By Trainspotter | 5 Comments | 
Print
Thinking Big:
Trainspotter on Secession
Editor’s Note: I have decided to publish the following comment on Michael O’Meara’s Prize Essay “Toward the White Republic” as a stand-alone essay.
Great essay! I am in complete agreement that the present system cannot be reformed. That ship sailed long ago. The guy made a lot of good points, but reading Sam Francis seems almost quaint now. Things really are that far gone.
Obviously, what follows is simply a thought exercise about a hypothetical scenario, not advocacy.
My main quibble with secessionists is that their vision tends to be too limited. For example (hypothetically), if the US is vulnerable to Fourth Generation Warfare — and it is — why settle for just a tiny breakaway state? Why not go for more? Why not weaken the enemy to the point where he no longer constitutes a real threat? If he’s vulnerable, you exploit, you do not concede.
The reality is that the the Left/non-white/Jewish power base is limited to a few rather small areas of the country, the most prominent being the BosWash corridor. Throw in a few overtly hostile areas on the Left Coast, and a few islands of insanity/malice in between, and that is pretty much it. The vast hinterland, on the other hand, should be considered in play. Sure, there are a large number of non-whites/anti-whites everywhere, but once the hypothetical party starts, how long is an anti-white going to hang out in Arkansas when Boston and San Francisco beckon? I can see the vast hinterland draining of anti-whites quite quickly, IF it is kept in play. Always leave your opponent an exit — but he doesn’t need all of flyover to have that exit. BosWash and a few other places will do more than nicely. They can have downtown Manhattan, literally and figuratively. That’s what they really care about, not Bum F*** Idaho.
If we, again hypothetically, can’t take all of it back (or most of it, anyway), then so be it. But we should try. Let the OTHER guy end up with the small slice. Let’s face it, our enemies view most of the country with contempt anyway. They might fight hard for San Francisco or Boston, but for East Tennessee? For most of flyover country? If there was real personal risk involved? If it was costing them hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars?
As Captainchaos says in his comment on O’Meara’s essay: “Secession could be an intermediary step in the complete reconquest of North America, i.e., the removal of all or most non-Whites from North America.”
Bingo. Whatever gets the party started is a good thing. But there is absolutely no reason to think small. With Fourth Generation Warfare, huge swaths of the country could be put into play, simultaneously denying strength and resources to the enemy. It seems like a terrible idea to simply concede from the get go the bulk of the continent. The Left thinks big, and so should we. They go for the whole enchilada. They want us gone, gone, gone — no matter where we are. Perhaps that favor should be returned. With Fourth Generation Warfare across the broad swath of the continent there is no way that the anti-white government could continue to function. It would be overwhelmed and essentially rendered inoperable by a relatively small number of people. At that point the creation of the new white nation would be largely assured.
None of this is meant to refute the winning essay. The author does not specify how big or small the coming white nation should aspire to be. My argument is that while secession has a lot to be said for it, and I think secession (in some form) is the way things will likely play out in time, there is no downside to thinking bigger as opposed to smaller. The same tactics that could win a small state could win a much larger state — the bulk of North America. Our enemies need to be massively weakened, and deprived of all power if possible. A nuclear armed North Brazil controlled by crazed anti-whites is not an appealing prospect (or an appealing neighbor) — and we should avoid it if at all possible.
It is possible. The larger our new nation is the more resources and power our enemies are deprived of. It’s a zero sum game in that sense, and they should be reduced as close to zero as possible. For every additional swath of territory you get a twofer — more power for the coming white nation and less for its most determined enemies. The net effect will be huge.
Trainspotter,
“Partition” better describes your position than “secession.” Secession tends to imply breaking off a chunk but leaving the whole essentially intact — Spain, for example, would still largely be Spain if Catalonia or the Canaries were to secede. Partition adds a sense of finality to the equation: the old order is dead, a new order emerges. This should not necessarily be regarded negatively (“we’ve lost; this is the best that can be hoped for”). Such a revolutionary racialism — a positive movement towards a positive, even progressive , end — could succeed where racialists — defined here as people with positive pro-self racial feelings — have consistently failed throughout human history. Partition also provides an easy way out of the thorny moral (and logistic) issues certain to remain even in the event of a complete reconquest, namely what to do with the millions of racial incompatibles (most of whom are not experienced sufficiently negatively by whites to permit inhumane — by standards ancient or modern — treatment). Lastly, partition permits the recruitment of millions of fervent pro-American racial incompatibles (of whom ongoing mixing will ensure many more, and for whom ongoing hispanization can hardly be considered a welcome development). History demonstrates that men are willing to sacrifice for ideas as readily as they are for nation (Jared Taylor is wrong — see the communists); WNs would be fools to scorn such an easy alliance.
Yes.
But very likely any semi-successful attempt at secession, say, in the PacNW; will be emulated elsewhere, with all due haste, justa s in the American Civil War. Southern Illinois-Kentucky-Southern Missouri-Tennesse, for example, form a particularly aggressive white patriot bloc. Maine-Vermont-New Hampshire are over 90% white and have a long history of rugged individualism and independence. Several seccessionist areas could arise within a short time of each other. What then?
Do patriot families leave their lands, the lands that have been occupied for generations by these same families, to join a PacNW rebellion, forsaking hearth and home? Or would they be more inclined to attempt secession themselves, within their own territory.
Which scenario would more likely win the White Republic? It isn’t exactly a rhetorical question, this most recent post has me thinking of the reality of a PacNW secession movement with its attendant call to all white patriots to join it; as opposed to what the reactions of these same called out whites would likely be.
There would be strength in numbers, true, should most patriots would be concentrated in one area, with one goal….but on the other hand, the idea of three or four ‘white republics’ arising more or less simultaneously would present, logistically, a much more difficult problem for the United States.
“But there is absolutely no reason to think small. With Fourth Generation Warfare, huge swaths of the country could be put into play, simultaneously denying strength and resources to the enemy. It seems like a terrible idea to simply concede from the get go the bulk of the continent. The Left thinks big, and so should we. ”
Thinking big is also a trap. I can’t tell you how many nationalists I hear discussing Russia, China, Mexico, the United States, while their own neighborhoods are being destroyed. Thinking in macro political terms saves people from dealing with the difficult reality as it exists. I only think “local” for everything my political group does. That’s the only thing I can have chance to fight for. 4GW operations are 99% small affairs and 1% big affairs. The reason to think small is because _we are small_ Not in terms of demographics, which you incorrectly use to aid your argument. The “good” demographics of white people does not matter. It’s the political development of people who believe in these ideas that matter. And let me tell you from experience, that number is not just small it’s tiny. I have also been opposed by one hundred times more white people than any number of non whites in all my activities. And you think that you can conquer a continent? With a people who actively repress your views? Or that it’s hypothetically desirable that “Secession could be an intermediary step in the complete reconquest of North America, i.e., the removal of all or most non-Whites from North America.” is possible? That statement is not just dangerous fantasy but is an unreasonable and impractical goal. The goal is to separate. Not to annihilate.
“And let me tell you from experience, that number is not just small it’s tiny.”
We can grow!
O’meara in his original essay noted that the American Revolution was pretty small in 1774, but had grown substantially by 1776! Also read Louis Beams works on how ‘Revolutionary Majorities (http://www.newnation.org/Archives/RevolutionaryMajorities.html) or just look at what the very small number of Jewish Bolsheviks managed to achieve in Tsarist Russia. It is not so much numbers as WILL.
When you say “take it all back” what do you mean? The physical area of the United States dominated by a significant majority of white people (over 90%) is enormous, as you point out. But within that territory are probably hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of minority property owners, mulatto property owners, Jews and michlings. What do you propose to do with these people in a practical basis? Any movement that would make a big issue out of depriving non-whites in the new “white republic” of their property without due process would be extremely unlikely to gather wide support. Most white people would find the effort needed to make sure there are no non-whites or Jews left in Nebraska and Kansas an unnecessary effort. And an immoral one as well.