same across the planet; back to the 38% to 40% of the world’s population we once held around 1880 to 1910, or so.
To Eric the Red, regarding:
“And the winner is-John PM. Kevin Lamb has made clear what kind of essay he wants…”
Reread Mr. Lamb’s and Mr. Johnson’s posts. If anything, I am on the “losing” side of this argument with regard to current Occidental Quarterly editorial standards.
To Mr. Johnson, regarding:
“What I am hearing from some posters is the inability of Americans to even conceive of being part of a society that is smaller and weaker than the United States. Anything less than a nuclear superpower seems non-feasible, even though most existing countries, including the best of them—the true number ones in terms of human well-being—fit this description.”
Perhaps, but what you might also be hearing is a recognition that, it might be in the very best interests of white America to retain their technological and military legacies?
Despite all our indulgences and charities around the globe, much like the West in general, we remain irrationally hated.
Will that change, should we become a smaller and weaker, but also more homogenous version, of ourselves?
That is something to seriously consider!
All the best, to all of you,
John PM!
Great posts, a really exciting and inspiring thread of commentary. All of them were thoughtful and sincere. It has made for some great reading.
However, I must say that I am a little disappointed that no one responded to my post with the William James quote. Not because it was my post, obviously, but because his quote is central to any effort for us to do something about this problem.
Homelander: “Secessionists believe in some degree of Reconquest too. They argue only that reconquest doesn’t begin with a messy series of civil wars across Europe and North America. They also don’t identify a LIMITED Reconquest with the agendas of slavery and 19th-Century colonialism.”
Sounds great. How do you propose this to happen without violence? Is the multi-cult empire that you propose to leave in control of most of the continent, armed to the teeth with nuclear and biological weapons, just going to wish you all the best? The same people that won’t allow an all white outhouse are going to wish you a peaceful and fond farewell, and recognize an all white nation on their border? All this without violence?
If you have a serious way to create a viable white homeland that does not involve violence, then please spill the beans. If you don’t have such a plan, then acknowledge that nobody has a monopoly on violence. Also, no need to engage in smears such as calling those who disagree with you neo-Nazis with Viking fantasies, or implying that they support slavery.
Homelander:”A path to Secession exists in America - a Convention can amend the Constitution to allow all and several states to secede. A stretch? Perhaps - maybe white survival is a stretch?”
Hey, I’m all for it. Hope it happens. I wouldn’t hold my breath, but hope it happens. Still doesn’t change that you are misrepresenting the views of those who disagree with you. We have fallen mighty far when people who do not believe that it is wise to cede our traditional white homelands are smeared as violent Nazis who support slavery - by another white nationalist! I could see it coming from the SPLC, but not another white nationalist. Some of what you write could come straight from any liberal on the lecture circuit.
A white wanting to protect and reclaim his homeland is perfectly normal and natural. The debate should be over feasibility, not smears of Nazi Viking Slavers Who Are All Around Bad People And Dress Real Bad Too.
Homelander: “It’s a proposal that would acquire momentum from ongoing developments: climax conflicts in Europe, the break-up of Canada, and especially a willingness by our Federal government to grant independence to Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Aztlan…or proposals to admit bastard new states like the Columbia district, Virgin Islands, Samoa and PR.”
Sounds like you are waiting on quite a convergence of events. But you insist that, should fortune smile upon us to such an extent, we are definitely limited to taking back at most a small homeland, bordering a multi-cult empire that is armed to the teeth. Apparently, to do more would make us Nazi Viking Slavers.
Sounds possible. Also sounds like we may be able to do better. I say, should fortune smile upon us to such a great extent, we take back whatever we can. These are our lands, period. If we can’t hold them, it shouldn’t be for want of trying. It certainly shouldn’t be because we subscribe to leftist beliefs such as whites maintaining their lands are Nazi Viking Slavers. If we can’t “take it all back,” it should not be because we subscribe to the leftist critique. It should be because we just can’t do it. But since we in fact CAN do it, that’s not going to be an issue. The issue is not whether we can do it, but whether we have the will to do it. That’s the heart of the matter.
Trainspotter…come on!
When you’re saying that YOUR solution to the unwelcome presence of tens of millions of non-Europeans in what were once overwhelmingly European nations is…to make them all go away again QUICKLY - then you are plainly entertaining a violent fantasy.
AND…it’s almost purely a fantasy - because your white fellow citizens are NEVER - not under ANY circumstances/not if it was the ONLY way to preserve the white race, even - NEVER going to arrive at a consensus to support that kind of violence. If you don’t have your mind fastened on THAT reality, then I’m not sure what “realism” means to you.
It is one thing to say that it was stupid to import slaves to North America, stupid to permit millions of Mexicans to enter our borders and multiply, stupid to allow millions of third-world immigrants to settle in Europe…
…and quite another thing to contend that it is either wise or morally acceptable to abruptly expel all, or most of them.
In the latter case - yeah, you’re a Nazi/Slaver/Viking whatever: especially when you support your case with Charles Martel/El Cid/Vlad Stepes…YOUR examples, not mine.
You’re also childish: a proposal for race war/ethnic leansing is not going anywhere. Either there is another way…or no way.
Your fellow white citizens are supposed to enlist in some all out crusade for The Race…and half the time they elect to not have children. Are you holding YOUR breath?
Can an effective and popular movement arise? I say “yes”. In some circumstances, could whites even be persuaded to fight for it? I say “yes” again.
Ask for self-determination, and accede it to others. It’s the mantra of our age, after all.
Dedalus
The William James quote is a great quote. It gets to the heart of why I think all this Ron Paul for president or Tancredo for president ranting is completely foolish. The White Nationalist revolt must have a very local-graasroots foundation. Otherwise it could be very easily betrayed. The presidency must be reduced to a figure postion as should the US Senate.
Homelander: Texas was 80% White American at the time of their war for independence.
A couple thing here caught my eye. First, Greg Johnson has mentioned the collapse of the USSR as an example. There was a industrialized state, militarily powerful, with a strong central government, but it came apart in a few years. Economic failure, and a political regime based on flagrant lies that could not be rationally or morally defended were the causes. Sound familiar? It’s true that the successor Russian state did not keep all the territory it once had, but those places it lost had never been Russian. The new occupiers of our country have less time in this country that the Russians had in Kazahkistan. Their claims to our territory are in most cases no stronger than the Somali claims to Finland.
The presidency must be reduced to a figure postion as should the US Senate.
Posted by Jupiter at 12:04 PM on February 28
Yes (and thanks for your response to my post). In fact, I’ve been saying for years, that the Office of the President is about one notch above the Queen of England.
I think that whole thing just made it obvious. If the Office was THAT important they would never have let that happen, as they did not during the Roosevelt and Kennedy Presidencies.
Also, many here have said that Secession is impossible to accomplish, and so, a waste of time to think about, because the first step we take in that direction will be met with the full force of the Federal Government. They are probably right. In fact, let’s say they ARE right.
As far as they are concerned, they are not going to let us doing ANYTHING without responding! My goodness folks, look at how they came down on Sarah Palin. I have never seen such nastiness posing as moral superiority in my life!
“…and quite another thing to contend that it is either wise or morally acceptable to abruptly expel all or most of them.” Homelander.
When we have a choice forced upon us, to expel millions of outlanders or watch our culture die, the moral decision is to expel the outlanders. WE didn’t ask them in, our treasonous rulers did. They lied to pass the enabling legislation in 1965, and have refused to even try to stop the illegals, let alone place any reasonable limits on the “legals” since then. We were promised that after the Reagan amnesty, the border would be defended. Another lie. Our rulers and their slavish liberal followers have deliberately displaced millions of White Americans. We are not morally bound to honor THEIR promises to the colonists, and we are not obligated to obey any laws aimed at our destruction. We have, in fact, NO moral obligation whatsoever to our betrayers. They are as dirt beneath our feet, something to be wiped off.
Homelander:”When you’re saying that YOUR solution to the unwelcome presence of tens of millions of non-Europeans in what were once overwhelmingly European nations is…to make them all go away again QUICKLY - then you are plainly entertaining a violent fantasy.”
I didn’t say anything about “quickly.” You are misrepresenting me. I haven’t put forward a specific plan. I’ve simply said that white lands belong to whites, that it is normal to wish to reclaim them, and that we should do so if possible. And if we don’t reclaim them, it should be because we simply can’t, not for want of trying. And certainly not because we subscribe to the leftist positions that you espouse, which claim that whites who simply want to maintain their traditional lands are Nazi Viking Slavers. Your smears are ridiculous.
Homelander: “In the latter case - yeah, you’re a Nazi/Slaver/Viking whatever: especially when you support your case with Charles Martel/El Cid/Vlad Stepes…YOUR examples, not mine.”
Great. So now the explusion of Arabs from the Iberian Peninsula and the Turks from Sounthern Europe - two of the most critical events in the preservation of Western Civilization - was conducted by Nazi Viking Slavers. Your positions can’t be taken seriously. The typical anti-white leftist would probably be ashamed to spout such absurdity. This is quite literally the first time I have ever heard someone seriously objecting to the defeat and reversal of the Moorish and Turkish invasions of Europe.
Homelander: “You’re also childish: a proposal for race war/ethnic leansing is not going anywhere.”
Yes, it is “childish” to advocate holding traditional white homelands. Right.
Homelander: “Ask for self-determination, and accede it to others. It’s the mantra of our age, after all.”
You’ve got to be kidding. Have you looked at the globe lately? Most countries are nonwhite. They already have self-determination. They are not satisfied with it, they want to take white homelands as well. But I don’t suppose any of this will register with someone who would have been against repelling the historic Moorish and Turkish invasions of Europe.
I’ll say it again: we can take back our homelands if we find the will to do so. This can and will happen despite the absurd leftist and anti-white claims that you are making.
Dedalus: “But then, why would the Federal Government respond any differently if we tried to “take the country back” as some have suggested? They won’t. Their response to both will be the same. But perhaps I am missing something here.”
Disclaimer: (pathetic that I feel compelled to make one, I know, but with certain misrepresentations having been made, it seems appropriate) I advocate nothing, and certainly not violence. What follows is merely an exploration of the pros and cons of various purely hypothetical scenarios. Let’s hope instead for a peaceful solution, however unlikely that may seem.
As I’ve stated many times, I’m not necessarily opposed to the secession of a small homeland. But one problem with secession of a small state is that it would leave a vast multi-cult empire intact, armed to the teeth with nuclear and biological weapons. A more or less intact multi-cult empire, reduced by a mere sliver, would still be able to wield enormous power. Its power will decline over time due to its multi-cult character, but for many decades at least it would remain a military powerhouse. This does not bode well for the small separatist state, or for whites anywhere in the world.
Whereas if whites are able to hold on to all or most of the great white hinterland that stretches across most of North America, the multi-cult empire would be greatly reduced or would disappear altogether. Ideally, what would remain would be a vast white hinterland, and some high population density nonwhite (and leftist) enclaves, such as the Bay area and BosWash. At that point, hopefully a peaceful and humane resolution could be achieved.
If whites can achieve power, they should wield it wisely. Peaceful repatriation with generous incentives, perhaps taking a generation or more to complete, seems an entirely acceptable solution at that point. For those nonwhites who don’t don’t have additional children, there is no reason why they couldn’t live for the rest of their lives in the multi-cult enclaves, if they so desired. Who knows, maybe some of the multi-cult enclaves will be made permanent (not recommended, but possible). We just can’t know at this juncture how such issues would be worked out. You’ve got to win first and achieve power, or it’s all moot anyway.
But I’m getting ahead of myself: the point is that in such an approach the multi-cult empire would be denied much of its demographic, economic and technological power. Not to mention that, even while it still existed, it would have its hands full trying to maintain internal order and security over an incredibly vast land. See Fourth Generation Warfare. Additionally, such an approach would be more likely to win over fellow travellers across the hinterland, people who hate the multi-cult empire, but aren’t fully developed white nationalists (yet) and aren’t willing to give up on the U.S. Such types won’t migrate to a small separatist state, but they may assist in resisting imperial power in their hometowns. Why let all of that potential go to waste? The white approach needs to leverage strength, not abandon it. The number of our purists may be relatively small (yet growing, it seems), but there are many millions out there that are not that far apart from us. They are spread all across the hinterland. A proper white approach would be to utilize them, not cede them to the empire.
With exposed infrastructure and the interconnected and interdependent nature of our society, the multi-cult empire would face an incredibly difficult and probably futile internal task. If even a tiny percentage of whites were determined to oppose multi-cult rule throughout the great hinterland, it would be difficult if not impossible for the empire to continue to function and marshal resources from those vast areas. The empire is very vulnerable - from the inside. But if it is allowed to marshal its full resources, unmolested, it is a mighty force indeed. Do we really want to pursue a strategy in which we fail to marshal all of our own rescources (by ceding vast swaths of land and population), while simultaneously allowing the empire to marshal all of its resources? That’s what small state secession boils down to, which is why - though I don’t oppose it - I don’t exactly thrill to it either.
In other words, the issue isn’t whether the central government would respond with force. If it can, it almost certainly will. We could get incredibly lucky and experience a Soviet style collapse, but I don’t think whites can count on that.
The issue therefore becomes whether the strategy carried out by whites has the effect of undermining, and possibly eliminating the strength of the multi-cult empire, or whether the white strategy leaves the multi-cult empire more or less intact. This is why I tend to believe that the more ambitious approach, counterintuitively I admist, is probably the more realistic.
The multi-cult empire will be a profound and ongoing threat to whites all over the world as long as it exists in strength. On the other hand, if whites can hold on to the vast white hinterland of North America, or at least deny the empire effective control over those areas, the multi-cult empire will be finished, or at least so weakened that it can no longer aspire to imperial status. Something to think about.
Trainspotter
Let’s start over. I believe you misunderstand me. I don’t guess you’re a bad guy that was not the point I was trying to make.
I am not calling YOU a Nazi. I’m talking about the MESSAGE WN’s present to other whites…the yet-to-be-convinced.
What is our proposal? To press a mere (at best) two-to-one advantage to expel and disposess millions and tens of millions of people who, setting aside illegals, ARE citizens of our society as it’s presently constituted? This couldn’t be done without MUCH violence. Any thinking adult can figure that one out.
And the Multi-Culti empire has a fairly credible reason to resist - no imaginable construal of the US constitution would permit this. With time-sanctioned authority AND at least a third of the nation on one side, a UNANIMOUS white community would face a daunting task.
And with such a “message”, what are the prospects for unanimity amongst whites? Or ANY solidarity?
I’m a little puzzled by your counter-proposal. How many states were you pondering? Which ones?
In my most sanguine hopes - Alaska - Brit. Columbia/Alberta/Manitoba/Sask. - WA/OR/ID/Montana/WY. Toss in a couple of Canadian Territories. MAYBE Utah and/or Nevada. Perhaps CA down to the Bay Area. In time, if not at once, Ontario. A friendly Greater Quebec? A (perhaps covertly) friendly China and Russia (any reason THEY want to see America intact?)
Lots of harbors. Lots of energy. Lots of space. A fair number of people. (More to come?)
And besides the WN’s, others might want to push an amendment permitting secession. Aztlan, of course. Hawaii, perhaps. Maybe Farrakhan dreams he’s King O’ the South? Let ‘em have it!
It jars me every time you say a “small” Republic! Our big Republic has big minorities. And a black man pulls the trigger on all that hardware, now.
Posted by Trainspotter at 2:07 PM on March 1
At 10 paragraphs and 890 words the only two things I got from your post is
Could you please tell us what that strategy is and how it could be used? And could you do it without using the word “hinterland”?
Homelander,
I think we can agree to disagree. I don’t oppose your idea of Northwest secession, and if it happens, I say great. I certainly do disagree with some of the leftist premises that you seem to have absorbed, but there is no need to continually rehash those points. I’ve addressed them in posts above.
When I look at the map, I see opportunities that you don’t. Yes, there are 100 million non-whites in the country. But they are very concentrated in a handful of high density areas. Yes, there are a lot of leftists and liberals in the country. They are also concentrated in a relative handful of areas. To them, the rest of the country is just “flyover” as they move from one island in the archipelago to the next.
From this I don’t conclude that whites should be reduced to a small (or relatively small) enclave. I conclude that non-whties and leftists should be reduced to enclaves where they can live in multi-cult ecstasy. I see no reason to cede a broader hinterland to them, where most of them don’t live and wouldn’t want to live anyway.
The broader hinterland approach has the added benefit of reducing or eliminating the multi-cult empire, which has been a disaster to whites world wide. I have concluded that the multi-cult empire has to be either eliminated or at least drastically reduced in power. The approach whites take can and should accomplish that.
If the broader hinterland approach does not resonate with you, so be it. My opinion (about this purely hypothetical choice), is that it is preferable to small state secession. Again, let’s just agree to disagree.
Dedalus: “Hinterland” is a good, honest technical term from geography. It’s German for “the land behind”, and refers to the area that serves and is served by an urban center It’s more accurate than “blue state-red state” in that it describes an economic relationship between areas, not something like Do-the-majority-of-people-in-this-state-prefer-a-democrat-or-a-GOP-master. The word allows for a distinction between NYC and upstate New York, for example. If it sounds like a slur, that’s only because most writers are urban bigots.
Dedalus: “Could you please tell us what that strategy is and how it could be used? And could you do it without using the word “hinterland”?”
Dedalus,
Is your immature objection to my use of the term “hinterland” meant to simply derail the thread and distract from the main point? Either deal in substance or quit trying to derail those who do. This is an important discussion and should be conducted at something approximating an adult level.
In a post above, you mentioned that you believed that the response of the central government would be the same to both small state secession and a broader “take it all back” type strategy.
To which my response could have been limited to “no duh.” Brilliant observation, Dedalus. But I did respond, not because your observation was anything short of blindingly obvious, but because it provided a good basis to make an important point: small state secession would leave the central government almost entirely intact, at imperial status and bristling with nuclear and biological weapons. The broader hinterland approach would, on the other hand, drastically weaken and perhaps eliminate the multi-cult empire, which would be a massive victory not only for white survival on the North American continent, but for whites all over the world. I think that was a pretty clear point and, agree or disagree, easy enough to understand. In short: the central government’s response will likely be the same in both scenarios, but in one scenario it will likely be greatly weakened, while in the other it won’t be. Get it now, or is it still sounding like Greek, Dedalus?
And now in your last post you complain that I don’t explain what the white strategy is. Well, tough. At this point, being vague is the order of the day. I can not and will not advocate violence or any other such thing. We are dealing purely in hypotheticals - pretty vague hypotheticals. You should be able to grasp that. And if you can’t, then again, tough.
By the way, what would the strategy for small state secession be? Violence? What else? Who knows at this point?
The particular nuts and bolts aren’t really at issue here. Just as the central government is likely to respond the same to both small state secession and broader hinterland approaches by whites, it is likely that white tactics, nuts and bolts, would be similar in both scenarios as well. Savvy? You’ll just have to connect some of these dots yourself, instead of expecting everything to be spoon fed to you.
The issue is instead what lands are to be held, and the pros and cons of each. I’ve made it abundantly clear in posts above that it seems ridiculous to, from the get go, cede enormous swaths of largely white areas (the great white hinterland, or the great red hinterland, whatever), when in fact non-whites and leftists are mostly concentrated in a few relatively small high density areas of the continent. For them, the vast majority of the land mass is just “flyover” country. They hold it largely in contempt, and do not and would not want to live there. Why cede it? For example, why on God’s green earth would you cede Appalachia, a huge region with millions of whites? Why? Why cede huge swaths of the red state Midwest, or lands containing millions of racially conscious Southern whites? Why be so intent on NOT holding these lands?
I don’t see how, when one looks at a map, that the group that is spread out over the vast bulk of the continent should conclude that they will only strive for a relatively small slice of said continent, and that the group that currently is concentrated in some relatively small slices of the continent - leftists and nonwhites - should be ceded the vast majority of the land mass!
The small state secessionists have it backwards, to put it in a nutshell. It’s the leftists and non-whites who should live in enclaves, not whites. They prefer their enclaves as it is. They love downtown Manhattan. Fine, done! We’ll throw in the entire northeast to boot! We’re generous. The love the Bay area. Done! But why in the world cede them the bulk of flyover? The get San Francisco, we get America! That doesn’t sound “Nazi” or evil to me. Maybe it does to you?
If this still doesn’t make sense to you, hopefully it will to others. If you have serious objections, by all means make them. Legitimate disagreement is one thing, but pretending that you can’t understand rather clear points is another. Spoon feeding session is officially closed.
Is your immature objection to my use of the term “hinterland” meant to simply derail the thread and distract from the main point?
Posted by Trainspotter at 8:20 PM on March 3
No Trainspotter, but it’s pretty clear it was enough to derail you. And you don’t give the readers and posters here much credit if you think one little comment was enough to distract them all. But I guess misery loves company so much that it’s willing to imagine everyone is an touchy as them. Oh, and the proper adjective is “humorous” not “immature”.
I will be blunt. You sound hysterical. I just think you’re a long-winded and pretentious writer and was merely asking you to get to the point. You had posted more than enough, and it’s obvious that posting keeps you going, but it doesn’t get you anywhere. I read your post as I read all posts, with gratitude that another person shares my concerns and an open mind to hear how you express them. But you just weren’t saying anything.
Oh, and, being vague is the order of the day? Since when.
But OF COURSE you would say that. Once again you universalize your character defects, ie; Because YOU can’t be clear and get to the point being vauge is now the order of the day!
Posted by Schoolteacher at 9:25 PM on March 2
Now THAT is an intelligent and courteous reply. Though I do know what it means your way of putting it was thoughtful and considerate.
In short, you weren’t thin skinned and you didn’t take offense.
I just thought that the constant use of it was unnecessary and distracting. To indulge in that and NOT say or offer a suggestion, and then consider the need to offer one a call to violence (where, oh where did he get THAT one from?), is the kind of thing that really turns people off and convinces them that this place is peopled by too many keyboard warriors.
Dedalus:
Dedalus: “No Trainspotter, but it’s pretty clear it was enough to derail you. And you don’t give the readers and posters here much credit if you think one little comment was enough to distract them all.”
Nah. Dedalus, you are trying to bury substantive posts by cluttering the thread. It’s just what you do. I decided to call you on it, while reinforcing the substance.
Dedalus: “I will be blunt. You sound hysterical. I just think you’re a long-winded and pretentious writer and was merely asking you to get to the point.”
No, I made several important points, none of which you have even bothered addressing, much less refuting. There is nothing hysterical in my writing (if anything the posts have been a bit on the dry side), but I understand why a derailer would want to claim otherwise. And if I were merely longwinded and not saying anything, then the solution was simple: don’t read my posts. If my posts said nothing, then they wouldn’t be worth reading, much less responding to. Yet you do respond, again and again. Wonder why that is?
Dedalus: “To indulge in that and NOT say or offer a suggestion, and then consider the need to offer one a call to violence (where, oh where did he get THAT one from?), is the kind of thing that really turns people off and convinces them that this place is peopled by too many keyboard warriors.”
From derailment to innuendo. I stated that, in all likelihood, whites would use the same tactics in a broader approach as they would in the small state approach - hence that issue is irrelevant in comparing the two scenarios. Why should nuts and bolts strategies be all that different for whites in the Northwest as opposed to, say, Appalachia? I suppose it’s possible, but the differences aren’t readily apparent at this time.
The reality is that we don’t know exactly what whites will need to do. Could it be done peacefully? Hopefully. Could violence be involved? Hopefully not, but it’s certainly possible. How can I know how things will play out on the micro level? Right now, we’re talking macro. But I do find it interesting that you seem to be attempting to draw out some advocacy of violence, or insinuate that it is already there.
Many things are necessarily vague at this point. Doesn’t mean that all issues are vague. Some are clear, and it is those issues that we are attempting to discuss. Or were, before you started cluttering the thread with posts completely devoid of substance. Hopefully interested readers will move back up the thread to find meaningful posts, rather than conclude from what you have done that this is just a junk thread.
Dedalus: “It’s just my personal view that that kind of posting shouldn’t be enabled, it should be challenged.”
No, it’s apparent that your strategy is to offer absolutely nothing of substance, and to attempt to derail and distract those who do. White nationalist boards are plagued with your type of disruption. I again encourage anyone legitimately interested in the discussion to go further up the thread.
