Dec 12, 2010

By | 76 Comments

Secession is a Bad Idea for Whites

Secession is a Bad Idea for Whites

Is secession a good idea for whites? No.

A good way to see this is to analyze the military, political and social problems that Harold Covington's Pacific Northwest secession movement would face. He suggests that Whites gather in Idaho, Oregon and Washington and use guerrilla warfare to form an independent homeland that is free of non-Whites.

He describes the homeland and the guerrilla warfare, in The Brigade, a tense, suspenseful thriller (Harold A. Covington, The Brigade [Bloomington, Ind.: Xlibris Corporation, 2008]).

The first critical problem with the homeland is that it would be too weak to survive. There are several test cases for this. These are small countries, not much different in size from the Pacific Northwest homeland.

The three Baltic countries, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia have a combined population of just over 8 million people, similar to the number that the Pacific Northwest homeland would have. (Today the combined population of Idaho, Oregon and Washington is under 12 million.)

Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia once were parts of the Russian Empire. They seceded after the collapse of the Romanov dynasty, during the period of confusion, weakness and disorganization that the Russian Revolution caused. Joseph Stalin annexed all three of these countries in 1940. All it took him was a few meetings and phone calls. See Anatol Lieven, The Baltic Revolution: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Path to Independence (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994).

Finland is another good test case. Like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, it was part of the Russian Empire until it collapsed. Then Finland seceded, too. Finland, a larger country than Estonia or Latvia or Lithuania, was able to hold off a Soviet invasion for a while during the Winter War of 1939-1940.

Finland started with some big advantages. It had a large territory. It had deep snow and dense forests that confined Soviet invaders to roads. It had soldiers who could travel cross-country on skis, surround road-bound columns of Soviet troops and kill them. It had an excellent submachine gun which its soldiers used against Soviet invaders armed with outdated bolt-action rifles. It had an army with great courage and patriotism. Plus, Stalin had recently annihilated his army officer corps in a bloody purge.

Finland still had to sue for peace after a few weeks.

So, how powerful must a secessionist movement be in order to survive? How much industrial power must it have? How much territory? How many people?

Here in North America, the Northern conquest of the South is a definitive test of the possibility of secession.

By 1860 the South had lost control of the Presidency. It had also lost control of the House of Representatives because the voting population of the North was larger than the voting population of the South. The South still retained control of the Senate by a narrow margin, because the number of senators depended on the number of states.

Southern planters feared that, if they lost control of the Senate, the North would prevent them from expanding slave agriculture to any new states. They also feared that the North would outlaw slavery, once it took control of the Senate. See Marc Egnal, Clash of Extremes The Economic Origins of the Civil War (New York: Hill and Wang, a division of Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009).

Southern plantation agriculture wore out the land. Planters abandoned worn out land and resettled new lands, further west. This made it very important to them that they could freely bring their slaves to new states.

Unable to solve this political problem, the South seceded. Lincoln decided that he must have his tariffs, so he called for 70,000 volunteers and launched what is so far the bloodiest war ever fought in the Western Hemisphere. The South was enough weaker than the North that it could not afford to make political or military mistakes. But it made them.

Four years of bloodshed proved that the South was not strong enough to secede without the permission of the North. It steadily and gradually lost, militarily, a battle that it had already lost politically before it seceded. Had the South been strong enough to secede without permission, it would also have been strong enough to defend its political interests without seceding.

Secession is an attempt by the politically weaker of two parties to solve, by leaving the field, a political problem that it is too weak to solve, either politically or militarily.

Only the weaker party in a political conflict would want to secede. Only the stronger party would be strong enough to secede without the permission of the other. However, the stronger party would not want to secede because it could force the weaker party to do whatever it wanted.

Covington suggests that military disaster at some distant part of the empire might make the United States too weak to hold on to the Pacific Northwest in the face of guerilla warfare. Maybe so. But this would give the homeland the kind of temporary safety that a Thanksgiving turkey enjoys.

Any place where a secessionist might want to live would be too valuable for the larger, stronger party to give up.

The Pacific Northwest, in particular, is far too valuable to secede in peace. It has valuable hydroelectric power, in a world hungry for cheap energy. The Columbia, its most important river, is 1,243 miles long. Puget Sound gives the Pacific Northwest well-sheltered, world-class harbors. It has a major naval base. Nuclear submarines silently travel its waterways.

What tactics would the United Sates use to keep anyone from forming any independent homeland in such a valuable place, without its permission?


Writing in a neocon publication, US Army Colonel Ralph Peters (Ret.) said, “The point of all this is simple: Win. In warfare, nothing else matters. If you cannot win clean, win dirty. But win.”

Anyone who hopes to secede from the United States should expect it to use the same tactics that it has used before, whichever ones promise to work, whatever they might be.

What are these tactics?

Guatemala is a model case. Niall Ferguson, writing in The War of the World, described what happened there after a carefully-planned CIA coup d'etat that overthrew a democratically-elected Guatemalan government. (Niall Ferguson, The War of the World Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West [New York: Penguin, 2006], 610-617.)

Paramilitary death squads, the Mano Blanca, roamed the cities and countryside. In the 30 years after the 1954 coup, some 40,000 people disappeared. Mayan Indian tribes were relocated and forced into “strategic hamlets.”

Ferguson says hundreds of villages identified as 'red' were obliterated and their inhabitants tortured, raped and murdered. Surrounding forests were burned. He says there was mass slaughter of civilians. By the end of the 1990s the death toll had reached around 200,000. Because there were so many Mayan victims a UN commission deemed that these deaths were genocide.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are two more models that we can use to predict what the United State government would do to secessionists. Eric Margolis, writing in World News Daily Information Clearing House, said that “Pakistan finally bowed to Washington's angry demands last week by unleashing its military against rebellious Pushtun tribesmen of North-West Province . . .”

He said, “The Obama administration had threatened to stop $2 billion US annual cash payments to bankrupt Pakistan's political and military leadership and block $6.5 billion future aid, unless Islamabad sent its soldiers into Pakistan's turbulent NWFP along the Afghan frontier.” Pakistani armed forces used heavy artillery and gunfire from helicopters to kill Pushtun civilians.

Results came quickly.

Andrew Buncombe, writing in The Independent, said that as many as 2.4 million people fled Swat Valley. One man, aged 90, said that,” because there had been no warning to leave, when the gunfire erupted around them they gathered what they could carry and fled.”

The speed of the displacement, as helicopter gun ships fired on civilians fleeing the Swat Valley, reached 85,000 a day.

This terrorist tactic-firing heavy artillery at little villages and then pursuing fleeing villagers with gunfire from helicopters-could empty out every village and small town in the Pacific Northwest in a few weeks.

Where would refugees go after they were driven from secessionist villages and towns? They would go to camps, drawn there by promises of food, shelter and safety.

Most of these camps would be open-air prisons like the Gaza Strip, or the city of Fallujah, in Iraq, or the concentration camps where the British Army put Boer women and children during the Boer war. There would be harsh control of the perimeters of these camps, using earthen or concrete walls, razor wire, guard dogs, electrified fences, towers, mine fields and high-powered search lights.

All of these tools have been perfected and used. Any guerrilla fighters who remained outside the camps would be pressured to surrender when the women, children and old men in the camps began to die after being deprived of food, water, medicine and sanitation.

Torturers and assassins would visit the camps to cull interesting prisoners. They operated this way during the Phoenix Program in Vietnam. The founder of the Phoenix program, CIA officer William Colby, told a Congressional committee in 1971 that the Phoenix operation had killed 20,587 Vietcong suspects in two years (Hayden, 2008).

Writing in Small Wars Journal, Lt. Col. David Kilcullen advocated a world-wide Phoenix program. He went on to become chief strategist in the State Department's counterterrorism office in 2005 and 2006 and was chief adviser on counterinsurgency operations to General Petraeus, in planning the 2007 US troop surge in Iraq.

Justin Raimondo reported that high officials at the top of the United States Government have operated an assassination ring. He says that Defense Secretary Gates, acting under the authority of President Obama, has appointed the operational leader of this assassination ring, Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, to head U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

It is a huge piece of good luck that government strategy and tactics would make secession impossible. Secession would be a terrible, self-inflicted disaster.

Secession gives the enemy the location of a small, compact target where it can land a fatal blow. It lets the enemy organize its own territory without interference and then use all of the resources of that territory for aggression.

Secession always means the voluntary loss of valuable territory. It loses strategic depth for fighting a war. It loses rivers, ocean front and harbors. It loses road grids and railroad networks. It loses power stations and hydroelectric dams. It loses minerals and arable land. It loses defensible terrain features such as mountain ranges. It loses industrial plants and built up areas.

Secession also loses people. For example a Pacific Northwest homeland would leave out most members of the largest White ethnic group — Germans. They mostly live in a huge semi-circle of land in the middle of the United States, with its diameter on the Canadian border. Their key cities are Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis.

A Pacific Northwest homeland would also leave out most of the next-largest white ethnic group–the Irish. Oregon and Idaho are not even mentioned on the Wikipedia list of the twenty states with the largest population of Irish-Americans. Washington State has the 20th largest number of Irish-Americans.

And so it goes with all whites, whether they call themselves just plain Americans or mention descent from a specific white ethnic group. All whites are important. So any population transfer to implement any secession plan, of any sort, would be impossible. And that's a good thing because secession would create hostile borders that would splinter families, kindreds, and ethnic groups.

There are three good, recent models for this: Berlin was partitioned into East- and West Berlin. Germany was partitioned into East- and West Germany. Korea was — and still is — partitioned into North- and South Korea. All of these have had — or still have — hostile borders that featured guard towers, road barriers, barbed wire, death strips enforced by mines, machine guns and guard dogs, passport & visa requirements, body searches and other snooping, as well as confiscations, arbitrary arrests and mysterious disappearances.

Borders destroy social capital. Population transfers from one place to another also destroy social capital. There are two different cases here. In the first case, a border partitions an area, leaving a population divided in two, with large numbers of people passively staying in place. In the second case, numbers of people respond to special appeals to move to an area that plans to secede.

People who would be willing to move, as single individuals, to some distant place where a movement is afoot to secede are especially likely to be loners, High Plains drifters — people not tied down by strong emotional commitments to others. They are especially vulnerable to exploitation by agent provocateurs, because so many of their interactions are with strangers.They can be entrapped by honey pots. Their social networks are likely to be relatively impoverished and easily penetrated by malicious strangers. Collections of them are likely to lack small unit cohesion.

People who stay in one place for several generations are likely to be embedded in a rich network of social relationships. Groups of these people have Einheit, the mutual trust and common outlook built by shared experience. They have agreed frameworks for doing things. They have a capacity for deep emotional attachments to each other. Their social arrangements are based on ancient acquaintance, so they are hard for malicious strangers to penetrate and exploit. People who stay in one place have rich mental maps of their physical and social territory. The value of their social networks is very high.

This makes them difficult for a social parasite to exploit.

A lot of thought and effort has been spent to destroy the social networks of American whites, to ruin our Einheit, make us flee from the centers of our cities and turn us into atomized individuals or tiny nuclear families. The key to this destruction has been alien control of the mass media.

Decades of hate speech about whites, in the mass media, has enraged Negroes and made them more and more bold in attacking whites. Mass media participated in these attacks by motivating them, giving them ideological cover, and carefully concealing their nature and full extent from whites. Monopoly ownership of mass media made it impossible for whites to organize a hue and cry to prevent further predation.

As a result, unorganized, individual white families fled from violent crime near the centers of cities to suburbs on the distant outskirts. They abandoned center-city land worth as much as a million dollars an acre, in today's dollars, for land at the outskirts worth ten-thousand dollars an acre today. The economic loss to whites from this one factor alone is in the trillions of dollars. Typically whites sold sound, sturdy old houses on extremely valuable center-city land and bought brand-new houses on small parcels of nearly-worthless semi-rural land. Then their new houses began to depreciate to zero, while the land that they had abandoned in the center city skyrocketed.

The loss of social capital shows up in the reduced roaming radius that parents allow their children. A while ago, I talked with an older white man who probably was 65- to 70-years-old at the time we talked. He said that, as a 12-year-old boy, he rode his bicycle four or five miles to a hardware store. There he bought a 12-gauge shotgun for himself. Then he held it on his bicycle's handlebars and rode home. Nobody thought anything about it, he said.

This would never happen now.

The loss of social capital also shows up in the loss of informal play. Mothers drive their children from one carefully-protected, formally-scheduled activity to another.

White flight — the individual search for safety from ethnic cleansing — has spread from cities to whole states. For example, whites are fleeing ethnic cleansing in California.

Secession is white flight extended to multi-state regions. Flight to a promised Pacific Northwest homeland, for example, is white flight to a multi-state region.

No matter how large the region to which whites flee, it cannot work. A key reason is that white people are wealth, like herds of cattle or flocks of sheep. White people provide valuable habitat and nourishment for parasites of all kinds. So these parasites follow us everywhere.

South Africa is a fine example. The first major permanent white settlement anywhere in Africa started in 1652 when the Dutch East India Company built a supply station for its ships in the vicinity of present-day Cape Town, South Africa. At that stage the nearest Bantu tribes were more than 1,000 kilometers from the Cape.

By the time the British occupied the Cape for the first time in 1795 it had a white population of about 26,000, an estimated Cape Colored population of 20,000 and a slave population of around 30,000.

During the lifetime of the Republic of South Africa Bantu colonists also flooded South Africa, drawn by labor contracts.

South African farmers — the Boers — fled from British control. Everywhere they went, the British followed them and annexed their territory as soon as they had done the hard, dangerous work of settling it. The Boers and their territory were too valuable for the British to leave alone.

In the beginning South African whites had a chance to create an all-white country of their own. However, relying on non-white labor gave white habitat away to non-whites. It gave non-whites a chance to out-breed whites and displace them.

The very slow, slow growth of the white population in the pre-Revolutionary thirteen colonies, of North America, is a measure of how hard and dangerous it is to convert wilderness to urban, improved habitat.

It took 150 years, from 1650 to 1780, for the population of the 13 colonies to grow from 4,600 to 2,780,000.That is an increase of only18,502 a year.

It took just 30 years, from 1970 to 2000, for the Hispanic population of the United States to grow from an estimated 9.6 million to an estimated 35.3 million. This is an increase of more 856,666 Hispanics a year, a mark of how free, easy and safe their increase is.

Early America offered slim pickings for Jews, except in the slave trade. There were an estimated 1,243 to 3,000 in the United States in 1790. When Whites finished the difficult, dangerous work of settlement, the Jewish population suddenly leapt from 230,000 to 280,000 in 1880 to 1,508,000 to 2,349,754 in 1910. This was just three years before they took control of the United States banking system with their Federal Reserve system. (

None of these millions of newcomers paid their share of the cost of developing a high technological civilization in North America. None had built any roads, laid any railroad tracks, or built any bridges, dams or tall sky scrapers.

We Whites have helped non-whites dispossess us by giving our habitat away for free, after developing it at such cost. If we keep doing this, we will be extinct.

We must stop helping non-whites dispossess us. We must stop running away. We must stop giving free habitat to those who seek to dispossess us. We must take back our land.


Related Posts

  1. Because of his unrelenting polemical attacks on his fellow whites and his hysterical insistence that violent secession in the PNW is the only way forward for whites.

    • Rudel: Where in his books does it say anything that you have stated? Have you read any of them at all? Also, I see you being very negative without suggesting anything yourself. Would you care to share some of your ideas and suggestions rather then just shooting down the work of others?

      Thank you.

      • For about the fifth time: everything I have said about him is on his website and podcasts including his contradictions and his oft repeated statement that his novels are his blueprint for action.

        Harold Covington was a clown 20 years ago and remains a clown today. And alas, the level of smarts among the average WN commenter on web forums has not improved any from those who were posting on usenet 20 years ago either.

        And as for my views, they have been aptly stated in my posts.

  2. Yeah, Harold has some issues, but at least he’s still trying. I live in Tri-Cities WA and let me tell ya, these white people up here aren’t ready to do a damn thing.
    I think secession is the only catalyst worth pursuing, but if that’s all we can do we’re in for a rough road. To those against it, all I can say is I’m sure every empire had people waiting for people to wake up while things were crumbling.

  3. That’s all fine and dandy, but what’s the alternative? Lay down and do nothing because big bad Uncle Sam might get mad? I reject that idea out of hand. Yes, it’ll be hard. Yes, the US is gonna come down hard. People are going to die. But to do nothing? No. We’re just going to have to do what we do best – be better than the enemy. They come down hard, we come down harder. The US military is an inept, incompetent, disorganized gay dating pool, completely convinced of a superiority they no longer have. Fear the US military? Puhleeze. They couldn’t find their own asses with a map and a flashlight. Fight the US or live with social parasites and savage animals? Clearly fighting the US is the better road, win or lose. Don’t like the plan? Fine, then give us another one, but don’t tell me we’re giving up. I won’t.

    • “Fear the US military? Puhleeze. They couldn’t find their own asses with a map and a flashlight.:


  4. I suggest that those commenting (vulgarly) on the U.S. military’s alleged ineptness, take a look at the military channel that features weapons that are very lethal. incredible technology.

    Also, please all stop the vulgarity and ad hominem attacks. I am already next to disgusted with this stuff and will recommend that the whole ——– forum be ended. I can’t believe that advance and others are members of ——-. Joe Webb

    • Joe:

      This is not a “members” forum. It is a public forum. So you are going to have all sorts of people post comments.

      Stop talking about Fight Club and where it might meet. Look at the url!

      If you are lost, send me an email and ask!

  5. I shall be preparing a retort to Mr. Baird’s essay written from the 21st Century and for submission to TOQ for publication. For anyone who is not familiar with it, the linked essay serves as a primer. The retort will be a splendid way to kick off the New Year.

  6. ben tillman said:

    The Pacific Northwest, in particular, is far too valuable to secede in peace. It has valuable hydroelectric power, in a world hungry for cheap energy.

    Hydroelectric power? AYFKM? WE are the most valuable thing on this planet. The reason we cannot secede is that we are slaves whose masters kinow they will die without us!

  7. Matthew Dunnyveg said:

    I do agree that secession is problematic, but it is not as difficult as what it is made out to be here. Yes, the Civil War was a failure. But how about the Revolutionary war where the US seceded from Britain, the world’s superpower?

    The fact of the matter is that it is tragic that the Civil War split wasn’t successful as there is an ethnic cleavage that no amount of time will heal. Instead of being called north-south, it is now called Red State/Blue State. But the dynamics have changed little.

    As the country grows ever more divided between the irreconcilable “Reds” and “Blues”, the country will become ever harder to govern. My guess is that sooner rather than later that things will get to the point where both sides refuse to live under the governance of the other. Just look at the venom spewed at Clinton, Bush, and Obama.

    Rather than secession, I think these problems could just as easily devolve into some kind of tyranny where either Red or Blue imposes its political and cultural will on the other side. Secession would be far preferable.

    • celtthedog said:

      Just a very late historical correction.

      Citing the example of the 13 American colonies from the British empire as a example of successful secession overlooks one thing:

      That every major power in Europe supported the American colonists.

      France and Spain both declared war on Britain (which was not a superpower in 1776 — it did not achieve that status until 1815) and nations like the Netherlands broke off relations with Britain and provided supplies to the Americans.

      The examples given in this article — the Boer War (which was not actually a war of secession — the Transvaal and Orange Free State were independent) and the Confederate states — are more relevant. No-one came to these two states’ aid.

      No-one will come to the aid of a secessionist white Republic.

      If you don’t believe me, ask the Rhodesians.

  8. R. Barnard said:

    When some white South-Africans wanted to reserve a good piece of South-Africa as a homeland for whites, other whites said no nonsense the entire country is ours and we must retain it all. Today white South-Africans have NOTHING. Secession makes sense.

  9. I disagree completely with the author, secession is a good idea that must start somewhere

  10. “Southern plantation agriculture wore out the land. Planters abandoned worn out land and resettled new lands, further west.”
    They were wearing out the land and abandoning it? Could we see some documentation for this statement. We can easily document that there were plantations that had already existed, in one place, for generations.
    “Only the weaker party in a political conflict would want to secede. Only the stronger party would be strong enough to secede without the permission of the other. However, the stronger party would not want to secede because it could force the weaker party to do whatever it wanted.”
    This is fair reasoning for a specific circumstance, but does not take into account the complexities of an ongoing world. If it were absolutely true under all conditions, then we would long since already have had a one world government. There is a long list of powerful empires that broke up.

  11. Forgotten among the list of failures (the Southern War for Independence, for example) are the successes. Although your list of failures may outnumber my list of successes, the fact is throughout history most countries have owed their existence to secession. And quibbling over semantics – the meaning of the word ‘secession’ – is not productive. The United States seceded from the British Empire. So did Canada. So did Australia. The ancient Celtic nations of what is now called England seceded from a falling Roman Empire. Texas seceded from Mexico. Mexico seceded from…, well I could go on and on. It’s simply not worth time debating. You’re wrong, partner. Accept that fact and go on.

  12. Alfred Rosenberg said:

    So, secession doesn’t work?

    Good Lord man, have you forgotten what happened to the Soviet Union just twenty years ago? There are a lot more parallels between the situations in the USSR then and the USA now than there are differences. The USSR didn’t face an immigration invasion but it wasn’t as wealthy either.

    It took the USA as long to defeat the Confederacy as it took the combined forces of most of the world to defeat Germany and Japan in the 1940s, so describing Southern secession as futile from the get-go is a mighty big stretch.

    Comparing either of the above with Covington and his little band of merry men is the best laugh I’ve had in a while.

    Attention Activists: Take a poll of White people in the USA gauging their sentiments about secession. Then take the same poll in five years. I guarantee you it’s popularity is already something that a politician would envy, and is increasing rapidly. When it begins to happen in individual states, sure, it will be ‘officially’ color-blind. No matter – local control is the thing we should be striving for.

  13. perlhaqr said:

    Only the weaker party in a political conflict would want to secede. Only the stronger party would be strong enough to secede without the permission of the other. However, the stronger party would not want to secede because it could force the weaker party to do whatever it wanted.

    This is obviously false in modern first world America.

    As long as the people in “flyover country” are willing to play by the rules of democracy, where 50.1% of the populace can vote itself largess from the other 49.9%, they are the “weaker party” in the sense of not having enough votes to stop it.

    If secession occurs, do you really imagine the “troops” of today’s Massachusetts can stand against today’s Texas? Texas is certainly outnumbered by the populations of MA and NY, but a wolf pack outnumbered by a flock of sheep doesn’t have a lot to worry about.

    That said, you need to have a sufficient population behind you to pull it off. I think you would find that the number of people willing to attempt to construct a “White nation” anywhere would be incapable of doing so. Certainly you would face significant resistance, even from people you might consider erstwhile allies.

    Specifically, I am myself white, and if anyone starts engaging in ethnic cleansing, they may be surprised to find what direction my rifle is pointed.

  14. Clytemnestra said:

    I am opposed to secession, because it hurts Whites more than helps them. The Turner Diaries, etc., is the prime example of Secession Stupidity on Steroids. The War Between The States happened so long ago that WNs who are swept away by the romance and pageantry of the Confederacy’s Glorious (Lost) Cause forget how it ultimately isolated, marginalized and impoverished Southern Whites more than anything else. Moreover, it resulted not only in defeat but the imposition of the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments that were further designed to dispossess and impoverish all White Americans in the long run.

    The biggest most recent example of secession backfiring badly on Whites was the South turning Republican. The worst thing that happened to Whites was when Southern Democrats, upset with LBJ’s Great Society Nonsense, defected to the Republican Party rather than stay put and purge the Democrat ranks of more LBJs. There were and are still too many voters who are “Yellow Dog Democrats” and many of them are journalists. Democrats have had and probably always will have a lock on the media who controls the language. Propaganda 101 says that he who controls the language controls the outcome.

    AFAIC, the Republican Party is worse than useless to Whites. To me, they are controlled opposition, because they seem to function as nothing more than the “baby-faced wrestlers” in the political ring. Oh, during the election cycle, they are all fire-breathing White Nationalists, but the moment they get into office they can’t shake the White dust off their feet fast enough. I don’t care if they are given an overwhelming mandate by the voters and they control every seat in government but one. The first words out of their mouths are “compromise” and “bipartisanship” and they shit all over themselves to cross the aisle and suck up to the Democrat. In the meantime, they wholeheartedly sign on to every Affirmative Action and other discriminatory measure against Whites and they expect us to understand that they do it, because they don’t want to look racist and give them another free pass at the office.

    I hope White Tea Party Conservatives continue to purge the Republican Party of its RINOs, but it is time for White “Calico Indian” Leftists to seriously do whatever possible to infiltrate and wrest back control of the Democrat Party from anti-Whites, because Democrats are the street fighters. Conversely, I have noticed if they have only a majority of one or a couple of Republicans get a wild hair up their ass and become Independents, the Democrat Party are declaring victory like they have the mandate and they consign the whining Republicans to the back of the bus. Republicans may talk about considering the possibility of thinking about using a straight up majority vote nuclear option, but Democrats just do it or Obamacare would not be possible right now.

    It is a damned shame that many Whites continue to write off the Democrat Party. The MSM quickly covered up the shitstorm when Howard Dean said that he wanted to woo back the Nascar Dads with Confederate flag decals and gun racks on the back of their trucks. The one thing that was also covered up was how bloody and fractious the in-fighing was between Obamaniacs and the Clintonites who only gained any ground against BO when they belatedly realized that for all their past pandering to Non-Whites, those ingrates have this annoying habit of voting for their own once he runs for office. And there were other leaks of how truly obnoxious Black Democrats behaved after the primary toward White Democrats trying to get Obama elected. Yes, the Democrats want us back desperately. Let’s make a point to make it worthwhile to woo us.

    There is a lot of opportunity (if WNists are astute enough to recognize it) to being a racial minority, provided we remain large enough. Although the media likes to bullshit Whites into thinking there is this United Rainbow Coalition working against us that is only for our benefit. Once YT isn’t looking, Blacks, Yellows, Reds and Browns lunge for each other’s throats without giving it another thought. A large, cohesive minority of Whites could swing every election if we put our minds to it. That is why it is more important than to kick our intraracial biases to the curb, find common cause with, and organize across ideological lines with as many Whites as possible; starting with the only protected White group left, the homosexuals.

    Homophobia is an Eastern Semite issue, not a Western Japhethite tradition. Classic White civilizations did not discriminate against homosexuals and thrived for centuries. It was not homosexuality that undermined these empires, but their reliance on slave labor, particularly when they imported Non-White slave labor. If WNists could get over their homophobia, White homosexuals are already very useful to us, because they are a protected group and they know it, so while they take dick, they take no guff. They aren’t inhibited by the racist bugaboo that keeps White heterosexuals from raising hell over gang grafitti and other TNWB. They have been the advance shock troops in reclaiming valuable urban territory for Metropolitan young Whites that White Flight of a previous generation ceded to Non-Whites. Once homosexuals gentrify and recivilize an Urban Jungle, White families move back in. The White race needs White homosexuals to restore White civilization and it’s time to stop letting our personal sense of distaste over their sexuality prevent us from allowing them to help us retake our cities block by block.

    The one thing WNists all can and should agree on is that we don’t WANT to preserve the existing order; we want it to go away and we should all work together with that goal in mind. But trying to foment an apocalyptic scenario prematurely is not the way to go. Whites generating a quiet, defacto secession is not as “sexy” as a “Mad Max” version of de jure secession, but it’s far more effective. A lot of WNists buy Zionist spin that Islamic terrorists use fear and intimidation to get civilian populations to shelter them and aid them. I do not deny that they are not above doing that, but what is more important to note is that they also function extensively as charities. They feed the hungry, they house the homeless, etc. They provide social services to their targeted group that the governments they want to topple are not.

    WNists prefer to scare “Sheeple” off rather than setting themselves up as the “go to” guys or “Shepherds” for the “Sheeple” to look to whenever and wherever TSHTF. No matter how small the amount of manure that is hitting the oscillator belt may be. They need to establish a network and resource center for Whites. WNists need to organize in such a way that Whites eschew the government (which doesn’t help them anyway) to go to them for help. What WNists must work towards is establishing a more competent, less costly, more efficient new social system and they need to plug in as many Whites as soon possible so that when the old order inevitably collapses, there is less chaos for and destruction of White populations.

    WNists need to prepare Whites for the worst through education that encourages critical thinking. Not by pointing out what should already be obvious lest the forest get lost because of the trees, but by dropping a trail of bread crumbs that can easily be followed through the forest. For example, instead of ordering Whites to have more children, WNists need to remind them that every U.S. taxpayer will pay for someone’s children; if not theirs, whose? Most White conservatives want more children; however, they don’t believe they can afford them and they are unaware of the EITC benefits of having more.

    WNists can talk to their circle about the benefits of keeping overstocked on staples and toiletries in case of unexpected personal disasters like job loss or expensive car repair bills. They can talk about natural disasters that can come up and point out that the government relief workers will be grateful if their families aren’t ponying up for aid and adding to the number of panicked, hungry, disoriented people needing food and staples. There are 1001 ways for WNists to train other Whites to prepare for worst-case scenarios without unduly alarming them with apocalyptic, race-war NWO language.

    A panicked populace is easier for the federal government to tyrannize; WNists want most of Whites to remain calm while all of the government bureaucrat’s time and effort is expended trying to control all the panicked Non-Whites raising hell somewhere close to them. Remember that during the Los Angeles riots, the police did nothing as Non-White mobs stomped your average White Working Joe like Reginald Denny into the ground, but managed to get their act together to sufficiently stop them with the threat of lethal force when they went to marchin’, lootin’, killin’on Rodeo Drive. When mobs of upset Non-Whites converge in Georgetown, you can bet there will be “shoot to kill” orders given to Washington Capitol Police. Yggdrasil is absolutely right about the importance of ordinary Whites establishing close, helpful ties to the local police, firefighters, and other authorities for the times ahead.

    While I can’t see de jure secesson working to result in the breakup of the United States, I can see a de facto secession where WNists take control of their city, local and state governments and send state patriots to Congress to weaken the power and scope of the federal government would effect a hollow central federal government with powerful state governments it can’t afford to run afoul of.

    • “starting with the only protected White group left, the homosexuals.”

      What makes you say homosexuals are a “white group”? Are there “whites only” signs at the bathhouses in your city?

      “Homophobia is an Eastern Semite issue, not a Western Japhethite tradition.”

      “Homophobia” is a word that serves precisely the same purpose as words like “racism” and “anti-Semitism.” It seems strange to use such a word in a forum where one wouldn’t call someone a “racist” for criticizing non-whites.

      “Classic White civilizations did not discriminate against homosexuals and thrived for centuries.”

      Homosexuality in these civilizations was a very different affair from the homosexual counterculture of today. It could more rightly be viewed as a sort of institutionalized pederasty, which most of us in the west today (including liberals) would regard as abhorrent and wouldn’t tolerate (and likewise, ancient Greek pederasts would take a dim view of grown men who let themselves be sodomized by other grown men).

      You’re comparing apples and oranges and are entirely ignoring the issue of where the modern homosexual movement comes from (Magnus Hirschfeld) and what it stands for. Just what do you suppose the rainbow flag and the pink triangle that are the two most visible symbols of “gay pride” represent, exactly?

      Here’s the first verse to a 70s disco tune that was on the radio a couple of minutes ago:

      Carlos and Carmen Vidal just had a child
      A lovely girl with a crooked smile
      Now they gotta split ’cause the Bronx ain’t fit
      For a kid to grow up in
      Let’s find a place they say, somewhere far away
      With no blacks, no Jews and no gays

      “Homophobia is an Eastern Semite issue, not a Western Japhethite tradition.”

      Nonsense. Homosexual practices in eastern/Islamic cultures have had far more resemblance to ancient Greek pederasty than to the western homosexual counterculture of the last 100 years.

      “It was not homosexuality that undermined these empires, but their reliance on slave labor, particularly when they imported Non-White slave labor.”

      Why those empires/civilizations collapsed is far from established. I’ve heard dozens of explanations, all of them plausible.

      “If WNists could get over their homophobia, White homosexuals are already very useful to us…”

      So why don’t you form an alliance with them? Form your own “lavender” offshoot of white nationalism. If you’re onto something good, I’m sure others will follow.

      I don’t understand what you hope to gain by berating people who, for reasons that are perhaps entirely reasonable, don’t want to associate with out-of-the-closet homosexuals. Isn’t restoring freedom of association for whites a big part of what this whole movement claims to be about?

  15. For a race to preserve itself, it MUST have a definitve, exclusive territory, period. Since we whites, except in a few areas are so dispersed, in areas overwhelmed by belligerent nowhites who have not only the govenment/media complex’s blessings, encouragement, propaganda and even now financial support and de jure anti-white so called anti-hatecrime/speech laws on their side, what else can we do, our hand is forced. We are absolutely beyond the pont of any political solution, even if the body politic were not extremely corrupt, having the power and motives to manipulate elections either by pre-election machinations or by outright post-election ballotbox fraud, we’d still be outvoted by a monolithically nonwhite democratic voting-bloc, with ever-growing numbers and a sizable amount of leftist or moronic whites. Whatever the Teaparty achieves will be deemed unconstitutional by Marxo-fascist activist judges. They might throws us a bone on relatively unimportant things to reaffirm our faith in the judicial system and keep us fro rioting. The only area geographical suitable IS the NW, for the exact reasons given by Peterson. He failed to mention that just to the North is extremely white Alberta, also extremely dissatisfied with Canada’s national governance. They’ve talked about secession also, who know, Brithish Columbia and Alaska or parts thereof may jump into the fray or at least be sympathetic neighbors who’d secretly help and from whom many WN fighters and settlers would come. I believe as stated earlier that the US government & military were already spread too thin worldwide before Obama started his willful destruction of the economy by unhithertoseen profligate spending. The US will default, anarchy will rule in certain areas, we might even get embroiled in a war, even a nuclear war, or be invaded by and certain western states occupied byChina for defaulting on their loans. About the loss of money by giving up city-center real-estate, SO F$&?ING WHAT!? Our race is more precious than money, and we are losing it now any way. Did you ever consider they might be a lot of top military whites who are on our side. If we got just ONE boomer sub, it’d be a must and great deterrent . I pray to god this whole scenario happens, I abhor needless death and suffering of any race and animals. It won’t be easy and we are industrious, if we won, we’d have our most precious commodities, freedom, our DNA, our survival and racial self-determination. We could rebuild our wealth, have a strict, less vague constitution where being a nation or citizen is absolutely reserved for the white European (gentile) races. Also a much stronger 2nd amendment, term-limits where no citizen could serve more than 12 years, in toto, of all elected offices combined, where government leaders would not only NOT enjoy protection from arrest, but we get far more severe punishment for treason, malfeasance, gross favoritism, selling votes, theft, etc. The deathpenalty would be reserved for them. Also ZERO pay for all elected politicians, working for the government except military service, would bar someone from office, Napoleonic law, a supreme court made up of more members, for a single 5-year term, half of whom would be selected by the president, ratified by the national legislature, the other half selected by the governors, ratifies by state legislatures. This court could only strike down unconstitutional laws. There would always be the right of a super-majority of the voters to oust any elected official or to negate any supremecourt ruling. Voting age would be raised, and different levels of citizenship with the lowest level casting one vote, the next, 2, etc. Citizenship levels would be based on age, costititution/history/IQ tests, military service, landownership, etc. Government employees could not vote, except the military. We would have a dualistic national gov, first on race, borders, and defense, it’d be powerful. Other than that, and minting money, regulating commerce among the states, the states would be sovereign republics as long as they did not contradict or usurp powers reserved for the fed gov, with the right of secession. The fed gov could be greatly, temporarily empowered in wartime

  16. clytemnestra-may 23rd 2010-, good post. i have watched the U.S. degenerate. shocked but not surprised. 1987 or so was the turning point. (carter passed the ammesty law). it was around that time that all the politically correct speech regulations crept in. a book was published right before the immigration law passed, to brainwash the public. especially the young people in college. it was all very diabolical, as affirmative action was. i have lived in the north east most of my life, new york & boston. (a far cry from the heartland). so i got a large dose of third world way before the rest of middle america did. (was used to it to an extent, as new york was international). of cause this was in no way as serious as california or arizona, but i felt a shift, never the less. it was progressive untill it exploded! taking a taxi in new york/boston was taking your life in your life in your hands. ive had fights & violence w/nigerians, somalians, loatians, arabs etc. ive sued 2 cab companies. we dont need to go on discussing quality of life. most of these people are from cultures that will not assimilate, they are not european. they are abusive hate americans, especially those with pale skin. and by the way most jews do not want this mass invasion of criminals, unskilled laborers etc. the only entities who benefit from that are corporations & those w/private planes. unfortunately most people who are sheltered, cant “get” the third world. or how serious this problem is. now, I am one of those WHITE people who have had it! & regardless of what most of you say i am white, my identity is not israel. so here i am on the internet w/sites that blame it on the jews?

    • Clytemnestra said:


      Hey, there, Lauren.

      Unfortunately for working-class and middle-class Jewish people, the disproportionate representation of your ethnicity among the ranks of upper class and mega rich people blinds many other White ethnic working and middle-class groups to the fact that their Jewish neighbors are just as vulnerable to and have been just as victimized by attacks from rainbow thugs.

      Many assume that White “Christian” politicians on both sides of the aisle, like the McCains, the Kennedys, and the Bushes must all be “Jew tools” rather than what they really are; fellow members of the same global “old boy” country club as the Windsors, the Blairs, the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. Isn’t it funny how, since the Republicans and the Democrats achieved enough “bipartisanship” to pass Anti-White “civil rights” legislation, prohibiting freedom of association to Whites and Affirmative Discrimination … er, Action against Whites, we have political family dynasties in this country instead of fresh new candidates every election?

      I understand your frustration and though I loathe the White “Christian” part of the elite with the fire of ten thousand suns, because they view us as dispensable pawns, but I think it would suck ten thousand times worse to be in a situation where you know your own elite is every bit as much at fault, but you have to close ranks with them, because YOU end up getting scapegoated for everything they do and dealing with the backlash that follows, because they have the means and the wherewithal to “get the puck out of dodge!”

      I hope that White Nationalists of every ethnic group wake up to the fact that America’s dirty little secret is not race, but class and unite against the perpetrators who oppress us all!

  17. chechar are you in mexico??

  18. Trainspotter said:

    I’ve argued against secession in the past, but as time goes on I find myself warming a bit to the idea.

    Whether one is pro or con, Peterson’s essay strikes me as rather weak tea. For example, he emphasizes the trials and tribulations of the Baltic states and Finland…while neglecting to mention that they are all independent states today. Not exactly a knockout punch against secession. “My argument against secession is pointing to states that, well, successfully seceded.”

    Further, he claims that secession will result in reduced social capital amongst whites. He then discusses at some length how the current system has been, well, reducing social capital amongst whites. So, save social capital by sticking with the very system that destroys it? Maybe I missed a memo or something. Methinks Peterson doth contradict himself. Again.

    One of the major points of migration followed by secession is precisely to rebuild social capital by developing real white communities again, and in time the full array of societal institutions. The system that we currently live under, on the other hand, is the great destroyer of social capital, and of all the traditions and connections that give live context, attachment and meaning. I’d score another point for secession.

    But at the end of the day, it’s become a question of math and demographic reality. There are now well over 100 million non-whites in this country. According to mainstream stats, non-white births probably already outnumber white births.

    If that’s what is showing up in the mainstream, you can rest assured that the real milestone was passed some years ago, if for no other reason than many people who clearly aren’t white (and wouldn’t consider themselves white in the sense that we mean it) would be counted as such in mainstream stats – so you can shave a few points from the white column right from the get go.

    Then considering that immigration, both legal and illegal, is overwhelmingly non-white, additional non-white children of all ages are constantly being added to each age cohort. So those white newborns who are already minorities in the year of their birth year will make up an even smaller percentage by the time they hit 18, and for every year thereafter for that matter.

    So, something has got to give. Again, I’ve argued against secession in the not so distant past, but it’s beginning to look like a potentially viable choice on a rapidly shrinking menu.

    Ygg is so often an insightful guy, but as for his claim that secession smacks of elitism, I simply don’t buy it. A white ethnostate in North America would welcome other whites – that’s sort of the whole point of creating one. Certainly, the successful creation of a white ethnostate would have evolutionary consequences, as the ethnostate would undoubtedly facilitate large families in order to keep the white cradle full. This would mean that the segment of whites that moved to the ethnostate would tend to proliferate, while those who remained in the Grand Cesspool would tend to diminish, due to everything from low fertility and miscegenation to suffering the depredations of non-white malice and violence.

    But the point is that if an ethnostate is created, remaining in the Grand Cesspool would be their choice.

    It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if a White Republic would, sooner than one might think, constitute a majority of white births on the continent. Even today, a non-white population approximately half the size of the white population manages to outbreed us, and they accomplish this with fertility rates that aren’t all that high in the scheme of things. A successful White Republic could post even greater gains.

    As this process plays out, it would in effect help us shed the detritus of our race. This needs to happen; we need that sort of racial transformation. If someone prefers living in the Grand Cesspool to the White Rebublic, when they are given a free and clear choice between the two, is it “elitist” to point out that maybe we are better off without them? Maybe it is all to the good that they remain amongst the dwindlers?

    As to certain “smart” moves that Ygg mentions but does not advocate, I’ll say that there is nothing incompatible with using such moves in the service of creating a White Republic. I too only mention this and do not advocate it, just pointing out that the “con” arguments expressed here do not persuade. The White Republic is something worthy of our consideration and, in the fullness of time, maybe more.

  19. Fr. John said:

    As this article is from two years ago (which, in internet terms, is like B/W TV, vs. Blue-ray) I would wonder if the author has had his head in the sand, since the 2010 Elections, when B.O. had his first great setback.

    After Scott Walkers WIN (not a ‘surviving’) the other day, and the growing anger of Whites against the Obamanation (even the in-house battles of Ron Paul’s people taking over the Republitard convention, from all appearances), I think we need an update on this piece.

    In all countries where the White Man is the ‘Native,’ there is a movement (I would consider it from God, frankly) toward racial awakening. I myself, even after ten plus years of commenting on the World situation, have only just recently begun to see a change.

    Here is the URL-

    Perhaps we need to remember, we are only slaves as long as we put up with the BS. Sometimes freedom is more important that security. Maybe, even, ALWAYS? Maybe we’re just tired of the B.O. B.S. – something as simple as that. – Fr. John+

  20. Hammerheart said:

    It’s hard not to laugh at this article. It admits it contradicts itself. But worse follows. I have specialise knowledge in the areas of ancient Greece, to a lesser extent prehistoric Europe & post Roman empire Europe focussing on Britain, Gaul & the Scandinavian countries. Virtually every statement the author of this article makes pertains strictly to the contemporary modern world (roughly 150 year range). On his mentality America would never have been colonized in the 1st place. Data from the European historical past clearly (flatly) contradicts the thesis of
    his article. Of course secession can work. Could a Northwest territorial imperative strategy beat the US military of today? Doubtful. I have read all 4 Covington books & I have had similar doubts. The cold hard truth is that this article at the end of the day is a council to despair & cowardice. ‘Middle class whites’ have no power (politically etc–within therules of the game as set by the oppressor)–to take back the Republican party & defeat the wealth interests he mentions. THAT is starry-eyed Pollyanna-ism.

Back to Top