But I would like all of you to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

We all react powerfully to the videos of helicopter gun ships blasting groups of supposed “terrorists” on the ground in central Asia. We react equally to videos of very expensive munitions fired from drones that slaughter groups of these supposed “terrorists”.

I say “supposed” for the simple reason that the men being slaughtered happen to be half way around the World from us, and have no visible means of getting to our shores unless we provide the means. Indeed, if the population of the U.S. were entirely homogeneous and light skinned, there would be little fear of terrorism simply because we could not see any of these central Asian Muslims around us.

Thus, the fear of terror would be implausible, and support for trillion dollar expenditures to support a vast anti-terror bureaucracy is very much at risk, unless that anti-terror bureaucracy—coincident with the bombings and slaughters—imported relatives of the victims to circulate among us and make the threat of domestic terror visible, and hence support for the anti-terror machine and its trillion dollar budgets plausible.

As usual, multiculturalism is always and everywhere a means by which a minority can impose its will and its system of social control by pitting one group against another.

But the key to survival in this modern world is to see the pieces of the puzzle that are in plain view right in front of you and from their shape, accurately deduce the shape and nature of the pieces of the puzzle that are not visible.

For example: is it necessarily true that the regime would use helicopter gun ships and air to ground rockets fired from drones to exterminate domestic revolutionaries? Would the regime need to “go loud” like this and risk alarming the neighbors and waking them from their stupor?

So what is it about the populations that do get bombed and strafed that might differentiate them from us. After all, while they get bombed and strafed, racialists in the U.S. are free to fly unhindered; we are treated with extraordinary courtesy during traffic stops; and are typically let go with a smile and a warning (no snickering or winks and nods from the Cat 3 peanut gallery please!). Despite early attempts to shut down racialist web sites, the powers that be are allowing them to multiply like mushrooms in spring rain during recent years.

In similar fashion, there is a huge commerce in firearms—mostly assault rifles—that the regime tolerates with total equanimity.

Is there a unifying characteristic of those differing people who get bombs dropped on them from safe altitudes? Anything beyond the simple fact that they hate the regime because they supposedly “hate our freedom”, while we hate the regime because of our loss of freedom?

Let me make a radical suggestion.

The populations of Iraq, Afghanistan and Serbia do share a common characteristic. And it is obviously not the Muslim religion or brown skin color. Serbia is the “Ethiopian in the fuel supply” that tips us off to the shape and nature of the puzzle pieces that are not visible.

Serbs are as White as Austrians, and they are Eastern Orthodox Christians, heroes who for centuries have repelled invasions of numerous Asian and Muslim hordes seeking to invade Europe.

But at the time of our most excellent adventure over the skies of Serbia, they maintained an autarchic economy and did not participate in the Western banking system. In short, while Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan may have had local banks, and while varying percentages of their populations may have had bank accounts and credit cards—scaling from perhaps a majority in Serbia, to a minority in Iraq, to a miniscule number in Afghanistan—neither the Serbian, the Iraqi nor the Afghan banking arrangements were within the reach of Interpol or the FBI (which, curiously, seems to operate worldwide).

One day several years ago I walked into a branch of Wells Fargo and sat down to chat with the branch manager. I asked her whether the FBI could simply erase my checking account, and if so would they have to notify the bank first. She said that the FBI has a direct electronic connection to the accounts at that bank and every other bank that is a member of the Federal Reserve System and they can delete or freeze an account at any time without ever having to notify the bank.

Then I said, “How about my investment account with your brokerage subsidiary? Same answer. They can delete or freeze it electronically and they do not need to tell us why. (Same with your credit card and debit card, by the way.)

If they were to do that, the victim could not sell his house and collect the proceeds, and he would not have the means to hire a lawyer and file for relief in Federal Court. He would be immobilized, unable to purchase an airline ticket, and unable to fill the gas tank in the car or buy food.

What could a fellow do under those circumstances? Go complain to the neighbors that all his accounts have been deleted by the government and risk getting himself committed to a mental institution? From the regime’s perspective it sure beats having a helicopter gun ship scare the crap out of the neighbors by strafing and demolishing someone’s house, killing him with 20mm cannon fire!

Lets back out for a larger look at the numbers.

In the U.S., we have approximately 55 million adults who are on welfare and we have another 30 million adults who are receiving and are dependent upon Social Security/Old Age benefits. This group is completely under the thumb of the regime. A cancellation of the automatic deposit or a failure to reload the plastic food card would cast any individual revolutionary in this group into the hedge rows to starve. And the government knows exactly who these people are.

Next, look at the number of people with credit card debt. Odds are overwhelming that these people are loyal “consumers” and have no stash of cash or precious metals that could see them through an account deletion. Again any dissident individual in this category could be immobilized and would starve in the hedge rows.

The gold dealers and gold bug websites estimate that only one half of one percent of the population owns physical gold or silver. All large purchases of gold or silver must be made by wire or credit card, so the regime has a pretty good handle on who has substantial stashes of the metal. There may be some extraordinarily disciplined savers that buy a few hundred dollars worth of silver rounds every month with cash, but those are almost certainly confined to those who have no credit card debt, narrowing the pool in which to search for suspects.

Similarly, cash withdrawals from banks are monitored, and any sudden large cash withdrawals must be reported as suspicious by the teller. An army fights on its stomach, as the saying goes, and it would take massive amounts of cash or sales of precious metals in order to finance the movement of a few thousand men to the Pacific Northwest. Why do you think that in the latest “Patriot” Act the government required 1099 filings for sales of precious metals back to dealers?

They are watching for this, and any sudden pattern of cash withdrawals or physical metal sales would be detected and correlated with lists of known dissidents and with the individuals who show up on the carefully mapped neural networks of persons who call or email these known dissidents. The regime doesn’t care what you say, they only need care who you are saying it to.

So it seems completely clear to me that the reasons for the helicopter gun ships, the missile launching drones, and the bombs falling from safe altitudes half way around the world are two-fold.

First and foremost, Iraqis and Afghans are not “consumers” tied to the credit system, and therefore there is no way of controlling them other than by armed force. And second, the broadcast of carefully selected videos of these slaughters serves to impress upon the public mind the terror that the regime, in all its majesty, can inflict upon those who are not addicted to cable TV and going into debt to buy expensive toys and expensive vacations. These slaughters serve the same purpose as was served by the Coliseum in Rome and the gladiatorial amphitheaters constructed throughout the Roman Empire and are, in the eyes of the regime, worth the trillions that the videos cost.

Given the new tools that modern technology and modern consumer behavior have bestowed upon the regime, it seems clear that they can control us without violence, and I would bet big money that they have no intention of ever blasting us wrong-thinking “consumers” with helicopter gun ships or missiles fired from drones.

Even if we were to begin funding a mass movement of men and arms, we would be picked up quietly, most likely on the road or outside a store with little or now show of force and most likely with the same solicitude that Cat Threes are greeted on the highway. After all, there is no way the regime would be stupid enough to start a panic and trigger copy cats by using our pathetically inadequate movement of funds and men to signal that an armed revolution is afoot. To do so would be to allow us to leverage their resources to our purposes.

What would lead any of us to believe that the regime has not learned the lessons of Ruby Ridge and Waco? Americans are not going to be entertained by videos of neighbors who have always left them alone being burned to death or shot to pieces by helicopter gun ships. As long as you are not a “public figure” and have no swastikas or rebel flags on the wall, the regime is unlikely to sacrifice its image by frying you or chopping you into hamburger meat in public. Unlike the helicopter gunship videos from Afghanistan which show the targets only at a distance, such a slaughter on U.S. soil would result in close up cell phone videos of the corpses all over the Internet.

Dead veterans wearing their old dog tags would be a deeply troubling propaganda disaster for the regime.

Now let us back out and look at the puzzle pieces before us from an even more distant perspective.

Each new layer of complexity designed to increase efficiency and reduce costs in our economy increases its fragility and renders it more vulnerable to black swan events. Our just-in-time delivery systems give us about five days worth of food and about ten days of gasoline. Bernanke’s loss of control over long term interest rates—that QE-2 was intended to lower—could lead to a series of financial catastrophes that destabilize our society and leave our population cold and hungry.

The real danger to the regime is a military coup as a result of one or more of these catastrophes.

But a coup by the military would only capture and disable the facade of government—the elected and appointed officials in Washington. In fairness to the military, they do know that they would have to get control of the radio and TV stations, turn off the satellite feeds, and get control of the broadcasts.

But it is very unlikely that the the officer corps would have any idea how to identify and capture the real government of the U.S.—the people in New York and Los Angeles who would oppose their takeover, turn their coup into a propaganda disaster, and likely defeat them unless quickly deprived of their power—which would almost certainly require our help. We are the only ones who could identify the moles who would do everything in their power to subvert the coup and topple the military.

Once we were given access to the computers of the surveillance state, a few well designed database queries would give us a list of the real government, and all of them could have their bank, brokerage and credit cards erased or frozen, which would then immobilize them and cast them back into the lowly and dependent “consumer” status that they have so carefully crafted for us while avoiding a bloody mess and the feelings of revulsion that would turn the people against the military.

Few would have to be detained. For a coup to succeed, one must understand the levers of power that inhere in the surveillance apparatus of the state.

A far more likely scenario is a slow withering away of the regime’s resources, and a gradual abandonment of functions it can no longer afford.

Secession happens slowly, by degrees.

First there are the noticeable stresses and fissures that become visible: rising unemployment, falling real incomes for our children, and government policies that deprive us of secure savings opportunities.

In this case we would be wise to stay where we are and make ourselves useful to local officials: the county sheriff and the elected state representatives, those with the power to quietly and unobtrusively reverse the policies which unfairly burden our people, as we transform ourselves from an educational charity to a welfare organization that helps our people through rough times, provides teachers and schools for the gifted (when these programs are canceled for lack of funds), organizes medical care as the insurance system collapses, and provides emergency food and shelter for those most likely to rebound and contribute. These are all activities that, through selection of recipients, provide help in ways that reverse the wildly dysgenic effects of the welfare state on the fitness of our people.

Already serious strains are showing up in state and local finances that put the local authorities at odds with the Feds. Most of the states have elected representatives who actively solicit educated, unpaid volunteers to serve as legislative analysts. Since most of the TOQ crowd have college degrees, and many have graduate degrees, we are particularly qualified to take advantage of these stresses by helping our elected state legislators.

If you have a Republican state representative, call him or her and volunteer. With every analysis you are asked to do, you prepare an estimate of the impact of the proposed legislation on Republican voters, a useful proxy for Whites capable of being salvaged. This will condition your Republican representative to actually think about the interests of their Republican voters—something which Republicans generally are not inclined to do. Of course, you never mention WN, but you should constantly remind them that a Republican must motivate the base, and that real political motivation requires not just remote benefits to a universalized “everyman”, but benefits us and not the identifiable “them” who oppose us and our interests.

In Texas, we have a part time legislature and those elected to serve in the Texas House (as opposed to the Senate) have no budget for staff beyond a lone secretary/receptionist. It will be the same in most other states. So the opportunity for meaningful activism is there. Carpe diem!

Now is also the time to declare independence from the consumer culture:

• We cancel our cable subscriptions.
• We stop watching professional sports.
• We sell the big house and trade down to a smaller house (and do it early to beat the rush).
• We cut up our credit cards, start saving money, and begin buying silver rounds for cash as insurance against a total collapse of the monetary system.
• We boycott brand-name goods in favor of generics.

In short, we starve the beast.

The good news is that millions of Americans are canceling their cable, and millions more have stopped watching pro sports (the NBA has begun playing White basketball players even though any idiot can see that the black players do what they can to avoid passing them the ball).

We need to recognize and ride these trends. We need to pace our fellow Whites and encourage the above behaviors.

Most of all, we must be good and useful neighbors to our fellow Whites, building awareness and understanding,  always making ourselves helpful and useful.

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?

Anything.

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. http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hispanic/hispanic.html

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. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/usjewpop1.html)

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.

This essay was originally published on Sep 3, 2009

In order to develop the TOQ network further in the direction of being a virtual think tank, we instituted an annual essay contest which offers a prize of $1,000.

The first contest was on “Secession and Racial Nationalism.” It was a resounding success. I am in the process of putting together the best essays as a special issue of TOQ. A number of these essays have already been published at TOQ Online. TOQ Online also contains extensive additional discussions of secession, and the topic will continue to be a focus in the future.

When the Soviet Union disintegrated, most Americans likely had never heard of Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan.

Yet the ethnonationalism of these Asian peoples, boiling to the surface after centuries of tsarist and communist repression, helped tear apart one of the great empires of history.

There swiftly followed the collapse of Yugoslavia.

Yet, if one knew nothing of the Habsburg and Ottoman empires or the First and Second Balkan Wars of 1912-1913, one would likely have been surprised by the sudden emergence of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Kosovo on the map of Europe.

What the splintering of the Soviet Union and of a Yugoslavia whose baptismal certificate dated to the Paris peace conference of 1919 revealed was the accuracy of Arthur Schlesinger’s insight in his 1991 Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society:

“Nationalism remains after two centuries the most vital political emotion in the world — far more vital than social ideologies such a communism or fascism or even democracy. … Within nation-states, nationalism takes the form of ethnicity or tribalism.”

Ethnic ties, Schlesinger wrote, might prove more powerful and historically important than the forces of globalism and democratism, which then seemed ascendant. He only neglected to mention religious faith as often a “far more vital” emotion than ideology.

. . .

Globalization is no longer on the march, but on the defensive. Economic nationalism is rising. Across the Third World, we see an upsurge of ethnonationalism and fundamentalism, especially among the Islamic peoples. From Nigeria to Sudan to Mindanao, Muslims battle Christians, as Christians are persecuted in Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan.

In India and Thailand, Muslims battle Hindu and Buddhists. In the Northern Caucasus, they fight Russians.

Ethnonationalism, that relentless drive of peoples to secede and dwell apart, to establish their own nation-state, where their faith is predominant, their language spoken, their heroes and history revered, and they rule to the exclusion of all others, is rampant.

In China, Tibetans fight assimilation and the mass migration of Han Chinese into what was their country, as do the Uighurs in the west who dream of an East Turkestan breaking away and taking its place among the nations of the world.

In speaking of the rising tribalism abroad, Schlesinger added, “The ethnic upsurge in America, far from being unique, partakes of the global fever.”

Indeed, separatism and secessionism seem to be in the air.

Read the whole article.

Introduction

The work of Dr. Frank Salter is of great relevance to racial nationalism and secession. Dr. Salter correctly identifies genetic interests as ultimate interests. Population group interests are ethnic genetic interests, the importance of which is amplified by the large numbers of people who constitute ethnic and racial groups. These interests are threatened by mass immigration and by the multicultural state. Every population group requires a territory in which the continuity of that group can be ensured. Introduction of alien peoples into a territory eventually fills its carrying capacity and diminishes the numbers of the native group. Therefore, the optimal situation for genetic continuity is the ethnostate, in which territorial carrying capacity is utilized for a specific group’s advantage.

In the United States, mass immigration and a multiracial population is highly maladaptive for the genetic interests of European-Americans (“white Americans”). Therefore, it is rational to consider secessionist ideas for safeguarding European-American genetic interests. In this essay, I will evaluate several ideas regarding secessionism, submit my own tentative proposal, and conclude with some final thoughts.

“Reconquest” and “Citizenism”

One school of thought rejects the idea of secession and instead proposes “reconquest,” that the white majority retake control of America.  This “reconquest” would entail turning back the clock to a time of no Third World immigration (legal or illegal), no affirmative action, and no “civil rights” legislation. In the typical version of this scenario, America would still have a large non-white minority population, but that population would become politically quiescent, and the white majority more politically active. Whites would impose laws designed to both maintain their status as the demographic majority as well as reaffirm the principle of freedom of association in employment, housing, and schooling. The most notable proponent of this view was Sam Francis.

While some claim that this scenario is more “realistic” than secession, one wonders if it actually is. Given the rapid decline in white demographics, and the certainty that most non-whites would oppose “reconquest,” this scenario would require a large majority of whites, including white liberals, to support strongly pro-white policies and political candidates. It would necessitate forcing mobilized minority groups, emboldened by decades of multiculturalist advantage, to fade into the background and accept a reversal of their growing power. It would require strict immigration control, at a time when Americans cannot even stem the flow of illegals, and it would require that the white population increase its birthrate to retain its numerical advantage over minority groups.

This scenario would require constant vigilance, guarding against changing demographics, unrest amongst the disgruntled minorities, as well as the possibility of whites agreeing to restore the multicultural regime. To avoid inter-racial crime as well as miscegenation, strict segregation would have to be maintained. Thus, “reconquest” would entail enormous continuing costs, and while such a regime would be superior to the current multicultural system, a large and potentially dangerous minority population would remain. The race-culture problem would not be solved, merely adjusted and made more tolerable.

Granted, some versions of “reconquest” stipulate that all non-whites living in America be repatriated to their ancestral homelands. While this option would maximize territory for the white population, it likely will be more difficult to achieve than the more politically feasible option of ethnostate formation. While repatriation of alien elements is absolutely essential for our crowded European homeland, which is after all the birthplace of the white race, in my opinion the cost-benefit ratio for racial preservation on the North American continent generally favors the ethnostate solution. Separation would be more palatable to all involved, and would result in less damage to the white population and to the nation’s infrastructure, compared to a “reconquest” requiring full expulsion of non-whites.

I also oppose the “citizenist” concept of Steve Sailer. Sailer promotes the idea that our “ingroup” should be that of “fellow American citizens” and that we should build an aracial American identity, focusing on “what’s best for Americans.” Unfortunately, that is already the mindset of most white Americans, and that is exactly the formula for continued dispossession and displacement. Despite Sailer’s claim that “citizenism” is more “realistic” than “white nationalism,” it is folly to believe that ethnocentric non-whites will agree to eschew ethnic identity politics and work for what is best for “most Americans,” when “most Americans” are still white. Real differences in ethnic interests cannot be plastered over by a legally defined status of “citizen.” The only people who would play the game of “citizenism” would be whites, putting them at a competitive disadvantage against organized, ethnocentric minorities.

“Citizenism” does not solve the race problem. In fact, if we are all “equal citizens,” what justification is there for maintaining the homogeneity of a neighborhood or opposing miscegenation? If “high-IQ” Asians are “productive citizens” like white Americans, and if the Asians superficially mouth (but not actually practice) the platitudes of “citizenism,” why not accept mass Asian immigration and displace white Americans? To say that such immigration would not be “best for most Americans” is to imply that “most Americans” have an inherent interest not to be displaced by biological and cultural aliens. Thus, one would need to identify the differences that would make that displacement maladaptive for “most Americans,” and these differences are those of race and culture. In the end, differences of ethnic interest trump patriotic idealism; actual biological and civilizational group membership trumps a manufactured legal group membership. “Citizenism” is exactly the opposite of what we require, which is for whites to defend their specific group interests.

Michael Hart’s Partition Plan

Professor Michael Hart deserves credit for proposing a separatist plan that incorporates a degree of freedom of association, in that an “integrated” state is set aside for those who prefer to live in a multiracial society. That is fair and reasonable. Integrationists do not have the right to force their ideals on separatists; similarly, separatists do not have the right to enforce their views on those who sincerely value diversity. Of course, the decision between separatism and integrationism must be informed, made with all the available facts, and within a free and open marketplace of ideas.

The fundamental problem with the Hart plan is that he proposes only three states: the Integrationist State, a Black Separatist State for those African-Americans who reject integrationism, and a White Separatist State (WSS) for whites who likewise choose greater homogeneity. What about Asians, racially mixed Hispanics, non-European Caucasians, and others who are neither “white” nor “black,” and who may not wish to live in the integrationist state? They have no state or states of their own. Worse, Hart asserts that the so-called WSS may actually include “Asians and others.”

Essentially, Hart is proposing a multiracial, “diverse” “white separatist” state. According to the Hart plan, while African Americans will be given the choice of true separation and homogeneity, European-Americans (as well as Asian-Americans and Hispanic-Americans, Arab-Americans, and others) will not have that choice. The only real separation Hart allows for these latter groups is separation from African-Americans. This is quite clearly unacceptable–promoting diversity within a plan for separatism–and means that an enormous amount of political, social, and economic sacrifice will be made for very limited gain: separation from African Americans but not from any other group. Although the Hart plan has one strong point, that those who value diversity be allowed their choice, the rest of the plan is extremely flawed. We need to look elsewhere for more serious ideas concerning racial nationalism and secession.

The New Racial Compact Partition Plan

In the first draft of this essay, I presented some collegial and constructive criticisms of Richard McCulloch’s “Racial Compact” partition plan. However, it became necessary to rewrite this section, since Mr. McCulloch has updated his Racial Compact plan, as stated in the comments section of TOQ Online:

The revision now basically includes all Gentile Europeans in the same country, instead of proposing separation from the more hard-core distinct Mediterranean types that make up much of the population of southern Europe. This makes my proposal consistent with the “official” TOQ definition of our racial “in-group” although at a racial cost to the northern European racial identity of the country. Still, it has reached the point where it now seems totally unrealistic, even quixotic, to try to separate the hard-core Mediterranean elements in the US population from other Europeans, as so many of them are now largely assimilated, and even more difficult to draw some line between assimilable and unassimilable elements in the Italian-American, Greek-American, or Spanish-American populations. Of course, in Europe itself we still could and should encourage the preservation of the different racial groups in their own historic nations, even perhaps northern Italians as distinct from southern Italians, but in the European-American population it now seems that the political cost of promoting such an effort would exceed the racial benefit.

I essentially agree with these comments (including the points concerning Europe), and see this as a positive development. The updated racial partition map (as of mid-March 2010) at the Racial Compact website now proposes a more general European-American ethnostate, which consists predominantly of white Americans of northern/northwest European ancestry/racial type (termed “Nordish”), with smaller populations of “Alpine-Dinaric-Ladogan” types (essentially central and some northeast Europeans) and “Euro-Mediterraneans” (essentially southern Europeans). This updated partition plan is generally consistent with the “alternative plan” I had outlined in my original partition essay (which is also included in the present revised essay, see below), with a few, relatively minor, differences.

With this new Racial Compact partition proposal, increased possibilities exist for cooperation between various European-American and European peoples on racial preservationist endeavors. I am confident that preservationist activists can incorporate the racial interests of all European-descended peoples in plans for the survival and rebirth of the West. Therefore, besides the actual details of specific separation proposals, it is equally important that all peoples of European descent have a “seat at the table” where decisions about the fate of the West are decided–whatever those decisions end up being. Although history may lead us in directions somewhat off course from carefully laid out plans and proposals, what will lead us to eventual success in achieving our objectives is a sense of teamwork and of a shared destiny.

Preeminence of Core Founding Population and Similar Groups Must be Maintained

Of course it is legitimate to seek to defend narrower ethnies and ethny characteristics which one admires or identifies with. And of course different European populations have some different characteristics and varying levels of genetic kinship. Therefore, for example, it is reasonable for Germany to reject Spanish or Italian immigrants and vice versa. I don’t see that retaining national identity in this way endangers peace or unity in the name of shared interests. However, this position, while appropriate for the homelands of Europe itself, cannot reasonably be fully extended to the United States, where extensive intra-European ethnic intermingling, and assimilation of varied European subgroups/ethnies, has occurred.

I think the 1924 national origins act had it generally right. The core American population is drawn from all parts of Europe, but most of all from England, then Britain, then Germanic (northwest) Europe, then, lastly, southern and eastern Europe. The relative predominance of northwest European populations to America’s white ethnic makeup is a fact, and it is understandable to protect the preeminence of these groups (i.e., British first and then other northwest Europeans). Hence, Lothrop Stoddard, while advocating assimilation of the “white ethnics” in Reforging America, was absolutely correct to assert that maintaining the preeminence of the older, northwest European stocks was a prerequisite for any assimilation of the “white ethnics.” I fully agree with Stoddard’s views in that regard. Indeed, one can argue that acceptance of Stoddard’s prerequisite is a “litmus test” for “ethnic” assimilation into white America. The northwest European core population should assimilate the “ethnics” and not vice versa; the demographic, sociopolitical, and cultural-traditional dominance of the former group must be maintained throughout the assimilatory process. And, if there are some “ethnic” elements who, by their behavior and other characteristics, prove to be truly unassimilable (here I have in mind Jersey Shore types and their equivalents), these can be justifiably excluded from the preservationist project. However, “ethnics” of good stock who are assimilated can be productively included.

An Alternative Plan

I agree in principle that those who strongly believe in the multicultural model should have the chance to live according to their beliefs and life choices; thus, limited territory set aside for an integrated state is included in my plan. It is expected that, given the free marketplace of ideas and dissemination of racial facts that would precede separation, the vast majority of European-Americans would choose to live in an ethnostate; the integrated state would be a relatively minor entity suitable for those “white malcontents” whose presence in an ethnostate would be disruptive and untenable.

A more fundamental part of this plan deals with (normal, non-integrationist) European-Americans, who are here defined as American citizens (and permanent residents) of indigenous European ancestry. First, all European-Americans who wish to be separated from persons of non-European origins would be so separated. Thus, all European-Americans must have the option to live in an ethnostate. The predominant territory of the present United States will serve as the European-American homeland. It would be premature to discuss in detail the particular boundaries of this homeland, but it should include coastal regions, particularly the East Coast which faces Europe. Non-European peoples will be able to form their own ethnostates, with territorial size being proportional to population; in all cases, every attempt will be made to provide groups with ecologically viable niches.

Therefore, the first round of separation will divide the American landmass between a general European-American homeland, various non-European ethnostates which can subdivide as they wish, and, possibly, an integrated multicultural state. It may well be that separation can stop here, which is likely to be the most politically feasible and palatable outcome for most white Americans.

However, in theory, there could also be a secondary phase that would allow further separation amongst the European-Americans; those who have a strong identity with a narrower focus, and who desire greater homogeneity, could also have their own autonomous territories, proportional in size to population. While many possibilities exist, it is most likely that a separatist plan analogous to the revised Racial Compact proposal and/or the general European-American homeland described here, would turn out to be the optimal combination of political practicality and racial preservationism.

At the same time, the traditional peoples and cultures of Europe must be preserved in their specific homelands, and ethno-regionalism within a broader confederation will be an effective way of maximizing ethnoracial preservationism in the white homeland. Therefore, keeping in mind the ties of kinship and of civilization that exist between European-derived peoples, this plan envisions that all of the Euro-ethnostates (America, Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) would be confederated. Through economy of scale and synergistic cooperation for defense and other large scale projects, the confederation idea more easily allows regionalism to be maintained. Any small and isolated Euro ethnostate is unlikely to successfully stand alone in the world arena, particularly when confronted with civilizational blocs opposed to the West (e.g., China, Islam).

However, behind the protective shield of the confederation, regionalism can flourish, allowing for the creation of ethnostates representing more concentrated pools of genetic interest. Such a confederation does not imply panmixia, migration between confederated states, or a lack of local independence; the states making up this confederation would have full local autonomy, and would police their borders in order to safeguard their unique biological and cultural characteristics.

Whatever is ultimately decided, the plans should be conducted within the framework of pan-European comity and cooperation, according to an honest appraisal of all the biocultural facts, without violating any group’s racial identities and racial rights, and in the context of a broader Western Confederation that can preserve and defend our greater race and civilization. The fundamental approach is to realize that broader and narrower racial and civilizational concerns need not be mutually exclusive. They should in fact be complementary.

This global plan is generally consistent with the description of pan-European ethnic genetic interests as a concentric series of circles, in which greater genetic interest is with those groups most similar, while lesser, but still real, genetic interests exist in more diluted form for more distant groups. The scheme outlined here on the one hand recognizes the fundamental similarities, kinship, comity, and cultural cohesion between varied European peoples; however, on the other hand, it recognizes differences and allows for these differences to be preserved, when desired and where practically possible.

In summary, a comprehensive Western nationalism needs to preserve and defend the racial interests, identities, and rights of all persons of European descent. This by no means implies global intra-European panmixia, but requires taking seriously the racial identities, racial interests, and racial rights of all European-derived peoples

Components of Identity

Questions of group identity are fundamental in formulating the ingroup boundaries of prospective ethnostates. What characteristics are particularly important for group identity? As Salter makes clear in On Genetic Interests, genetic interests are ultimate interests. The neo-Darwinian synthesis defines fitness and adaptive behavior in terms of genetic continuity and genetic representation in future generations. Thus, the ultimate striving of biological organisms, the driving force of the development of evolved life, is toward reproducing the genotype; the phenotype is the vehicle by which this is accomplished.

The foundation of ethnoracial identity is based upon kinship and ancestry in an extended family tree encompassing one’s co-ethnics. While there is certainly a rough approximation, particularly on a group level, between genetic and phenotypic distance, it is the former which is the more direct and objective measure of kinship and ultimate interests. After all, the best measure of genetic interests is genetic information itself. Therefore, while of course phenotype and culture/civilization are crucially important factors to be considered, I view as flawed any racial nationalist worldview that does not give primacy to the ultimate interest of genetic continuity.

However, that said, genes are not all there is to identity. Genetic interests may be ultimate interests, but proximate interests are important as well. More to the point, ultimate and proximate interests cannot be truly separated, as they influence each other. Behavioral traits that influence culture are likely heritable. Conversely, proximate issues such as culture, religion, and sociopolitical beliefs influence the pursuit of genetic interests.

Traditional Christians who identify with the Occident are more likely to promote European genetic interests than are Buddhists, Hindus, or Muslims who identify with the Orient. It is highly likely that the Turkish gene pool is further from the European median than is the Greek. However, it is theoretically possible that a given individual Greek and a given individual Turk may not be genetically significantly different. But this is not the whole story. A traditionalist Greek of European Christian background, who identifies with the West, is likely to have a quite different view of European genetic interests than an Asian Turk who identifies with the East.

Culture matters. The civilizational divide of “the West against the Rest” matters. Even if the genetic gradients between certain areas are not very steep, superimposed on top of these genetic differences are profound differences in civilization and culture. The whole composite picture distinguishes the “Men of the West” from others. It is not biology alone, although genetic interests are paramount. It is not ethnic identity alone, or culture/civilization alone. It is all these things together, reinforcing each other. The organic solidarity of the West can be our shield and our sword, protecting our genetic interests from those non-Western competitors who threaten us all.

Practical Possibilities

Of course, the practical aspects of secessionist plans are questionable. However, secession represents a long term goal to which we aspire. Further, articulating a separatist plan, even one that has little chance of attainment in the foreseeable future, has an important symbolic importance. Defining the boundaries of “us” for the purposes of separatism also defines the boundaries of “us” for everyday activism, and for various forms of sociopolitical organization within the present multicultural establishment.

Even if a given separatist plan seems to have no immediate prospects of success, the specifics of the plan, particularly the “in/out” designations, provide the foundation upon which activists, reasonably seen as “in,” can cooperate to achieve their mutual interests. A proper separatist proposal will provide a framework in which activists–even those who prefer specific narrower ingroups—can still cooperate in a collegial manner, since such a plan will not violate any group’s legitimate identity, nor marginalize the group by a de facto ejection from membership in the Western family of peoples.

Obstacles

The reader is likely familiar with the varied obstacles to secession, and I will only touch upon some of these here. Virtually the entire American establishment–politicians, celebrities, academics, businessmen–speaks in one voice in favor of the multiracial, multicultural experiment. Further, we are told that race is an “illusion,” and that “socially constructed” racial groupings do not differ in innate intelligence or in any other meaningful traits. Dissident voices are suppressed; readers are familiar with the problems of individuals such as Kevin MacDonald, J. Philippe Rushton, and James Watson.

The Republican Party serves as a safety valve for white discontent and directs traditionally minded whites toward dead-end issues. Even among those more familiar with the race problem, one may encounter a patriotic resistance to secession; thus, a maladaptive “rally around the flag” mentality, geared to aracial constitutional patriotism, short-circuits any sense of ethnic identity politics. Some people draw away from secessionist ideas because of the perceived economic and social costs; some may fear civil war. Foreign policy concerns must be considered; an America in the throes of a secessionist break-up could not effectively oppose the aggressive objectives of, for example, a resurgent China.

There is no easy way to get around these obstacles. I would suggest a sustained effort to legitimize and mainstream “white identity politics” and secessionism; perhaps this can be initially achieved by political campaigns at the level of local congressional districts. It is absolutely crucial that these politics replace the dead-end of “implicit whiteness” with an open and explicit call to defend specifically white (European) American interests. It will be essential to bring Salter’s ideas to the thoughtful fraction of the population; it is high time the debate shifted from proximate issues to fundamental concerns about demographic displacement and the continuity of our people. Translating the work of Salter into practical biopolitics is a challenge that must be met.

Finally, given the choice between “balkanization” and “citizenism,” we must always choose the former. As Salter states in On Genetic Interests, for a people being displaced, the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does. “Citizenism” is nothing more or less than a “repair and reform” job to make destructive multiculturalism more workable and sustainable.

Conclusion

It is unlikely that any of the separatist schemes discussed here will be achieved in the foreseeable future. This is not defeatism, since I propose that we pursue the objective of secession despite the odds; I believe that the separatist option is the only way to ensure the long term survival of Europeans on American soil. However, it is crucial to understand reality as we face the future. While we must constantly strive for the separatist solution, it is important to realize that, if this goal is ever achieved, few if any of those reading this essay will get to see this “promised land.” Each generation has its own battles to fight. We will do what we can today.

However, we should understand the benefits of current discussions of secession. The short-term and medium-term objectives that we will set and meet will themselves have inherent value, even independent of the final goal of secession. We will organize. We will articulate a vision for the future. We will enter the sociopolitical realm, to the extent possible, and promote agendas consistent with the interests of peoples of European descent. We will delineate the boundaries of our varied ingroups and establish cooperative networks when and where interests overlap.

The point of this essay is not to detail the specific characteristics of a separatist ethnostate, but to establish a general framework within which individuals and groups can find their proper place in this endeavor. We need to lay the foundation for the short-term and medium-term projects that fall within the scope of the lifetimes of the present readers of this journal.

Forward looking people of many ethnic backgrounds can see major conflicts on the horizon in which the white majority will fight back. We can expect the number of white nationalist groups to multiply as market demand grows for this brand of politics. Therefore, different people, with varying agendas, will attempt to define the mass white nationalism that is likely to arise in the next 20 years in one form or another. Discussions of separatism and secession, albeit premature from a strictly practical standpoint, are part of this attempt to define the future movement. Some of these directions will prove unfruitful. Some of the emerging groups will fail, some will merge, and some will split. Many will apparently achieve little or anything of value, but to the extent that they may get some serious and thoughtful individuals involved in the process, some good may come of it. People they attract will be primed for more authentic ideas.

It is not possible to completely separate proximate and ultimate interests. The memes which we will formulate need to be forged into the intellectual weapons required to defend our genes. It is hoped that this essay will constitute a positive addition to our memetic arsenal.

The 13 principles of Richard McCulloch’s “Separate or Die”(1) are a beautiful and perfect plan for white survival through secession. He is convincing and persuasive about why his plan is superior to a clunky unworkable secession plan proposed by Michael Hart.(2) McCulloch’s plan is so beautiful and perfect it reminds me of the better worlds science fiction envisions for us, those where star ships take off to other galaxies from ordinary airfields and smaller craft fly in and out of gateways to buildings so tall their summits are lost in clouds. The only problem with such beautiful visions is that the technology to build them doesn’t exist because of formidable physical constraints. Craig Bodeker’s exploration of white people’s negative attitude toward their survival(3) reviewed in the same TOQ issue suggests political constraints on implementing McCulloch’s plan are also formidable, which he acknowledges. It is unfortunate but likely true that right now far more white people are motivated to hunt down and kill rather than join the tiny minority of their kinsfolk ready and willing to secede. Far too many whites seek their ethnic heritage’s destruction through amalgamation with other races. Until this amalgamation of the mind prevailing among whites is fixed by replacing it with secession of the mind, physical secession is not possible. When it is fixed, physical secession may not be necessary.

Does the behavior of biological entities ever reduce their chance of survival? It happens all the time. So does extinction. Moths fly into flames they mistake for light signaling a path to a mate.(4) Eagles gliding on the wind through mountain passes like their ancestors did for millennia suddenly confront the deadly blades of wind farms.(5) Social parasitic species(6) like Brown-headed Cowbirds (Molothrus ater) induce many North American bird species to neglect their own offspring in favor of baby cowbirds and thus collaborate in their own significant demographic decline.(7) Many other social parasites behave similarly worldwide.

Such self-destructive behavior isn’t confined to animals dependent on instincts that can be fooled and become counterproductive. It is also common among people. In 1857, for example, South Africa’s Xhosas destroyed all their cattle and food crops because a young girl prophesied this would bring revenge on the white man and provide better food from heaven. The immediate consequence was mass starvation and an estimated population fall in affected chiefdoms from 105,000 to a mere 37,000.(8) During the reign of Russia’s Catherine II (1762–96) sect of skoptsy or self-castrators became wildly popular especially among wealthy Moscow merchants and military leaders denied access to inner circles of her court, which generated hostility because of her foreign origins and its promiscuity.(9) The origins of the skoptsy were in “the rejected radical Protestantism of Central Europe [which] was to find roots in eighteenth-century Russia second only to those it found in America,”(10) which may be why sects similarly rejecting their genetic heritage have been especially notorious in the United States. Shakers, for example, practiced total celibacy because they completely rejected sex.(11) Their membership peaked at 6,000 in 1840 and then went into slow decline, causing their upstate New York “Mother Church” to be sold in 1947 when they were virtually extinct.(12) Recently other American sects rejecting life came to more sudden ends when the People’s Temple practiced mass self-poisoning in 1978 and was copied by Heaven’s Gate in 1997.(13)

The current tendency of American whites to embrace their self-destruction clearly resembles past suicide cults but is a phenomenon on such a vastly larger scale that it even dwarfs the fratricidal slaughter of World War I trench warfare.(14) Its origins are no mystery since Kevin MacDonald thoroughly and brilliantly described them.(15) They are almost entirely a direct consequence of a Jewish Establishment and its supporters gaining increasing dominance of American intellectual discourse and media during the last century. That Establishment’s motivation is clear. It sought what it perceived was good for Jews: destruction of ethnic consciousness among the majority in America, where it is a permanent minority, and promotion of ethnic consciousness in Israel, where Jews are numerous enough to rule directly.(16)

Less explored is why America’s white Christian majority so readily accepted concerted attacks on their self-worth. Self-hatred among white Christians and their non-Christian descendents is often dismissed as mere “white guilt,”(17) but it is a far more complex phenomenon critically linked to Christianity itself, which, next to race itself, is the most significant ethnic characteristic of the European homeland of whites, which has long been also known as Christendom.(18)

People live and die by stories, which can evolve a little like species.(19) Sir James Frazer, for example, a pioneer in archeology of stories, implied Europeans were preadapted for Christian theology because they were agricultural people, and many farmers sacralize the crops that die to give them life at fall harvest time before being reborn the next spring to begin the cycle anew.(20) Preadaptation is when traits that evolve in one environment have a different function when the environment changes.(21) Moths, for example, are preadapted to fly into flames. Since America’s founders were mostly Protestants,(22) they brought a Protestant story to America, which goes like this: mankind is burdened by original sin, a weakly developed concept in earliest Christianity. It was made a very strong element of Western Christianity by Augustine of Hippo (354–430), who explicitly identified it with human procreation. Catholic theologians during the Middle Ages preserved original sin but gradually began decoupling it from Augustinian identification with sex.(23) Then came the Reformation, which was largely a rediscovery of Augustine.(24) Original sin as sex came roaring back if it had ever left, and sin was punished by eternal torture by demons in a very real Hell. Until Christ returned to earth and ended sin, the only hope for escape from the tortures of Hell as well as a sin-filled world was Christ’s suffering at Calvary, which offered hope of escape to eternally blissful Heaven.(25) While it is evident how this story could be a slippery slope to self-destructive extremes, it mostly functioned fairly well for white survival till quite recently.

Now the old Protestant story has been thoroughly replaced by a new anti-racism story. Sin is passé. Television heroes can now be drug dealers (Kingpin), Mafia bosses (The Sopranos), and even serial killers (Dexter). But what they never are, and can never be, are white nationalists. Racism now irrevocably taints all whites as much as original sin once tainted their ancestors. Just as those ancestors were once reminded of their sinfulness each Sunday morning, their descendents are reminded of their racism each day by a media cacophony. And its logic is impeccable. Since racial equality is as unquestioned as God once was and evidence of inequality is everywhere in non-white poverty, crime, low achievement, and general misbehavior, the only possible explanation is white racism. Just as sin only ends with Christ’s return, white racism can only end when non-whites become so equal to whites they are like them in every way, two events so hypothetical and unlikely they can be disregarded in the real world. Just as the only route to the eternal bliss of heaven in the old story was death, the only path to a blissful utopian future of racial equality in the new story is death of the white race.(26) In the old story sin brought eternal torment by demons in a lake of fire. In the new story racism brings torture by sadistic Nazis in Auschwitz. Torture is not eternal in the new story, however, since in it Auschwitz is both Hell and Calvary, the place Jews died and then were resurrected to save mankind from racism.

Any similarity between the old and new stories is not coincidental. The old was clearly preadapted to morph into the new with the help of social engineering. The media expose all Americans to bits and pieces of the new story every day. The more advanced their education in academic humanities, the more they receive it in pure form and must assimilate its verities to succeed. This is especially true at prestigious theological seminaries providing clergy to mainstream Christian churches. There they learn “Auschwitz becomes the analogue to Golgotha (Calvary) and once more the Servant [sic] suffers to bring redemption. For some, this is evidenced in the establishment of the State of Israel”(27) and “support for the State of Israel and its right of self-defense is seen as something of a litmus test of Christian seriousness about a new age of post-Holocaust Jewish-Christian relations.”(28) Replacement of the old story by the new is a significant reason why mainstream Protestant churches are hemorrhaging members to Evangelical churches more true to the former.(29)

Since prestigious universities propagate the new story in its purest form and also provide entree to high incomes, it is not surprising belief in the new story tends to increase with income among white Christians. It also continues to provide them functional benefits long after college. It obviously helps their relations with the culturally, politically, and economically hegemonic Jewish Establishment, but that’s not its only function. Like the old story may have helped successful Protestant entrepreneurs see their wealth as evidence of salvation relative to sinful masses,(30) the new story frees its believers from guilt for impoverishing American workers through layoffs, union-busting, outsourcing, downsizing, and plant closures. They can take comfort that their victims are mostly just white racists anyway, and therefore scum of the earth. Meanwhile they, like Bill Gates, demonstrate righteous belief in the new story by sending billions of dollars to Africa so its population can grow even farther beyond its carrying capacity and continue slaughtering each other to make room.(31) His actions, like those of movie stars adopting third world children, are ostentatious acts of faith in the new story’s god of racial equality. It’s no accident the favorite philosopher in these elite circles is the former wannabe Protestant minister John Rawls,(32) whose A Theory of Justice contributed significantly to the new story by simultaneously justifying extremes of racial equality and income inequality.(33)

It is evident the white race’s survival will take more than physical secession by the tiny minority that still value it. It will take a race war of ideas in which the First Amendment is critical and the Second just a distraction. To win, the new story must be defeated. It’s an elusive opponent that’s never been fully named till now and yet is as pervasive as Christian belief when America was first settled nearly 400 years ago. Like then, entities like the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center exist to enforce orthodoxy and attack heresy.(34) The new story’s very elusiveness presents both opportunities and challenges. Since it lacks a name or a real institutional infrastructure, it could disappear overnight like Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Nevertheless, its very invisibility makes it difficult to attack directly. Since it exists in the shadows, the first key steps are exposing and explaining its nature.

Since the new story is built on lies, the most effective weapon against it is scrupulous respect for truth. It’s a mistake to accept less just because falsehoods can sound more pleasant and convenient. Truth is an important weapon for regaining the moral high ground among our kinfolk, which is crucial for success. Also basic is appreciating arts of salesmanship and persuasion from Dale Carnegie to the latest texts in social marketing, which emphasize the importance of proper branding. Getting exposure on a program called The Political Cesspool may be convenient, for example, but its name’s reinforcement of negative stereotypes could be counter-productive. An example of negative branding is use of “hate” by enemies of white nationalism to describe it even though it exists because it loves its race. In recent American history gratuitous hate is most evident among Jews for the white gentiles who sacrificed so much to save them during World War II, a phenomenon graphically and sympathetically portrayed in the little-seen 1995 film Unstrung Heroes. On the other hand, it may be time to stop running from the term “racist” and start flipping it the other way. Since it’s been so widely applied to all whites that it’s now drained of meaning, why don’t those for whom race matters proudly claim it? If bad things were done in its name, what belief can’t say the same?

Since Auschwitz is such a basic part of the new story, Germany’s behavior in World War II is an unavoidable issue. Despite the new story’s portrayal of it as the quintessence of racial consciousness, the Third Reich never practiced white racial nationalism. Its nationalism based almost exclusively on language, which it consistently confused with race in its rhetoric, explains its abominable behavior toward its own racial kin like Slavs and other ethnic groups speaking non-Germanic languages.(35) Further evidence is its alliance with Japan, which practiced race war against whites throughout Asia and the Pacific.(36) That it never authentically taught its population about race is even evident in post-war eagerness of its women to fraternize with black American occupiers when that was still stigmatized in the United States.(37) America has been a white nationalist nation at various times, particularly from 1830 to 1855 and from 1900 to 1925. Australia was one from 1890 to 1945,(38) as was South Africa from 1948 to 1989.(39) Germany, however, was never a white nationalist nation.

Since the Third Reich was hostile to Jews, and Americans fought it for mostly different reasons, it is politically advantageous for America’s Jewish Establishment to use its vast media dominance to constantly emphasize these events(40) and deemphasize those distracting from this association. Among such deemphasized events are the Pacific War, German atrocities against non-Jews, Communist atrocities against anyone, and the Armenian and Rwandan genocides. The exception proving the rule is media interest in Darfur, which is located in Sudan, a Moslem country hostile to Israel.

The role of Jews in creating and profiting from the new story is readily demonstrable historical fact. A natural and reasonable response when discovering this is to blame “the Jews” for America’s ills. Unfortunately this just reinforces the martyrology on which their power depends. It is better to clearly name the Jewish Establishment, which consists of organizations represented by the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations(41) as well as its many collaborators among all ethnicities. Then its current collective activities can be identified as aberrant ethnic attacks on other ethnicities analogous to those by Germany’s Third Reich. That’s a comparison Americans can understand. They know every German didn’t support the Reich, and they don’t believe every Jew does harm either.

Modern science is ultimately the best friend of white racial nationalism as well as all other races. Despite resistance, the human genome’s exploration is finally revealing the deep structure of why each race is distinctive and valuable. Discovery of genes correlating well with known distribution of intelligence is only the beginning.(42) Radical equalitarians seek to block such research, but their efforts are futile. Understanding the genome is too critical for finding cures to diseases like type 2 diabetes caused by complex gene-environment interactions.(43) The world is also increasingly concerned about loss of biodiversity, of which human racial diversity is an important part. Conservation biology, an entirely new science, has developed to accomplish the important task of preserving earth’s biodiversity.(44) Contrary to myth, however, biodiversity doesn’t flourish when biological entities are forced together. That causes extinction.(45) Biodiversity is highest where barriers to mixing are maximal and opportunities for secession greatest. That’s why diversity of plants, animals, races, cultures, and languages tends to be greatest in mountains, where high ridges and deep canyons are barriers reducing the possibility of extinction through mixing.(46)

Cultural renewal is important as well as science. In 1976 the replica voyaging canoe Hokule’a was sailed from Hawaii to the Society Islands using traditional sailing methods. Its success as well as further voyages contributed to a renaissance of traditional culture among Hawaiians,(47) a people dispossessed in their ancestral homeland much like white Americans. The journal Tyr is leading a similar cultural renaissance among America’s whites.

As white nationalism resists the anti-racism story, it must replace it with a better story. Since the old story never recognized human diversity, it was preadapted for replacement by the new story’s destructiveness. The Establishment can even now use the old story for attacking the threat it faces from science.(48) With a new better story guided by love of its people, however, white nationalism can help all people preserve their unique value, which globalization threatens everywhere. Even now that better story is being written in publications like The Occidental Quarterly and Tyr and in actions by groups like European Americans United. For it to win, smart adaptive management will be required as events and the Zeitgeist changes, but ultimate success is likely because truth is on its side. No matter what comes, keeping all eyes on the prize of racial survival is necessary to ensure that success.

That success will come when secession of the mind, the collective desire of a critical mass of whites to preserve their race, is achieved. Just as physical secession is unlikely to be successful without mental secession, achieving it may make physical secession less necessary. The British did a decent job of bringing order to the world in an Empire lasting as long as they believed in themselves and stayed aloof from those they conquered.(49) Jews have survived far longer by preserving their mental secession.(50) Whites are a race of Volkerwanderers, pioneers, and explorers. Confining them to one place may be like bottling lightning. With secession of the mind, their survival doesn’t depend on that.

1. Richard McCulloch, “Separate or Die,” The Occidental Quarterly 8, no. 4 (2009): 15–38.

2. Michael H. Hart, “Racial Partition of the United States,” in Jared Taylor, ed., The Real American Dilemma (Oakton, Va.: New Century Books, 1998), 107–18.

3. Greg Johnson, “The First Word,” review of A Conversation About Race, a film by Craig Bodeker (Denver, New Century Productions, 2008),” The Occidental Quarterly 8, no. 4 (2009): 109–114.

4. Valerio Sbordoni and Saverio Foresterio, Butterflies of the World (New York: Times Books, 1984).

5. Brian K. Wheeler, Raptors of Western North America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003).

6. Jeffrey L. Brown, The Evolution of Behavior (New York: W. W. Norton, 1975).

7. Jeffrey V. Wells, Birder’s Conservation Handbook: 100 North American Birds At Risk (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007).

8. T. R. H. Davenport, South Africa: a Modern History, 3rd ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987).

9. James H. Billington, The Icon and the Axe: An Interpretive History of Russian Culture (New York: Vintage Books, 1970).

10. Billington, The Icon and the Axe.

11. David Hackett Fischer, Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989).

12. John Bowker, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).

13. Robert Jay Lifton, Destroying the World to Save It: Aum Shinrikyo, Apocalyptic Violence, and the New Global Terrorism (New York: Metropolitan Books, 1999).

14. David Starr Jordan, War and the Breed, abridged reprint of original published in 1915 (Washington, DC: Cliveden Press, no date).

15. Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1998).

16. MacDonald, The Culture of Critique.

17. Shelby Steele, White Guilt: How Blacks & Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era (New York: HarperCollins, 2006).

18. Judith Herrin, The Formation of Christendom (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987).

19. Charles J. Lumsden and Edward O. Wilson, Genes, Mind, and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981).

20. Theodor H. Gaster, ed., The New Golden Bough: Sir James Frazer’s classic work on ancient and primitive myth, magic, religion, ritual, and taboo. Revised and edited in the light of recent scholarship by Theodor H. Gaster (New York: Mentor, 1959).

21. Mark Ridley, Evolution, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell Science, 1996).

22. Fischer, Albion’s Seed.

23. Richard P. McBrien, ed., The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism (New York: HarperCollins, 1995).

24. Diarmaid MacCulloch The Reformation: A History (New York: Viking, 2003).

25. MacCulloch The Reformation.

26. David R. Roediger The Wages of Whiteness, revised ed. (London: Verso, 1999).

27. Bowker, Oxford Dictionary of World Religions.

28. Jonathan Z. Smith, ed., The HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion (New York: HarperCollins, 1995).

29. Thomas C. Reeves, The Empty Church: Does Organized Religion Matter Anymore? (New York: Touchstone, 1996).

30. MacCulloch, The Reformation.

31. Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (New York: Viking, 2005).

32. Luke Coppen, “Rawls at the Crossroads,” American Conservative 8, no. 8 (2009): 31–32.

33. J. R. Pole, The Pursuit of Equality in American History, 2nd ed., revised and enlarged (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993).

34. John George and Laird Wilcox, Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1992).

35. Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich at War (New York: Penguin, 2009).

36. Meirion and Susie Harries, Soldiers of the Sun: The Rise and Fall of the Imperial Japanese Army (New York: Random House, 1991).

37. Giles MacDonogh, After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation (New York: Basic Gooks, 2007).

38. Graeme Davison, John Hirst, and Stuart Macintyre, eds., The Oxford Companion to Australian History, revised ed. (Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press, 2001).

39. John Drexel, ed., The Facts on File Encyclopedia of the Twentieth Century (New York: Facts on File, 1991).

40. Norman J. Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (London: Verso, 2000).

41. Howard M. Sachar, A History of the Jews in America (New York: Knopf, 1992).

42. Nicholas Wade, Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of our Ancestors (New York: Penguin, 2006).

43. Ramzi Cotran, Vinay Kumar, and Tucker Collins, Robbins Pathologic Basis of Disease, 6th ed. (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1999).

44. Edward O. Wilson, The Diversity of Life (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992).

45. Judith M. Rhymer and Daniel Simberloff, “Extinction by Hybridization and Introgression,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 27 (1996): 83–109.

46. Daniel Nettle and Suzanne Romaine, Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’s Languages (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).

47. Alan C. Ziegler, Hawaiian Natural History, Ecology, and Evolution (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2002).

48. John G. West, Darwin Day in America: How our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2007).

49. Lawrence James, The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (New York: St. Martin’s, 1994)

50. Kevin MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1994).

Editor’s Note: The following essay will appear in TOQ, vol. 10, no. 2, Summer 2010, in the special issue on “Secession and Racial Nationalism.”

Secession is an idea whose time has not yet come. But it is rapidly approaching. The idea that whites should abandon attempts to “recapture” their government and secede from it instead, has been in the air for a long time. Global demographic developments, developments with which TOQ readers will be familiar and which require no elaboration here, indicate that secession is a viable option, some might say the only viable option, for the survival of white peoples. I choose the term “secession” here because “separatism,” which might include simply racial division within a nation state, would take the debate too far. Secession is always a desperate step, and many more secessionist initiatives in history have failed than succeeded. Arrogance and complacency in this debate are unwise. Here are what I consider the key factors to be considered and questions to be answered by anyone projecting the secession of a people.

(1) Historical precedents. Those attempting a perilous or challenging enterprise (and white racial secession would be fraught with peril wherever and whenever it took place) should consider past failures and successes. In forgoing all reference to the lessons of experience, most writers on the subject of white secessionism omit what every successful scientist, artist, or military leader undertakes prior to composing concrete plans, namely to study the past and learn from it.

(2) Seeking friends and allies. Both history and common sense should tell us that a secessionist rebellion will almost certainly fail without the support of friends or allies. I can think of no secessionist movement in history which succeeded without the helping hand of the well-wishers, at home and abroad, inside and outside government. Dictating terms in advance betrays weakness. To give just one example of such weakness, Richard McCulloch, in an essay published in TOQ entitled “Separate or Die,” provides a list of the territories which a successful white state will allocate to non-whites. The writer lays out in his essay “principles” as the writer calls them, of white secession. They read more like points in an ultimatum, the kind a winning party in a war might dictate to a beaten foe than as principles of any kind and include a listing of what territories white secessionists would allocate to non-whites. This is not politics, it is posturing.

(3) Economics. What secessionist movement in history has not been profoundly rooted in and driven by economic forces? Secessionism and economics go hand in hand. Not only is realistic secession from an established state only politically viable if it is also economically viable, history shows us that secessionist struggles are inspired to a great degree, sometimes almost entirely, by economic factors. An understanding of the economic options open to the seceding state should therefore be a requirement of any program which expects to be taken seriously, yet most contemporary writers on the subject of white secessionism hardly mention economics at all, an omission comparable to discussing a project to put people on Mars without considering the math.

Separatism would require a deal of hard work and a deal of preparation. Anyone entertaining such a step needs to be clear in their answers to four fundamental questions: Why? How? Where? When?

Why Secede?

For many the question “why?” is superfluous. They will answer with something similar to David Lane’s 14 word precept, “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” For them the white ethnostate is a matter of racial survival, but this “racial survival” answer will only satisfy a minority of idealists. That said idealists fail to understand that simple fact explains much of their failure, past and present.

Racial survival is simply not a matter of concern to most whites. The ethnic state as such offers no attraction to the majority of whites for whom racial separation is not a priority or not even particularly desirable. At the same time, while not consciously in favor of separation, most whites are not consciously in favor of a multi-racial society either. Miscegenation does not arise out of demand or need but out of circumstances.

All else being equal, a white secessionist movement would receive little principled support from whites as a proposition but also receive little principled opposition. As Eckhart Tolle might say, it is the “power of now” which is at work here. This is the dilemma of all radical movements, a sort of Catch 22 situation. They will find more supporters and friends the more powerful and credible they become, but to become powerful and credible, they need friends. I do stress the word “principled” however. It is the support created out of tribulation and misery which the idealist leaders must rely on in to power a secessionist movement.

Secession is a geographical and economic declaration of identity which by its very nature requires at least the tacit approval of far more than the tiny number of the ideologically committed. I believe that the motivation to secede and the force that will drive people to it will be primarily economic, a matter of material survival. Irish nationalism was born of resentment at perceived injustice. Romantic attachment to a language or culture was provided by a small leadership. Had the British state behaved more sensitively, above all had its economic policies been different, Irish nationalism would have remained a minority’s romantic chimera. The Confederate States were declared in reaction to a perceived threat to a way of life and to certain “Southern rights,” and to be able to continue to lead that life free of outside interference and regulation.

We tend to overestimate the power of idealism in retrospect because it is the idealists who lead from the front and who write history. The plodding foot-soldier of secessionist struggles was acting for more mundane reasons: prosperity and prospects, security, fairness, freedom from hunger, dignity and something to pass on to succeeding generations. When a group, consciously as a group, sees no option but to break away in order to achieve these aims, because they cannot be achieved within the scope of the prevailing body politic, and when the group knows of a land where this can be realized, then and not before, a secessionist movement has been born.

This birth can only take place when personal economic circumstances are acute and when the prospects under the prevailing dispensation appear worse than the record of the past. When families cannot feed their children, when there are not hospitals or doctors available to help them, or they cannot afford such hospitals where they do exist, when they cannot provide for their children, or for their old age, then they will begin to look around for a flight from the old order and may even be prepared to fight to escape it.

For the first time in over half a century, there are signs of such dramatic economic deterioration. The past now looks better than the future. If this becomes a common perception, then the West will be entering an existential crisis, for Western and especially American awareness is an optimistic one at heart. When economic collapse no longer sounds like just another doomsday soapbox sermon but a reality, people will begin to look for alternatives. At the very least, governments are having to reassert more centralized economic authority, which will result in a reduction in the option for individuals of a quasi-economic autonomy within the state.

The mountains of debt which white majority run governments are piling up through borrowing to ward off the day of economic reckoning to a time beyond the span of any living politician’s political career and at the cost of future generations, provides chances to argue the economic case for secession. White secessionists will define themselves by refusing responsibility for debts incurred in the name of a government they do not recognize. A secessionist revolt will begin as the American Revolution began, as a tax revolt.

Most whites are not interested to be told that blacks have lower IQs than whites, and if it is true, so what? It is an entirely different ball game when a white is refused a job in favor of a black applicant in order to comply with racial quotas cooked up by a central government agency. Then the secessionist can proclaim: “Join us! In our state there will be choice by merit. There will be no racial quotas anyway because there will be no blacks to benefit from quotas in the first place.”

A declaration of independence is a secessionist declaration, and such declarations by their nature comprehend a declaration of a separate identity. Ethnicity will follow from autarchy, not the reverse. Why? Because we no longer trust central government, no longer want it and no longer need it. When hundreds of thousands start thinking and feeling in this way, secession is in the air, not before.

How to Secede?

Where geographical identity is easy to defend and “makes geographical sense” the chances of secessionist success are enhanced. The fact that Ireland is an island is hardly irrelevant if we ask ourselves why it successfully broke away from Westminster while Wales, Cornwall, and Scotland did not. Bangladesh began with the considerable advantage of being separated from West Pakistan by India, a nation well-disposed towards Bengali secessionism. West Pakistan and East Pakistan were united by religion (Islam), but their peoples were separated by culture, physical features, and 1000 miles of Indian territory. Perceived unfairness (under-representation) also played a significant motivating role: 56 percent of the population resided in East Pakistan, but the West held the lion’s share of political and economic power. Secessionism is not for the faint-hearted. The violence which followed in the wake of the declaration of independence by Bangladesh cost up to a million lives. The secessionist movement succeeded thanks to geography and the political support of a foreign power. The Confederacy was desperate for international recognition. Its failure to win this undoubtedly played a role in its downfall. The same was true of Biafra, which literally starved for lack of friends. How can a secessionist movement without friends hope to stand up against the onslaught of the state from which it is striving to break away?

Space does not permit to begin to examine all the aspects of the wherewithal of separation/secession. Furthermore, circumstances in the USA and Europe are very different. The United States is more monolithic and homogeneous than Europe, a fact which poses a serious obstacle to any attempt at secession. With their mostly weak sense of regional identity, North American whites are without one of the most compelling motivating forces that could detach them from loyalty to their nation, namely a competing geographical identity and home. The only serious secessionist movement to date in North America, the Confederate States of America, grew out of a very strong cultural and geographical identity. Such identity will need to be rediscovered and rediscovered fast.

“Home is wear you hang your hat” is an American proverb. Economically and culturally, the USA is still astonishingly homogeneous for its size, and that will be a great advantage for Washington if there is ever a secessionist challenge to be met.

Identity and economics are linked too. Secession can only take place in an area small enough to encompass a manageable revolt realistically but large enough for autarchy to be feasible. It is difficult to imagine how one is “separating” when one has no geographical point of repairment, identity, and history: Kurdistan, Quebec, Bangladesh all have such history and geographical identity. A white secessionist movement should take note.

From the point of view of secessionist prospects, the USA offers one significant advantage over other regions with (still) majority white populations. Secession in the USA would be a revolt against the jurisdiction and even name of the ruling nation state requiring a new start, a new flag, a new national identity. In Europe secessionist identity is muddled and obscured by loyalty an existing nation state. Cultural identity in Europe is to a significant extent associated with national identity, but breaking away from a venal government belongs to an American tradition. Secessionist rebellion is what created the United States in the first place. Stonewall Jackson called the decision by the Southern states seceded from the Union “the Second American Revolution.”

A new rebellion will be economic, by those convinced that they are better able to manage their own affairs without Washington’s help, Washington’s laws, and crucially, Washington’s taxes. To succeed in the US, secessionism must present the Federal government as a dangerous Leviathan whose embrace includes a fatal bad debt, a debt which secessionists refuse to pay because they refuse responsibility for it. This debt enslaves their children and their children’s children. To break away from the debt collector whites must secede. They should no longer care a great deal what course the rest of the United States is taking. They simply want out, and wanting out means taking up a new flag and regarding the flag of the US, regardless of who waives or hoists it, as the flag of a foreign power.

Whites in the US are probably deluding themselves if they think they can achieve secession alone and unaided. Secessionist movements need friends and allies. Very roughly these can be put into one of three groups: friendly outside nations, support or complaisance given from within the ruling state, and other secessionist movements. What friendly outside nations could a white secessionist movement hope to have? Perhaps one day Russia, if Russia emerges as the last white- ruled world power, but this is highly speculative.

An ally (not exactly a friend) closer to hand would be Mexico. It is no secret that Mexican governments are not averse to advancing the Mexican frontier well beyond the Rio Grande. White secessionists should have no quarrel with that. As Hispanics tighten their grip on the southern United States, white secessionists retreating from those areas would be objectively helping them. The quid pro quo would be a manifest lack of Mexican government concern, interest, or support for Mexicans living in the white secessionist area. The benefits accruing to both parties would be gains at the expense of the territorial integrity of an unloved, unwanted, and unneeded United States of America. If Mexico exercised her claim to a large part of the Southern USA at the same time as white separatists exercised a claim to a section of the North, the USA would be facing a double challenge, hopefully undermined from within by subversives supportive of the Mexican cause or the White cause or (why not?) both causes.

White secession without friends or allies could only take place, if at all, under sufferance with secessionists tolerated like the Amish, under sufferance. The preliminary steps of a secessionist struggle would be to focus on the given future secessionist area and encourage a movement towards those areas by those wishing to be part of it, at the same time entering into amicable relationships with those of all races also seeking the subversion or break up of the United States of America. Specifically, this means an increased involvement in state or regional politics and a withdrawal from national politics and considerations. Contact, assistance, and advice should be sought from all and any who have an interest in the break up of the North American monolith.

It is important that the white secessionist state offers an attractive alternative and is not seen as a flight into the hills. The failure of the Kurds to offer an attractive home base makes the Kurdish independence movements vulnerable to the tricks and blandishments of central authority. When the conservative Turkish president Recep Erdoggan promised greater autonomy to Kurdish regions, thousands turned away from the secessionist PKK to vote for Erdoggan’s AKP. Buying off a discontented group is an old trick, which is why secessionist movements need to offer attractive alternatives to the prevailing system at an early stage. As the British Independent newspaper noted many years ago about Welsh language campaigns, nothing would benefit the survival of the Welsh language more than its persecution because persecution would provoke a reaction in its favor. It is the same for any group: persecution heightens consciousness.

In Europe, white racial initiatives are only likely to succeed within small nations in revolt against perceived economic mismanagement at the center. This is and will continue to be the driving force of ethnic revolt in Europe, and it is no coincidence that racially conscious political parties tend to be much more successful in the small nations of Europe than in the large ones.

A white secessionist state anywhere in the world would be considered as a threat by centralist governments committed to the ideal of one world and their imposition of the New World Order. The only alternative to secession supported by a powerful outsider (as India was for Bangladesh) would be if many secessionist movements were moving in the same direction all over the world. If there is no friendly nation, if there is no support in government, if there are no comparable movements in revolt, if there are no well-disposed elements in government, a white separatist movement stands no chance of success.

After the collapse of Apartheid in South Africa, there were some attempts to set up a separate white ethnic state, but those involved in their racialist arrogance, considered it beneath them to seek an alliance with the one major group which was also hostile to the ANC order, the Zulus. There is no talk of a white secessionist state in South Africa today.

Secessionist movements can and should be choosy about whom to include within the boundaries of their new state, but they should have no scruples about who their friends or allies might be in the big wide world outside it. Whoever can help them on their way is very welcome, never mind their motives, their religion, or the color of their skin. This is Realpolitik, something sorely lacking among those writing about white secession. White secessionists should extend the hand of friendship to all those who also seek regional autarchy and be modest enough to learn from all those in struggle, those who have won and those who have lost in the past. Where did the Tamil Tigers go wrong in Ceylon? What can we learn from their mistakes? What can we learn from the Kurds? From the Irish? From the Bengalis?

Where to Secede?

All secessionist movements have a geographical point of reference, the core of their identity. The secessionist state, if it reaches the point that temporarily at least it has physically broken away, is to a very large extent defined in terms of its geographical location which quite literally provides it with an outline. This in its turn presupposes a sense of identity with a given region. To be successful and meaningful, a separatist entity must be economically autonomous, it must be viable.

In the world to come there is going to be a quasi-insatiable demand for raw materials, food, and clean water to sustain burgeoning populations. Nation states continue to deplete natural resources and have been complacent about growing populations, profligacy, and waste. Separation must include a high degree of self-sufficiency linked to friendship to chosen states, especially small newly secessionist ones of course, which have themselves gone their own way, out of the economic misery and desolation which the New World Order is creating, towards self-sufficiency and ecological husbandry. There must be a where, but it should present itself not theoretically but organically, as a place which is can be a home and which could be self-sufficient. In the USA this would presumably be in Alaska or somewhere in the North West or North East.

It should come as no surprise to see that historically, separatism tends to come to the fore when the economic prospects apart from the centralist state are better than those offered within it. Scottish nationalism received a great fillip with the discovery of North Sea Oil. Italian regionalism or “Padanian” nationalism, viz the political project of the Lega Norte in Italian politics, which is implicitly and at times explicitly racialist, owes its success and centers its program on the decentralization of Italy, especially fiscal decentralization, so that the North will not have to subsidize the inefficiency, crime, and corruption of the Meridione.

The argument that we are paying taxes for others to waste, the argument that central government is parasitic is far more persuasive for the vast majority of people than sinister revelations of conspiracies and “threats to white survival,” which sounds eccentric to most people if not outright cranky. But nobody finds it cranky to moan about wasted taxpayers’ money. The aim of secessionism is to galvanize that moaning and give it political voice. People know the government is draining them, living off them instead of for them. Telling the truth about taxes and not least hidden taxes, should be a consistent argument and cry of rebellion by every white secessionist movement. The propaganda aim is to make “financial corruption” and “central government” interchangeable terms. The time to preach that message is now. If the people consider change within the system as hopeless, they must begin to consider change beyond the system. The answer to the question of where will emerge; it is too early to pinpoint; it will create itself, but it can be said in answer-where the grumbles “you are wasting out money/we could do that better” has turned into a widespread call of desperation: “We are getting out of here. We are filing for divorce.”

When to Secede?

Put simply, when large numbers of potential secessionists feel themselves trapped like rats, when they see no alternative. Secession is a drastic step. It amounts to an admission of failure, a failure to be represented effectively, a failure to work together, a failure to live together. Most people who write about secession and the creation of a new ethnic state, talk of having lost control of the original nation state and not being able to recapture it.

The most important kind of loss of control is economic. While it is possible for alienated groups, especially in our post-modern world, to retreat into some kind of cultural niche, where loyalty to a specific tradition may be tolerated as a personal (market) choice, the wish to be economically self-sufficient will be perceived as an extremely serious threat to the political status quo. Economic independence can only be realized when a large number of people have answered Why? and How? and when the economic situation is such that the central state is no longer capable of assuring full economic security to a large and identifiable part of its population.

Recently someone asked in the wake of yet another crime where blacks targeted whites and the Federal authorities refused to treat the attacks as a hate crime, “If we whites have no government and laws to represent us and protect our livelihood, why do we even need the government to exist at all?” This is exactly the point. Whites need to learn, feel and strongly believe, they do not need their government at all, that they do not want their government, and that it is not their government.

The prerequisite for a successful secessionist movement is when a majority of the seceding people regard the government as unnecessary, unwelcome, in a word: foreign, when the head of state perceived as the leader of a foreign power. To see him/her as such demands a certain detachment bordering on indifference to the activities of that foreign power. Too much commentary and interest in the ruling elite paradoxically indicates that the secessionist mentality is underdeveloped. Interest should be focused on seeking ways to withdraw from the foreign power, and as nicely as possible but backed with an iron fist if need be, and hopefully accompanied by the good wishes of hundreds of thousands of others around the world, to serve notice on the multi-racial state: “This people will no longer be with you and will no longer be part of you. This people declares before Almighty God and all the peoples of the Earth its sacred, inalienable right to secede.”

Bravo to Sam Dickson for his call at the 2008 American Renaissance Conference for a racial partition of the United States to create our own racial homeland or ethnostate. What he called his “modest proposal” was the boldest proclamation at the conference, in fact bolder than anything I have heard at that forum before. (Michael Hart’s partition plan presented at the 1996 conference was the opposite of bold.(1) It was a surrender, ultimately even of our racial existence, as I will explain below.) I had to catch my breath for a moment, it was so unexpected. As Sam said, every movement, to be a movement, must have a stated and defined goal and destination, saying what it wants, what it is for, what it offers.

From the beginning of my own thinking about our racial problems I believed that complete racial separation by a partition of the country into separate racial states was necessary for our ultimate racial interests. It is the only really effective alternative to our accelerating trajectory, for the last two centuries, toward racial dispossession and destruction. The rate of that acceleration has always surpassed my worst-case projections. I have always believed that an effective opposition movement to that trajectory must offer an alternative, showing what the movement is for, and thus defining the movement, and preventing the opposition from telling the public what our movement is for, and doing the defining for us. I would much prefer we define ourselves, even if it may initially seem rather radical and extreme to those who have not given serious thought to the matter, than be defined by our opponents. If we let them, they always define our solutions and goals as genocidal, so we should not give them that opportunity.

Of course, our opponents’ goals have always been more radical than ours, and they have been careful to never openly espouse and define them to their logical conclusion. At least not yet. And this reveals the point of their great weakness—that they do not yet feel they can dare to fully reveal their agenda. And this is the great opening and hope for us. After all, most simply stated, what we offer our people is the continued existence of our race, while our opponents offer the destruction of our race.

Jim Feller on Racial Partition

Our ideas sometimes have unlikely sources. My own thinking on partition plans was given an initial boost by the plan of someone else. Back in 1974, while at the University of Florida, I met a UF Business School professor named Jim Feller at the Gainesville chapter of Mensa. He recognized my name as the author of some student newspaper editorials that he liked, and conversation about them soon led to the discovery that we had both read Wilmot Robertson’s recently published The Dispossessed Majority. It became our favorite topic at our weekly meetings. At one meeting he showed me something in which he evidently took great pride, unrolling a large poster board with a carefully hand-drawn and colored map of a partition proposal for the United States. I regret to say that I was very critical of his plan, and detailed some of my points of criticism, calling it sophomoric, and said that I could do better. Well, of course, he challenged me to do just that.

A few months after that, I began writing my first book, The Ideal and Destiny,(2) which included a partition plan from its inception. My partition proposal underwent a major revision in my third book, The Nordish Quest,(3) and as it presently appears on my website has had some additional smaller revisions, all basically prompted by the constant expansion of the nonwhite population in both numbers and variety. Racial groups that were hardly a blip on our demographic radar screen in the 1970s are now large enough to require their own separate ethnostate in any comprehensive partition plan.

In the meantime, Jim Feller’s partition map appeared on the cover of the April, 1976 issue of Instauration under the heading “The National Premise: Will the US Look Like This in A.D. 2000?” (Obviously, it didn’t, and still doesn’t.) About a decade later Feller’s map received considerable national notoriety after it had been adopted and widely publicized by David Duke. Since my first impression of Feller’s plan had not changed, I considered all this notoriety to be something of an embarrassment for the racial separatist movement. But looking back now, after seeing much worse, I have to admit that on the most important points, which I used to take for granted but not anymore, Feller is on the same page with me.

Partition and Racial Survival

The foundation for any partition proposal, and its most important point, is the reason, purpose, or motive for the partition. If this is not right, then it is likely that the partition proposal will be fundamentally flawed at best, and probably downright counterproductive, like a treatment based on the wrong diagnosis. A partition is a very drastic measure and as such can only be justified by some very compelling reason or purpose. The extent of support for partition will logically depend on how compelling that reason or purpose is seen to be. Those who see the reason as very compelling will tend to be more supportive than those who do not, or those who do not see the more compelling reason, but only a less compelling reason. Therefore the most compelling reason for the partition is the one that should receive the greatest emphasis, the one that must be clearly understood and accepted by the greatest possible number of the population. Less compelling, but still valid and legitimate, reasons should also be given, with emphasis in order of their importance, yet without allowing them to distract attention from, or cause any confusion about, the most compelling reason.

The reason, purpose, or motive for partition will not only determine the degree of support for the partition but also the particular form the partition proposal is likely to take. If the only reason given to justify a partition is various black pathologies and inferiorities, from low intelligence to high rates of crime and other social delinquencies, then the partition is likely to be limited to separating blacks only, and perhaps lower class blacks only, from the rest of the population. If the only reason given is that some whites simply do not like to live among blacks or in the same country as blacks, then the partition proposal is likely to be limited to the creation of a black-free state where these particular whites can live.

But if the reason for partition is the very survival of our race, the most supremely compelling reason of all, then a comprehensive plan to achieve complete racial separation is both called for and justified, and the degree of popular support for the partition will be maximized.

The next most compelling reasons would be those of racial independence, freedom, and self-determination, recognizing that a race exists not only biologically in the bodies of its individual members, but as a corporate body or population with its own racially unique traits and characteristics, whose existence and preservation also requires racial separation.

In 1988 I had the opportunity to meet William Gayley Simpson, author of Which Way Western Man.(4) At that time he was in his nineties and in declining health. He compensated for his lack of conversational endurance by distilling the essence of his thought into one very terse and pointed message: “Separate or die.” That simple phrase tells us two vitally important things. First, racial separation is necessary for the long-term preservation of our race, the founding and still the majority American racial type. It is a simple matter of either-or—either racial separation or racial death. Second, the alternative to racial destruction, the solution to our racial crisis, is racial separation. Not immigration restrictions, segregation, white supremacism, or other half-measures which have had their innings over the last two centuries, nor anything that need harm other races or violate their legitimate rights and interests, including the most extreme measure of all—genocide. So the solution to our existential crisis is a limited and finite measure, not an unlimited and infinite one, and so one that is easy to define and comprehend its dimensions and means.

Sam Francis on Separatism versus Supremacism

American Renaissance published essays about racial separatism by Rabbi Mayer Schiller and myself in the February, 1995 issue.(5) Needless to say, our conceptions of racial separatism were very different. I conceived it as separate racial nations while Rabbi Schiller conceived it in the terms of the traditional Jewish experience as a people that shall dwell alone. The following issue had an essay by Sam Francis—under the heading “Prospects for Racial and Cultural Survival: Separation, as proposed in the previous issue, would not work, but there is a better solution”—advocating a restoration of white supremacism and opposing racial separation as a surrender and a betrayal of our heritage and all our ancestors had worked for and achieved. This essay is included in a collection of his works titled Essential Writings on Race,(6) edited by Jared Taylor. On Jared’s invitation I responded in the June, 1995 issue with an essay under the heading “The Preservationist Imperative: Why Separation is Necessary for Survival—A reply to Samuel Francis’ essay opposing racial separation.”(7)

When Michael Hart presented his partition plan at the second American Renaissance conference the following year I understood how a separation or partition plan could indeed be as Sam Francis envisioned it—a complete surrender of our country and ultimately our race itself, an ignominious retreat for escapists betraying our race to eventual complete dispossession and destruction rather than a victory for preservationists securing our future existence. I had mistakenly assumed that everyone’s concept of a partition would be similar to mine, as Feller’s was, but Hart made me realize how wrong that assumption was. I had assumed that a partition plan would have preservation as its purpose, and it was a shock to see a plan that made no mention of preservation and was actually anti-preservation in its long-term effects. So now I saw that Sam Francis and I had different conceptions of what a racial partition would be, from its reason to its form, and that we had been debating, or arguing, about two very different things.

By the beginning of the era of The Occidental Quarterly, Sam Francis’ views on racial separation had shifted significantly from what they had been in 1995. In addressing white activist meetings he openly expressed his support for racial separation in the complete territorial and political sense. I personally was very pleased to note this shift. Unfortunately, as far as I know, Francis never expressed his revised views on separation in writing, so it seems that his 1995 essay, now republished, will remain his final written word on this very important matter. The only written evidence for the shift would perhaps be implicit in his choice of essays for Race and the American Prospect.(8) Certainly, I don’t think he would have included my essay unless his views had shifted as they did.

Thirteen Principles of Racial Partition

When my work on a partition proposal began in the mid-1970s it was guided by certain principles that were at first assumptive or intuitive, and taken as granted, without need for explanation. But more recent events beginning in the 1990s (such as Michael Hart’s anti-preservationist partition plan from the 1996 American Renaissance conference) convinced me this was not the case, and that the principles on which separatist proposals are based, and by which they are judged and measured, need to be clearly stated. So following is a list of my guiding principles for racial separation.

1. Maximize Racial Preservation

My first guiding principle is that a partition plan should save as much of our race as possible, and at the very least a large majority of it. It should, from its inception, be based on this assumption, and so be designed from the start with this goal and not deviate from it. Basically, all members of our race except those married to nonwhites, or who are close blood relatives to nonwhites and wish to remain with them, should be assumed to belong to our nation in the partition plan. Our plan should therefore take no official account, or give any official consideration, for members of our race who have no family connections to other races yet who wish to remain in a multiracial state. This is their individual concern, a personal problem if you will, which they should have to attempt to accommodate and arrange on their own outside of the arrangements of the partition plan, by seeking subsequent entry into whatever multiracial or nonwhite state that will have them. In brief, it is a matter that should be handled at the individual level, not the racial level.

A partition plan that did not save the majority of our race, that did not contain the majority of our race in our own monoracial homeland, would actually ensure the eventual destruction of all of our race, first by accelerating the destruction of the majority of our race that remained mixed with other races, and then allowing the easy destruction of the rump state populated by a minority of our race too small to effectively defend itself against the rising tide of the nonwhite world. It is dangerous to overestimate our abilities or to underestimate our enemies. Custer was neither the first nor the last to make that mistake, and if we do not want our racial homeland to ultimately be a lost cause, the last stand of our race, but rather to ensure our safe and secure existence and the fulfillment of our racial destiny, then it must include the majority of our race, and hopefully the great majority. Anything less would merely divide our race, facilitating its destruction, rather than preserving it.

2. Maximize Territorial Retention

My second principle is that, next to our race itself, our land or territory is our most valuable possession. As such, it should not be surrendered easily. And some parts of our territory, based on factors such as our history and population distribution, are more valuable than other parts. This means that a partition plan should be guided by the principle of retaining as much of our territory—and especially our more valuable territory—as possible, and of parting with as little of it as necessary to achieve the goal of saving our race. In other words, don’t give away the farm.

3. Create no Multiracial States

My third guiding principle, based on the above two principles, and in order to save as much of our race and territory as possible, is that the partition plan not include provision for a multiracial successor state that would take a large part of our race and our territory. Such a state is not a legitimate racial entity, but an artificial ideological construct, a so-called “proposition” nation with a creedal rather than racial definition of identity, and therefore should have no standing in a plan for racial partition. As stated in the first principle, any member of our race who is determined to live among other races should have to make their own arrangements. This racial pathology should not be recognized, legitimized, or accommodated by a partition plan to our cost.

4. We are the Legitimate Successors of the United States of America

My fourth principle is that our racial nation, containing the great majority of the founding racial group of the United States, the “Old American Stock” and closely related racial groups who created the country and were still the great majority of the population as late as 1970, would be the recognized successor to, and continuation of, the original United States of America. As the race with the deepest roots and the largest stake in America, the race of the first Americans who once possessed the whole of the country, our interests should be given priority and precedence and the greater existential urgency of our position recognized (i.e., as William Simpson put it, “separate or die”). Among many other things, this means that, to prevent nuclear proliferation, our racial nation would be the sole heir to the existing stock of strategic weapons, as Russia was the sole heir to the strategic weapons of the Soviet Union.

5. Secure the Atlantic Seaboard

My fifth principle is that a partition plan must secure our lines of communication to our ancestral racial homelands and kindred peoples in Europe. This means that our racial nation must include the greater part of the Atlantic seaboard.

6. Partition cannot be Voluntary

My sixth principle is that a racial partition plan cannot be voluntary, requiring the free consent of any individual whose movement would be required for its implementation. Such a plan would be a non-starter. The plan would require the support of most of our race, or at least most of the part that matters, the most intensely committed, determined, and active part, sufficient to compel and enforce its realization. Hopefully it will have more support than that, and every reasonable effort should be made to increase its support and lessen opposition without futile catering to obstructionism. And every reasonable effort should be made to minimize or negate the property losses of those required to move by assigning them property of comparable value in their new homelands. But it will be opposed by many, including many of our own race, and especially many of those who will be required to move.

7. Retain the Original Territory of the United States

My seventh principle, consistent with the second, fourth, and fifth principles, is that our racial nation include the original territory of the United States, being the territory east of the Mississippi except for the Florida peninsula, which belonged to the United States at the beginning of its independence. This is the territory where our history, heritage, roots, and attachments are deepest. It also still contains the majority of our race. It is our most valuable territory. It is our line of communication with our ancestral homelands and kindred peoples in Europe. It is the most essential territory to the nation that constitutes the continuation of the United States. And it is the territory that most of all belongs to the founding racial group, the Old American Stock, whose rights of possession to it take precedence over any other.

8. Retain a Transcontinental Link

My eighth principle is that our nation, as the continuation of the United States, remain a transcontinental nation, as it has been since the 1840s. This, with the continuation of the United States as a Pacific power, would secure our important line of communications with the countries of our racial kindred in Australia and New Zealand. This would require a broad contiguous band of territory from the Mississippi to the Pacific coast. As the nations of the other races, per principle seven, would also be west of the Mississippi, except perhaps for the Florida peninsula, and as the most logical position for those nations would be in the southern part of that great expanse of territory where their populations are both much more numerous and would be either contiguous or in greater proximity to the nonwhite nation of Mexico rather than to the white nation of Canada in the north, the northern part of that territory would be the logical position for the transcontinental band of our territory.

9. Maximize Defensible Borders

My ninth principle is that borders be as secure as possible, and this consideration should be an important factor in the plan. Borders are more secure when they are based on major geographical barriers or when they are made as short as possible, requiring a minimum of “gerrymandering,” or meandering of borders. Major geographical barriers, from the seas that surround islands and peninsulas to the mountain ranges and large rivers that provide strong natural borders in the interior, provide the most secure borders. If such natural borders are absent, or not followed for some other reason, then borders should be kept as short as possible. For this purpose, whatever its size, the ideal shape of a nation is as close to a square, allowing for the shortest possible borders for its area, as geographical and other considerations will allow. That ideal should not be varied from more than is necessary for good reason.

10. Retain Control of the Partition Process

My tenth principle is that we be in control of the process. We want to be the ones doing the partitioning. We want to be in charge. This does not necessarily mean a diktat in which others will have no input, but the ultimate and final decision on all matters of importance, on methods of implementation and especially on the actual dispensation of territory, must be ours. To do this we must be in a position of strength.

To be in a position of strength we must make our decisions and act as a race, as a united people, as a corporate body united in purpose behind our legitimate leaders and representatives who act at the racial level in our corporate interest, not as 190 million separate actors operating at the individual level, each making his own decisions in isolation, without common purpose, direction or leadership, for himself, not for his race. Separation, however necessary for our continued existence, is a giant step, a step so great that it can only be taken as a united people acting as a whole, not as atomized and divided individuals; at the racial level, not the individual level. The implementation should be controlled by our designated leadership, determining our future as a people, a race, at the corporate level, the way such great issues should be determined, not at an individual level, bypassing and essentially denying any role for race or ethnicity in the process, an approach related to the denial of the legitimacy or even the very existence of race itself. Decisions of this scale, determining a matter of the most supreme importance, the independence and very existence of the race itself, are properly made at the highest level, at the level of the race or people itself acting as a corporate body.

It is highly improper and inappropriate for decisions of this scale to be made at the individual level. Any implementation conducted at the individual level could only frustrate and prevent any meaningful or effective effort to achieve real racial preservation and independence. It would be a spoiler plan presumably intended to do just that. Similarly, any attempt to determine the dispensation of territory based on a formula of individual choices, however rationalized, would prevent a clear plan from being worked out in advance and promoted in an orderly way. This would introduce uncertainty into the process, which would be exploited by the other races much to our disadvantage.

It should be assumed that the process will be an adversarial one, with the other races strongly opposed both to the concept of partition itself and to the particulars of our plan. (Although we should make every reasonable effort to lessen and weaken their opposition, such as by giving due consideration to their constructive input.) We should expect them to make every effort by every means available to them to obstruct, impede, undermine, and delay the achievement of our separatist goals, especially by fomenting and exploiting division and disagreement within our ranks.

To avoid the partition degenerating into a drawn-out bargaining process to our disadvantage, and to prevent any division or split in our ranks, which would likely be extremely costly or even fatal to our hopes, we must from the very beginning share a common vision, uniting us in support of a clearly formulated and well-developed plan. We must be in a position to enforce our plan to whatever extent necessary, and this position must be certain beyond doubt to all concerned from the beginning. A common vision requires our unity, and hopefully we will have the leadership that can provide such a vision and forge such unity.

11. Maximize White Support, Minimize White Resistance

My eleventh principle is that our partition plan, to become our common vision, should be designed to maximize white support and minimize white resistance, to maximize our unity and minimize our division. This does not mean, as many would at first think, that it would then give whites everything and the other races nothing. Quite the contrary, as the nature of our race is such that it, perhaps uniquely, is seriously concerned about fairness. Our plan must be at least within the parameters of what can reasonably be described or defended as a fair dispensation for the other races, while still placing our more vital interests first. As Sam Dickson said in his American Renaissance address, we can afford to be generous.

For example, if the blacks are given a country larger in size than France, and this is pointed out (as I do in my proposal), it is difficult to portray this as unfair in any objective sense. The actual details of any partition plan can be very crucial to this matter, impacting it decisively. Any partition plan that surrendered a core white homeland, with deep white roots and sense of attachment and a large white population, would certainly alienate potential white supporters much more than giving up more recently settled areas of the country where the roots are more shallow, the attachment weaker, and the white population smaller.

There are two rules that should be considered in maximizing white support for our partition plan, and satisfying both requires something of a balancing act.

The first and most important rule is to minimize the number of whites who would be required to move or relocate. This is simple common sense. Make the realization of the partition plan as easy as possible for the greatest number of whites and you lower the bar for their acceptance as much as possible. Make it more difficult by requiring them to move or relocate, with all the disruption and hardship that involves, and the bar of acceptance is raised to a level that only the hard-core of the most determined and committed of our race would be sufficiently motivated to cross it. We want to make it as simple and easy as possible for as many whites as possible to support our partition plan by lowering the bar for their support as much as possible.

The great majority of white Americans want to live in a large country that includes the great majority of their racial countrymen, that is a recognizable continuation of the country they inherited from their ancestors in both territory and population, the way it should have been and could still be. This is what they are used to, their concept of their country, and it is what they want. They do not want their country to be reduced to a small rump state, remote from its core ancestral lands, and containing only a small minority of their race. They want their country to essentially still be America as conceived by their ancestors. If what they want is consistent with the interests of our race, and this certainly is, then to get their support we should give them what they want. This is leadership made easy.

The second rule for maximizing white support for our partition plan, given the nature of our race and its concern with fairness, is that it be within the parameters of what can reasonably be considered as fair. Fortunately, it is possible to design a partition plan that is consistent with both rules, that would require less than 20 percent of whites to relocate (which percentage could therefore be set as a limit for the number of whites required to relocate) and still provide a very fair, even reasonably generous, territorial dispensation to the other races.

12. No Partition of Europe

My twelfth principle is to pay close attention to Europe. We must be ever mindful of Europe’s racial situation, of the influence and effects our partition plans and actions have there, of the possibilities of coordinating our efforts with those of our European kindred, and of our ultimate shared goal of restoring all of Europe to its previous over 10,000-year state as the ancient homeland of our race. The partition solution that is good for America, and perhaps for Canada and Australia, would definitely not be good or right or acceptable for Europe.

Nonwhite states cannot be tolerated on European soil. Every square inch or centimeter has belonged to the indigenous peoples for over 10,000 years and is far too precious to our race and heritage to be surrendered to the non-European races that have invaded in the last sixty years. America has the space that allows us to be generous with territory. Europe has no space that is expendable. The existence of any nonwhite country in Europe’s bosom would be a threat to the whole that would ultimately cause the destruction of everything Europe has been in a racial sense, and probably also of the culture that race created from its unique inner substance.

So in Europe a partition of territory is not an option. Europe belongs to the Europeans, all of it, to them alone and only to them. All nonwhites, almost none of whom have roots in Europe longer than sixty years, and most half that time or less, and so not really worthy of the name, must leave Europe. And if we can, and to the extent we can, we should be ready to help, even by adding the nonwhites of Europe to the nonwhite areas of our own partition plans, in those cases where repatriation, the preferred solution for Europe’s nonwhite elements, is not a practical option.

The fate of Europe and the fate of white America are inseparably intertwined. We must win both, or we will lose all. So what we do here, assuming we move first, must be done with full consideration of its effects on our European kin, at least to set a good example they would want to follow, and in the best case scenario to coordinate our efforts to achieve the complete salvation of our entire race with one common effort.

It was America that led the Europeans down the path to multiracialism and its consequent racial destruction with the example it set, although it was their decision to follow our example in the vain belief they could do it better. Perhaps only America is capable of leading the white world off the path of its racial destruction, and making things right again by restoring the white world to the natural monoracial state of existence required for its racial preservation.

13. Base Partition on Race Alone

My thirteenth and final principle is that the partition must be based solely on race. It should not be based on ideological factors. The purpose of the partition is racial preservation through the creation, or restoration, of natural racial nations or ethnostates, not unnatural and artificial “proposition nations” based on belief and adherence to some creedal litmus test or abstract ideology. We must reject a creedal definition of our identity, such as the one that was constructed in the aftermath of the Second World War to justify multiracial states, and assert a clearly and explicitly racial one as the basis of our ethnostate.

This involves an important consideration that must be settled before the partition plans themselves can be formalized—the determination of the racial composition of the different groups which will form the countries resulting from the partition. Most important is the determination of what racial elements are included in our own in-group. In this I have followed the lead of Wilmot Robertson and based my racial in-group on his Northern European “Majority” and various “Assimilable [European] Minorities.” Others speak in terms of a somewhat broader racial in-group under the term “white,” which in this context is usually defined as including all European racial types.

In both instances, in-group status is determined by birth, by ancestry, by race, not by the ideological beliefs of this generation or even the last several generations. Therefore it includes persons of wide ideological differences and persuasions, even those who are committed to the ideology of multiracialism itself. The partition plan will define them by their race, not their ideology, and include them with their race. If they are incorrigibly opposed to living with their own race, and only their own race, then they would be obliged to make their own arrangements to live with another race or other races outside of the dispensation of the plan.

Those white separatists who would prefer to exclude all white multiracialists from their in-group on ideological grounds should be reminded that the ideological fault of the multiracialists is not in their genes, but in their memes, the system of ideas, beliefs, and values with which they have been surrounded and indoctrinated all their lives in the context of a multiracial environment and culture, much like the Janissaries of the Ottoman Empire. In the context of a natural monoracial environment, which we seek to restore, their ancestors and their genes, the genes that made them, served our race very well for hundreds of generations.

The essence of our tragedy is that very many members of our race who have been turned against their race often carry some of the best genes of our race—the genes of our poets, scientists, scholars, philosophers, statesmen, composers, artists, playwrights, engineers, soldiers, and architects, not to mention many of our greatest beauties. Their genes are our genes, part of our race, including much of the most valuable part of our race.

We should not part with them willingly, much less desire to expel them because of the generations of multiracialist indoctrination and programming to which they have fallen victim. For they are victims, and should be so regarded, and should not be surrendered easily. Many, or even most, have some capacity to love and value their race and support its interests, and many others can be salvaged, or at least their genes can, to serve their race again in future generations. We cannot afford to lose them, or give up on them. They are not expendable.

If they are lost the part of our race that remains will be but a shadow of its former self. If our purpose and goal, our task or mission, is to save and preserve our race, then we must save them too. If we only save the most racially conscious minority of individuals who possess that seemingly all too rare ability to figure racial matters out for themselves, perhaps intuitively or instinctively, or possess a love for their race so strong it gives them a sort of immunity to the racial pathology that afflicts the majority in varying degrees, we will not have accomplished much at all.

We have major divisions that we can do little about, some that are beyond cure. Those whites who have mated with nonwhites, or who have nonwhite children or grandchildren, natural or adopted, have with few exceptions literally joined the other races and abandoned their own, become part of the nonwhite races, and should be counted as such in our partition plan. There are many others, although I believe a small minority, that are pathologically committed to the destruction of their race and the realization of their One Race ideal in which their own race would be lost.

These divisions are given, and we have little control over them. These people are not “in play” in terms of gaining their support for white racial preservation and independence. But we do have control over our partition plan, and we should minimize the creation of new divisions, or the expansion of old ones, that might result from it, to gain the support of the greatest possible number of our race who are “in play” and thus possible to gain, and save.

Critique of Michael Hart’s Partition Plan

In light of the principles listed and discussed above, Michael Hart’s 1996 partition proposal appears almost as a non-event, as it violates every one except perhaps the ninth. As such it was a non-starter whose shallowness of conception and lack of meaningful purpose could not be hidden under all its superficial detail.

Hart’s plan proposes a three-way partition of the United States, into:

1. A Black Separatist State that he calls the BSS

2. A non-black state that he calls the “White Separatist State,” or WSS, although the term non-black is more accurate as it would presumably only exclude blacks and any non-black would be able to live there, for as Hart says, “it may well include some Asians and others.”

3. A multiracial state that Hart calls “the integrated state, [which] will be a continuation of the present United States of America, but with a reduced area. All American citizens who do not explicitly choose to become citizens of the BSS or the WSS will remain members of the integrated USA.”

Hart gives four reasons or motives for white separatism:

1. They [whites] are losing their rights.

2. They are losing their personal safety.

3. Their traditions are no longer respected and protected.

4. And, worst of all, if there is no change in immigration policy we will soon be a permanent minority in what used to be our country.

Hart’s first three reasons are individual level concerns, not racial level concerns. They are based on individual interests, not the interests and well-being of the race, such as its independence, its possession of its ancestral lands, and even its continued existence and preservation. For the great majority of whites, they are probably not sufficiently compelling to justify a racial partition of the country, so they would probably not support it, much less participate in it themselves with the effort that it would require.

The fourth reason has historically also not been a compelling reason for whites acting at an individual level to separate, provided they are in control in the context of a white supremacist system as in pre-1994 South Africa, much of Latin America, and many other historical examples, or provided they can relocate to another area of the country where whites are still a majority, as we have seen in the many millions of acts of white flight that have been the individual level response to this issue.

Only when the fourth reason is addressed at the racial level, by a race acting in its interests as a race, as a matter of racial independence and continued existence as a racial population, as a matter of existential urgency, is it seen as sufficiently compelling to be widely accepted as grounds for partition. This Hart does not do. His reasons for partition are kept strictly at the individual level, as his process of partition is decided at the individual level, not the racial level, determined by the choices of voters acting only for themselves, not for their race. So the supreme racial-level issues of racial independence, freedom and self-determination, preservation and continued existence—the only reasons sufficiently compelling to justify the necessity of partition—are excluded from his calculations and not even addressed or mentioned.

The result is a partition plan lacking in goal and purpose, and which certainly does not serve the purposes it does not address. This failure to address purpose, reasons, or issues at the racial level carries over to Hart’s method of implementation and dispensation of territory, which is also determined and conducted at the individual level, not the racial level, where matters of this scale are properly determined, have historically been determined, and where as a practical matter they can only be determined. This bypassing of the race in favor of an exclusively individualized process replaces unity with atomization, allowing Hart to assume a white defeat at the racial level at the beginning of the process, as part of the conception of his plan at its inception.

Starting with these assumptions, Hart places the White Separatist State in the northwest corner of the country, beginning in the states of Oregon and Washington and expanding from that point based on the number of whites who individually choose to join it.

A plan that requires a majority of whites to relocate is a non-starter. Hart’s plan, even with his white separatist state at its maximum extant including the entire northern half of the country west of the Mississippi, would still require about 95 percent of whites to relocate to be part of it. Therefore, I agree with his assumption that only a minority of whites would choose to live in his concept of a white homeland. The figure he gives in his example is 50 million, which was about 26 percent of the 192 million white population in 1996, based on the census bureau definition of white. Personally, I would expect far less than 26 percent of the white population to choose to live in his vision of a white homeland.

The rarely seen irony of Hart’s and similar plans is that if 50 million, or even 25 million, whites were sufficiently committed to a racial partition to expend the effort and resources to relocate as these plans require, the same energy and resources, committed to a plan much more favorable to white racial interests, would probably be equally successful, with much more favorable results for our race.

If we can find 25 million whites with this level of commitment to partition, we can probably get our best case partition plan as readily as Hart’s near-worst case plan, if not more readily. If we can find 50 million, as in Hart’s example, it would be a certainty. In fact, the matter would be definitively settled in short order, a done deal. In other words, if we are going to commit ourselves to realizing a racial partition, and assuming roughly equal levels of difficulty would be involved in realizing different plans, we should commit ourselves to the plan that is most favorable to our interests.

In his example Hart also assumes that 20 million blacks would choose to live in his Black Separatist State. This was about 61 percent of the black population of 33 million in 1996, in my opinion an even greater overstatement of likely black support than Hart’s estimate of white support for his White Separatist State. Hart does not give any reason for assuming that blacks would join their separatist state at more than twice the percentage of whites. This is quite the opposite of my normal assumptions, and might indicate the extent of white rejection that Hart expects for his concept of their homeland.

Hart’s multiracial or “integrated state” would include the great majority of the white population, all the territory east of the Mississippi, control of the lines of communication with Europe, and is designated as the continuation of the United States, the country we should want to save for our race almost as much as we want to save our race itself. Here, most of all, Hart shows his hand, when he chooses the remote northwest as the site of the white state and the core eastern part of the country as the site for the multiracialist state. If he sited the white state on the Atlantic coast, where our country began, our roots are deepest, and our numbers greatest, expanding westward from the coast as the numbers that choose to live there increased, mirroring our path of expansion two centuries ago, that would at least incur one point of credibility in his favor, but he does not even allow that. The fact is, it is the Atlantic coast that is not expendable. It is the part of our territory that confers and conveys the greatest degree of popular legitimacy and authority, the territorial core and heartland of our country. That is why it must belong to the state that is the continuation of the United States, and why Hart gives it to the multiracialist state.

Hart’s plan is designed to empower individual whites to opt out of the multiracial state, and out of the great majority of their race and its rightful inheritance, and what their race requires for its long-term survival, to form their own homeland or ethnostate which might survive for a few generations while the great majority of their race around the world is destroyed. It would divide our race in two, with the most ethnocentric minority, those who should be racial leaders and loyalists, turning their backs on the great majority of their race, abandoning and betraying it to an accelerated process of destruction while they seek to realize their short-term racial utopia. It would be an unmitigated disaster for our race.

Hart rationalizes dividing the white population by concern for the desires of white “integrationists.” As he says, “Many whites really want to live in an integrated society. They would be horrified at the prospect of living in a white separatist state (which they would regard as ‘Fascist’).” He does not say just who those many whites are, but I believe he greatly exaggerates their number, the extent and depth of their commitment and dedication to multiracialism and its consequences, and their desire to live in a multiracial society. Certainly this is true of the founding American racial stock and the assimilated white minorities.

I must assume that his phrase “many whites” refers most accurately to unassimilated white minorities who have historically been the leading advocates of multiracialism, and have identified it most closely with their own group interests. If they were included in the white state it might, as Hart says, “necessarily start off with a large disgruntled, embittered minority (consisting of those whites who were opposed to partition), which will cause tremendous internal problems.” Nothing new about that. It is something of which we now have more than a century of experience, and have hopefully learned our lessons.

Hart’s plan divides the white race on two grounds. The first is the willingness to relocate, to pull up stakes and move away from the familiar surroundings of home, job, and community, with all the cost and effort that requires, and the second is ideology. First, by locating the White Separatist State in the far northwest he ensures that over 95 percent of whites would have to relocate to join it. By separating it from Europe and the core ancestral and historical American homelands, and from being the continuation of America and its position in the world, he ensures that whites would have to give up their heritage and world position to join it.

Both of these give his multiracial state, as the continuation of America with all of its original and most important, developed, and populous territory, a huge advantage from the beginning, while imposing a huge disadvantage on the White Separatist State and the pro-white cause. This effectively ensures that only a small minority of whites, those strongly motivated by their individual-level racial concerns rather than the interests of their race as a whole at the racial level, would choose to join his White Separatist State.

So, in terms of white racial interests, it must be regarded as a non-starter—and even as a spoiler plan, to the extent that it distracts attention and diverts support away from alternative plans that really do serve white racial interests, pre-empting them by preventing their consideration, and co-opting sufficient white separatist sentiment, energy, and support as to fatally divide the separatist effort and weaken the prospects for a truly pro-white plan.

Second, by dividing whites on ideological grounds—separatists and preservationists versus multiracialists and amalgamationists—Hart effectively declares his multiracialist state, which he designates as the continuation of the postwar United States, to be a proposition nation, with a creedal or ideologically-constructed definition of identity, membership, and belonging rather than a natural biological or racial definition.

This postwar concept of an ideology-based nation, based on a nationally established ideology or creed, is precisely what the Founding Fathers sought to prevent with the first amendment’s prohibition of any government establishment of religion, which is properly interpreted as referring to any creed or ideology, whether religious or secular. The Founding Fathers made it clear, in both their written commentary and all the antebellum legislation and judicial opinion on the matter, that they envisioned America as a racially united but creedally diverse European nation. As late as the 1920s the founding American racial stock was still able to reassert this vision, their vision and the vision of their American forefathers, with the passage of immigration restrictions designed to protect their dominant racial position in the country their ancestors created.

Only in the aftermath of the Second World War, and the manipulation of public opinion to extend the reaction against German nationalism to opposition to the racial interests of the European peoples or whites in general, did the concept of a creedal or “proposition” nation, with membership based on ideology—similar to the Marxist-Leninist conception of citizenship already practiced in the Soviet Union—gain cultural dominance in the West and provide the ideological justification for the rise of multiracialism and the dispossession of the European peoples.

Hart’s white separatists, as he envisions them, are not racial preservationists. Their reason, purpose, or motive for separation is not the preservation of their race, but their personal escape. White preservation is not their concern, nor is it recognized as the reason for partition. The reasons given by Hart for white separatism (loss of rights, concerns for personal safety, respect for tradition, fear of becoming a minority), however valid, are much less compelling than the existential urgency of racial preservation, of Simpson’s “separate or die.” It is therefore hardly a wonder that Hart assumes the great majority of whites would choose not to be a part of the white separatist state, but prefer to remain in the “integrated” (multiracial) state.

And it is this integrated state that is favored by Hart with retaining the great majority of the population, including the great majority of the white population, by far the greater portion of the territory, including the core areas of the country where whites are most numerous and have the deepest roots and attachments, and the country’s national identity. Again, for it bears repeating, as Hart says, “the integrated [multiracial] state will be a continuation of the present United States of America.” Indeed, there would be only the merest ripple of change, as the United States rid itself of the disruptive element of ethnocentric and idealistic whites. I think it is safe to assume that Hart’s multiracial state would be the sole heir of the US strategic arsenal.

My initial criticism of Hart’s partition plan appeared in the August, 1996 issue of Instauration. The full text of that criticism follows:

Professor Michael Hart proposed a detailed plan for a racial partition of the United States, which would seem to be consistent with the purpose of the conference, yet I found his vision of a partition to be very discouraging. He hypothesized a separate “white” state confined to the northwest, and thus cut off not only from the midwestern heartland, and the original thirteen states where our country was born, but also, perhaps not coincidentally, from all direct lines of communication with our ancestral homelands in Europe. His scenario assumed that less than one-third of the “whites” would choose to live in the separate “white” state, meaning that over two-thirds of our race would continue to live in the “integrated” (multiracial) state, where they would, it must be logically assumed, ultimately become extinct through replacement and intermixture, so that most of our race would be lost. This consequence, and the grim prospects for the survival of the separate “white” state in those circumstances, or of Europe itself, were not discussed. I put “white” in quotation marks because Professor Hart made it clear that racial minorities that behaved themselves and had low rates of delinquency, such as Asians, would be welcomed to live in the separate “white” state, as also of course would anyone commonly included in the broadest possible definition of “white.” He himself would live in the separate “white” state, no doubt seeing it as his duty as the apostle to the separatist gentiles to keep a degree of control, or at least surveillance, over us.

I think my disagreement with Professor Hart stems from our different motives and goals. I want to save my race, to secure its preservation and independence—and not just a minority of it, but hopefully all or nearly all of it. For me, the loss of a majority, or even a large minority, of my race would be a catastrophe, which I would strive to the utmost to avoid if at all possible. Since my race is not really his race, and his race does not really share our danger, he is not really motivated by concerns of racial salvation and preservation, but in setting up a limited refuge area where whites who personally wish to escape from certain non-whites, with no real concern for the larger interests of their race as a whole, will be able to do so. What is Professor Hart’s motive or reason for partition? Based on his proposal—his proposed solution to the racial problem—I think we must assume his motive is not racial preservation. It is not a preservationist solution. The best indicator of a person’s perception or understanding of a problem is the solution he proposes for it. By this rule we must assume that Professor Hart does not perceive the racial problem as a matter of racial survival, but as something less, or as something much different, such as the problem that might be posed to the larger multiracial state if enough whites became disaffected with its agenda to seriously threaten it with a more complete partition—one that would be more favorable to the interests of Northern European Americans, the racial group of the “Old Americans” who founded and built the country, who were America and simply the Americans until this century, and whose interests would therefore be most directly concerned with an “American Renaissance.” In such a situation, as distant as it might seem, the multiracial state might move to preserve itself by ceding expendable territory to the more actively disgruntled and disruptive Northern Europeans, removing them before they can attract the support of a majority of their race and possibly achieve a real American Renaissance.

In all fairness to Professor Hart I must admit that many of the less thoughtful white racial separatists envision the northwest as the site for a separate white nation, with only a small minority of the total white population living within it, that these separatists seem to be little concerned with the fate that befalls the larger part of their race, and that some of them say Asians and Hispanics would be welcomed. So his scenario is not really original. Still, it is a bad idea, a scenario that diverts us from the path that would save our race as a whole, an admission of defeat acceptable only under the most desperate circumstances, where there is virtually no hope of saving the greater part of our race and we accept the risk of staking the hope for our racial future on a small rump state, while the majority of our race is lost and the long-term prospects for the separated remainder do not look promising. At best, his proposal would only temporarily save a minority of our race, and would not really change the larger trend toward its long term destruction, just the minor details within the trend. It seems that racial separatism is not necessarily racial preservationism, and certainly not when it is a half-baked version such as this.

So by 1996 I could understand the objections Sam Francis had raised to separatism, as I think by a few years later he could understand my support for it. Partition is a two-edged sword. It can be used against our interests as well as for them, be bad for us as well as good for us. It is up to us to differentiate clearly between the versions of partition, to evaluate, judge, measure, and choose based on clearly stated principles, knowing what our purpose, motive, and reason for separation is, and crafting and choosing a plan that achieves that purpose. Anything less is a game not worth the candle.

The Necessity of Leadership

There are times when I am surprised to find myself in agreement with something said by someone with whom I have usually been in profound disagreement. Such is the case with this statement of Margaret Mead: “Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” White preservationists are such a small group of committed people. We believe it is necessary to change the world to preserve our race, which requires racial separation.

But do we believe this is possible? Often the key to changing the world is to believe it is possible. It seems almost too simple, but when this belief is transmitted to the masses, and they believe it is possible, then the very belief in its possibility becomes self-fulfilling, and it becomes possible. It is the responsibility of the leadership—the most psychologically intense, committed, and dedicated core or cadre of a movement—to sow and nurture and reap the harvest of belief in both the necessity and the possibility of changing the world.

To do this, the leadership itself must believe their goal is necessary and possible, and transmit this belief with all the power and strength of their conviction in the righteousness of their cause. This is how our leadership must address the issue of racial separation and the partition plan we propose to achieve it, as something that is both necessary and possible. What we offer our people is the continued existence of our race. What our opponents offer is the destruction of our race. We should make that clear, so our people know what their choice is and see the necessity of what we offer. Hopefully, they will want what we offer. When they want what we want, everything we want will be possible.

2. Richard McCulloch, The Ideal and Destiny (Coral Spring, Fl.: Towncourt Enterprises, 1982)

3. Richard McCulloch, The Nordish Quest (Coral Springs, Fl.: Towncourt Enterprises, 1989).

4. Willian Gayley Simpson, Which Way Western Man (Cooperstown, N.Y.: Yeoman Press, 1978).

5. American Renaissance, vol. 6, no. 2, February 1995.

6. Samuel Francis, Essential Writings on Race, ed. Jared Taylor (Oakton, Va.: New Century Books, 2007).

7. American Renaissance, vol. 6, no. 6, June 1995.

8. Samuel Francis, ed., Race and the American Prospect (Mt. Airy, Md.: The Occidental Press, 2006).

Personally, my money is on the Midwest in general and Indiana in particular. In fact, I believe this so strongly that I wrote a book about it: Hoosier Nation ($8.00+S&H). If you don’t want a glossy signed copy of my excellent book, you can read it for free at the site. In it, I explain how our oft-overlooked history, our unique heritage, and our current demographic situation make Indiana the best place to light this fire. Some of you may remember that the last serious awakening of White American identity occurred here. If you guys would give us one more chance, we promise not to blow it this time.

Ultimately, I don’t believe any region is entirely out of the question and no region is a sure shot. The actual residents of the Pacific Northwest are so removed from what’s actually happening to their country that they have trouble understanding why anybody would struggle to get away from all the fun people appear to be having on their satellite television channels – The Johnson Paradox. As for the South, these are people who are a bit too comfortable with their plight. They even dress up in costumes on the weekend to relive their devastating defeat.

Just sayin’…

But, in all seriousness, the Southern Midwest was largely settled by yeomen farmers, White refugees of the Southern plantation economy. They didn’t bring much with them when they came, but they did bring a familiarity with Blacks and a hatred of hypocritical White elites. We have non-Whites, but they’re limited to densely populated urban ghettos. They’re not integrated into the land and the communities as “folk” in the same way they are in the South.

I’m not psychic, so I have no idea what our future beholds. I would rather not resort to secession. I would rather we as a whole country recapture the will to embrace our White American heritage and determine our destiny. If we can rekindle that, we might not have to resort to these kinds of desperate compromises. We surround them; we just need to awaken. Nothing is possible without that awakening and everything is possible with it.

Maybe we can have ourselves an American Homeland.

Occidental Dissent, March 12, 2010

1) Racial Consciousness

Southerners are far more racially conscious than Whites in the Pacific Northwest. There are still millions of Americans who cling to traditional racial values. The majority of them live in the South. In Alabama, I would argue that at least 1 out of 2 Whites are racially conscious to some degree. The rest have a high degree of “implict whiteness” that could be activated in the right conditions. More Whites voted against Barack Obama in Alabama than in any other state.

The strongest argument for the South is that racialists have a base in the region. The South is a fertile area for in reach activism. There are millions of Southerners who agree with us on race who have never heard of White Nationalism because of the media blackout. We have more human material to work with. We have more people who are potentially receptive to our message.

In some states, creating a racialist majority is not outside the realm of possibility. David Duke almost won some important races in Louisiana in spite of his Neo-Nazi and Ku Klux Klan baggage. A cleaner candidate with a professionally run campaign could conceivably become Governor of a Southern state. The Council of Conservative Citizens already have sympathetic elected officials in the Mississippi state legislature.

2) Political Correctness and Multiculturalism

Political correctness and multiculturalism have invaded Southern college campuses. Every SEC college has an Office of Diversity and Multiculturalism or its equivilant. I would argue though that PC and multiculturalism have weaker roots in the South than any other region. Universities are commonly fortresses of liberalism, but Southern college students tend to be apathetic or apolitical.

It is not uncommon for Southern fraternities to ridicule political correctness. A huge controversy at Ole Miss is brewing right now over being forced to choose a new PC mascot. Contrast Ole Miss with UC San Diego. Outside the liberal college towns, White Southerners are even more likely to hold political correctness and multiculturalism in contempt. It would be easier to overthrow both in the South than in the Northwest.

3) Liberalism

At least rhetorically, the majority of White Southerners are opposed to liberalism. They voted against Barack Obama and have since flocked into the Tea Party movement. In contrast, the Seattle-Portland urban corridor in the Northwest is a progressive stronghold. Washington and Oregon have voted for the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1988.

White Southerners get most of the conservative social issues: abortion, multiculturalism, illegal immigration, affirmative action, welfare, crime. In the South, White Nationalists still have to move the goal posts, but we don’t have to move them as far as in the Northwest.

4) Culture

As everyone knows, racialism has deeper roots in Southern culture than in any other region of the United States. The South was committed to white supremacy for three centuries. Residual traces of that heritage still exist in the South. These embers could potentially be stirred up into a bonfire again. It would be easier to do this in the South than in the Northwest. We have more material to work with.

5) Ethnicity

The South is unique in that the great waves of European immigration tended to avoid the region. The vast majority of European immigrants settled in the Midwest, West, and New England. White Southerners have deeper roots in America. The typical Southerner is more likely to be descended (in whole or in part) from the original White settlers.

Millions of White Southerners now identify as “Americans” on the Census. Their families have been in America for so long that they have “gone native” and shed European ethnic affiliations. Southerners are more patriotic because they have more invested in the United States. When your ancestors fought in the American Revolution, Mexican War, Civil War, Spanish-American War, WW1, WW2, and Vietnam, naturally, you feel a greater sense of connection to America, its history and heritage, and its destiny.

I have no doubt that Southerners are more willing to fight for their idea of America. It would be easier to persuade them to fight for a White ethnostate because they have more to lose. After moving from Alabama to Virginia, I can still sense that I am living among my own people. The accents and culture are familar. White Southerners are an ethnic group that occupy a huge contiguous geographic region. Virginians and Alabamians are blood relatives only a few generations removed from a common stock.

In other parts of country, that just isn’t true. Poles live among Irish, Germans, and Italians. Southerners are related by blood, soil, history, climate, and culture. They move less often. We have more in common than the disparate other groups who live elsewhere in the United States. It would be easier to mobilize White Southerners around a common political goal. There are fewer obstacles in the way.

I love that line from The Good Shepherd where Joseph Palmi says, “Let me ask you something … we Italians, we got our familes, and we got the church; the Irish, they have the homeland; Jews, their tradition; even the niggers, they got their music. What about you people, Mr. Wilson, what do you have?” And Wilson responds, “We have the United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting.”

6) Tradition

The idea of a White ethnostate originated in the South. Specifically, it can be traced back to the Upper South in states like Virginia and Kentucky where Whites often lamented the presence of blacks and yearned for the day when they would be spirited off to Africa. The history of the American Colonization Society is well known in racialist circles. Maryland and Virginia colonized thousands of their blacks in Liberia. After the Civil War, there was a renewed push to deport blacks to the Belgian Congo led by Senator Morgan of Alabama. Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi pushed the idea in Congress in the 1930s and 1940s.

7) Actual Examples

The South has a history of ethnic cleansing. Famously, the Five Civilized Tribes were deported to Oklahoma from the Southeast under the Jackson and Van Buren administrations. After the Civil War, the Ozarks region of Arkansas expelled its negro residents and became a de facto White ethnostate. In the Great Migrations, half of the blacks in America relocated to the North rather than endure segregation and white supremacy in the Jim Crow South.

Geographical Proximity

How would Southerners thread the needle of Greg Johnson’s dilemma? You can’t have strong racial consciousness without multiracialism, but you can’t have a White ethnostate by including non-Whites? The answer lies in geographic proximity: if a White ethnostate was created in proximity to a negro ethnostate, it would define its own identity in opposition to its African neighbor, in much the same way that Germany defined itself against France. A Southern ethnostate would prove more enduring.

9) Separatism and Secession

The South is the only region of America that has ever seceded from the United States, fought a bloody war against the US federal government, and existed as an independent country. The Jim Crow South was essentially granted “home rule” for over half a century. No other region of the United States has such a strong independent sense of identity.

Southerners alone have an ethnic and national identity to fall back on. However attenuated that identity may be, it still exists, and in the right conditions could potentially be reactivated. Secessionist groups already exist in the South. A stronger feeling of anti-government sentiment prevails in the region. Given their heritage, Southerners are more receptive to the idea of secession than other Americans.

10) Building Blocks

The South has the building blocks of a potential White ethnostate. I’m referring to the White Belts that exist throughout the region. In these areas, Whites are 90% of the population or more, but heavily black areas are nearby and the focal point of racial consciousness. Historically, the White Belts have been notorious for their aversion to blacks.

In the South, racial separatism could take the form of a migration of Whites from the Black Belts to the White Belts. The spine of a Southern ethnostate stretches down the Appalachian Mountains from West Virginia to North Alabama. Large portions of North Alabama, North Georgia, East Tennessee, Western North Carolina, Eastern Kentucky, and West Virginia are relatively White. It would be sensible to salvage these areas. They would be easier for Southerners to relocate to than to the Northwest.

In an upcoming post, I will respond to some of the criticisms of a Southern ethnostate. These include Christianity, nationalism, economic dependence on blacks, the popularity of multiracial college football, devotion to the GOP, and the spread of miscegenation, multiculturalism, and political correctness in the region.

Occidental Dissent, March 11, 2010

Basically, I am skeptical of the idea of a Northwest Homeland, but not opposed to the movement. If White Nationalists want to relocate to the Pacific Northwest, I wish them the best of luck. A comrade of mine is a frequent traveler in the region. He is very impressed with Wyoming and Idaho. I think he plans to relocate there eventually. The Northwest has some of the best scenery in America: Crater Lake, Yellowstone, Glacier National Park. If we could establish a base in the region, it would undoubtedly be a huge victory for us.

Therein lies the problem: the Northwest’s great advantage (its relative whiteness) is also its greatest disadvantage. Non-Whites are less numerous in the region. As a consequence, Whites in the area have less daily exposure to the horrors of diversity and are less racially conscious than their counterparts elsewhere. It is easy for Whites to ignore America’s racial decline and live a quiet life in Northwest suburbia. There is no material incentive to take the risk of joining a revolutionary organization like the Northwest Volunteer Army.

The people who “get it” in the Northwest – who are explicitly racial – are often migrants from other parts of the Union. Covington himself is from North Carolina. According to Leonard Zeskind, there are about 30,000 hardcore White Nationalists in America. If every single one of these people moved to the Northwest tomorrow, an extremely unlikely scenario, and united behind a single dynamic leader and common political platform, an even more unlikely scenario, they would be roughly the size of a small town. White Nationalists are not sufficiently cohesive or numerous to form a viable secessionist movement in Oregon, Idaho, and Washington.

Local resistance could prove an insurmountable problem. The Democrats have carried Washington and Oregon in every presidential election since 1988. Millions of White liberals live in the Vancouver-Seattle-Portland corridor. The coastal region of the Pacific Northwest is one of the most liberal regions of the United States. Obama won 70% of the vote in King County, Washington (Seattle) and 77% of the vote in Multnomah County, Oregon (Portland). I can’t envision a scenario in which diehard Obama voters would flock to the Northwest Front.

The Pacific Northwest doesn’t have a cultural, regional, or ethnic identity comparable to the American South. Whites in Seattle, Tacoma, and Portland don’t feel a sense of kinship with Whites in Boise, Couer d’Alene, and Helena. They didn’t flock to the side of Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Bob Mathews in his shootout in Whidbey Island, or Gordon Kahl in Montana. The Northwest might have a history of Aryan enclave radicalism, but it hasn’t penetrated the surrounding local culture. There isn’t a pre-existing cultural foundation for Whites to rally around.

This can be contrasted to the Antebellum South in the 1850s. Southerners were committed to the preservation of white supremacy. A broad consensus existed in the South that the Union was a compact of sovereign states. A revolutionary vanguard had worked for thirty years to sow the seeds of disunion in South Carolina. The planter class was committed to the preservation of their “domestic institution.” Slavery divided Americans along geographic lines. Secessionists held elected office in all the Southern states. Southerners were united by culture and kinship. Southerners, with their large non-White servile population, had many reasons to fear a “Black Republican” takeover of the federal government.

These vital ingredients are missing in the Pacific Northwest. The region isn’t Ireland, Ukraine, or the Confederacy. Perhaps a band of idealistic Aryan warriors could take up arms against the government and inspire the apathetic masses? The track record of White Nationalist groups like The Order or White Patriot Party doesn’t inspire confidence. The most likely outcome of a government crackdown on an underground vanguardist army would be White Nationalists turning on each and cooperating with the feds like what happened at the Fort Smith Trial.

To his credit, Harold Covington has stressed the importance of character. He is right to focus on this. You can’t build a sand castle with manure. White Nationalists don’t have a sufficient number of men of character to launch a successful secessionist movement anywhere in the United States. Only a fraction of the most diehard White Nationalists would be willing to uproot themselves and relocate to the Pacific Northwest with their families. Only a smaller fraction of them would be willing to risk life and limb for a White homeland.

The federal government is too powerful. I’m less inclined than ever before to believe the system will collapse in the near future. Some have claimed the feds are incompetent. I would argue that they have had a lot of success in penetrating the White Nationalist underground and disrupting our organizations from within. Bill White is going to prison merely for running his mouth. I don’t see anything like a sustained White Nationalist resistance to the federal government (crack one cell, another takes its place) emerging anytime soon.

In our own times, the Northwest Volunteer Army and Northwest Republic properly belong to the realm of fiction. If Covington is serious about this idea, he should focus his energies on practical achievable goals. It would be a huge step forward to get all the racialists who currently reside in the Northwest in regular communication with each other. To my knowledge, the Northwest Front hasn’t progressed that far yet. The next step would be holding state and regional meetings in the real world. The next step after that would be recruiting candidates for a new regional organization.

This organization could then do an exhaustive investigation of local racial attitudes and voting preferences. The Northwest Front could send out some professionally designed direct mail to targeted households sympathetic to traditional cultural values and anti-government rhetoric. It could design a political platform that appeals to a significant cross section of voters in the Northwest and start building a fundraising base. This makes more sense than lashing out at black helicopters with a bazooka. There are a number of steps that come before White Revolution.

I think a Northwest Homeland would be a much tougher mountain to climb than a Southern Homeland. It would be easier to create a base in states like Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina where the locals are already receptive to racialism and resent the federal government. The racial diversity of the Deep South provides more opportunity for confrontation and racial combustion. Southerners also have an ethnic identity to fall back on and a tradition of secession.

If Harold Covington is interested, this is a debate we should be having.

Occidental Dissent, March 8, 2010

Other Occidental Dissent articles on the same topic:

Gregory Hood, “What the ‘Old Man’ Gets Right — And Wrong,” March 8, 2010
Gregory Hood, “RE: Covington — An Apology,” March 8, 2010

. . . What called the Tea Party into existence?

Some are angry over unchecked immigration and the failure to control our borders and send the illegals back. Some are angry over the loss of manufacturing jobs. Some are angry over winless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some are angry over ethnic preferences they see as favoring minorities over them.

What they agree upon, however, is that they have been treading water for a decade, working harder and harder with little or no improvement in their family standard of living. They see the government as taking more of their income in taxes, seeking more control over their institutions, creating entitlements for others not them, plunging the nation into unpayable debt, and inviting inflation or a default that can wipe out what they have saved.

And there is nothing they can do about it, for they are politically powerless. By their gatherings, numbers, mockery of elites and militancy, however, they get a sense of the power that they do not have.

Their repeated reappearance on the national stage, in new incarnations, should be a fire bell in the night to the establishment of both parties. For it testifies to their belief and that of millions more that the state they detest is at war with the country they love.

The secession taking place in America is a secession of the heart—of people who have come to believe the government is them, and not us. . . . Read the whole article.

Volume II: Secessionists Triumphant, 1854-1861

In his second volume of The Road to Disunion, William W. Freehling explores the climax of the secessionist movement in the American South. Secessionists Triumphant, 1854-1861 takes the reader from the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which reignited anti-slavery controversy in the territories, to the opening shots of the War Between the States at Fort Sumter. Long a thwarted minority, secessionists emerged from the political wilderness in these years and fatefully tore the White Republic asunder.

White Nationalists will be surprised to learn that Freehling’s revisionist interpretation of secession challenges the conventional wisdom on the topic. Every American teenager is taught in high school that Southerners stormed out of the Union over their failure to expand slavery in the territories. The Republican Party would have carved out new free states in the West. Eventually, free soilers would have achieved the necessary 3/4th majority to abolish slavery in the South. Thus, Southerners had no choice but to secede and form their own independent nation, as slavery was doomed within the Union.

Freehling uses multiple lines of evidence to undermine this argument. He points out that the most important secessionists, the South Carolina hotspurs, were the least enthusiastic about national expansion. Their champion John C. Calhoun had warned that the Mexican Cession would poison the Union. Likewise, the most important expansionists, the New Orleans imperialists, were among the strongest unionists. South Carolina had wanted to secede from the Union since 1850 and was deterred only because no other state would follow. The Kansas controversy that ensued in the mid-1850s didn’t precipitate the crisis. In the hearts and minds of South Carolinians, the fateful decision for disunion had been made long ago.

Far from being a beleagured minority, the Slave Power had been chalking up one victory after another, and making ever more extreme demands on their Northern colleagues. Texas was annexed to the Union in 1846. The Far Southwest was acquired in the Mexican Cession. The Wilmot Proviso was repeatedly defeated. In the Compromise of 1850, slaveholders had won a new fugitive slave law. The Whig Party was tried and convicted of treason to slavery in the Lower South. In the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Missouri Compromise was repealed and all the territories were flung open to slavery. In the Dred Scott decision, Congress was stripped of its power to abolish slavery in the territories and free blacks lost their citizenship. Finally, Stephen Douglas defeated Abraham Lincoln in an 1858 Illinois Senate race. The Republican Party grew only because of the seemingly insatiable demands of slaveholders who had never been more powerful.

The Western territories which allegedly were the cause of disunion were largely unsuited for plantation agriculture. Slavery wasn’t about to establish itself in New Mexico, Utah, or Nebraska. This was no real loss: planters had an overabundance of land in more tropical Arkansas and Texas waiting to be exploited. Free states like California and Oregon also usually voted with the South in Congress. In Kansas, a mere 200 slaves were imported into the territory. Southerners knew the North would settle the region with their far larger population. Even if Kansas had been admitted as a slave state under the Lecompton constitution, it wouldn’t have remained one a dozen years later.

Under close examination, disunion seems even more bizarre. Southerners were outraged at Northerners who wanted to ban slavery in the territories, but in seceding from the Union they renounced their claim to all the territories. Southerners worried about the erosion of slavery in the Border South, but in seceding from the Union they abolished slavery in the region. Southerners were worried that non-slaveholders would flock to a Southern Republican Party, but secession divided Virginia and produced thousands of anti-Confederates in East Tennessee, North Alabama, and Western North Carolina. Southerners worried about servile insurrection, but nothing was more likely to produce that result than a Civil War!

The ”Black Republican” threat was vastly exaggerated. Only 2% of Northerners wanted to abolish slavery where it already existed. The Republicans only wished to ban slavery in places it could never take root. They had lost on that point in the Kansas-Nebraska Act and Dred Scott decision. In 1860/1861, the Republicans were willing to pass an irrevocable constitutional amendment that would have legalized slavery forever in the Southern states, including the Border South where it was imperiled. Abraham Lincoln even conceded that he wouldn’t use patronage to create a Southern Republican Party in the Lower South.

Lincoln’s election, the proximate cause of disunion, was desired by secessionists like William Lowndes Yancey and Robert Barnwell Rhett. Yancey deliberately used an abstract debate over a congressional slave code to divide the Democratic Party, defeat Stephen Douglas’ candidacy, and ensure a Lincoln victory. This outrage could then be exploited to drive a handful of the most radical states out the Union. The more reluctant Gulf States would then be forced to secede with their brethren. If Lincoln chose to coerce a seceded state, this would force Upper South (and hopefully the Border South) into a Southern Confederacy.

It boggles the mind: secessionists diligently went to work destroying their national political party through which they had lately controlled the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court. If the Democrats had united behind Douglas, they could have defeated the Republicans in 1860. If slaveholders had conceded inhospitable and unwinnable territories within the Union, as they did by leaving the Union, the Republican Party would have faded. Slavery would have been ensconced in an impregnable constitutional fortress. There is no telling when it may have ultimately been abolished.

The revolution the secessionists incited thrust men into power who had not championed disunion. Jefferson Davis, Confederate President, had been a Washington insider and favorite of James Buchanan. He had opposed secession until 1860. Alexander Stephens, Confederate Vice President, opposed Georgia’s secession from the Union. Robert Toombs, Confederate Secretary of State, was a unionist who opposed Georgia secession in 1850. Christopher Memminger, Confederate Treasury Secretary, had been a Cooperationist. The Confederate government was stacked with other late comers. Noticeably absent were the Fire Eaters (Robert Barnwell Rhett and William Lowndes Yancey) who prodded the South to disunion.

These men exploited several issues to drive a wedge between North and South. Robert Barnwell Rhett hoped the Republicans would revisit the issue of abolishing slavery in Washington, DC. Maybe that could be used to dissolve the Union. Yancey argued for reopening the African slave trade in the hope that it would alienate Northern Democrats. Kansas and Caribbean expansion were also seen as useful devices for justifying disunion. Ultimately, the congressional slave code with the abstract “when necessary” language proved the most lethal and effective weapon.

South Carolina set the chain of dominos in motion. There haughty lowcountry aristocrats had long despised American mobocracy and yearned for deliverance. Touchy Southwesterners in Alabama and Mississippi could not tolerate the dishonor of being morally stigmatized or excluded from any territory. They could also not tolerate the decision of the Buchanan administration to coerce South Carolina by sending the Star of the West to resupply Fort Sumter. Florida and Georgia followed their neighbors. Louisiana and Texas cast their lot with their sister states.

The Upper South decisively rejected secession until Lincoln decided to coerce the Confederacy. The Whites in these states felt South Carolinians had been foolish and unwise, but did not contest their right to secede. Lincoln’s violation of states’ rights took Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee out of the Union. In the Border South, 1/3 of Whites sided with the Confederacy; 2/3 with the Union. Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland degenerated into civil war.

William W. Freehling searched in vain for a rational explanation for disunion. Wasn’t there an “irrepressible conflict” between the Free States and Slave States? His research uncovered an untidy variety of causes as divergent as the various subregions of the South. Some Southerners were swept along by the excitement and momentum of events beyond their control. Some felt they were being treated as less than equals. Some despised Yankee holier-than-thous. Some felt that slavery would be safer in a Southern Confederacy. Some believed that Northern protectionists were fleecing them with high tariffs. Some would side with their own misguided kin. Some did not believe the federal government could coerce a seceded state. Most subscribed to some combination of these grievances.

It is worth noting that the demise of the White Republic was a self inflicted blow on American civilization. Northerners and Southerners heaped up their own funeral pyre over insoluble sectional differences. Jews did not play an important role in the final unraveling. The reconstructed nation that emerged from the carnage would elevate Negroes to civil and political equality. A few years earlier, this had been an unthinkable scenario except in the minds of the wildest fanatics like John Brown. If there is any useful lesson that White Nationalists can draw from this, it is that White fratricide always works to the advantage of our racial enemies.

Occidental Dissent, January 29, 2010

Zeskind notes that there has been an increase in discussion of secession and racial partition. He mentions the creation of Harold Covington’s Northwest Front, but predicts nothing will come of it because of Covington’s controversial past.

Zeskind also mentions TOQ and our “Secession and Racial Nationalism” essay contest:

The Occidental Quarterly, with half a dozen PhDs on its advisory board, has emerged as the central address for the most advanced strategic thinking among intellectual antisemites, scientific racists and anti-immigrant white nationalists.

Zeskind then mentions Michael O’Meara’s prize essay “Toward the White Republic.”

I have been editing our special issue on Secession and Racial nationalism, and I have been again impressed by the quality of the entries. Dr. O’Meara’s prize essay was the best, but the best in a crowded and highly competitive field. Of the 19 entries, nine will be published in TOQ, including the prize essay, and a tenth has already been published on TOQ Online.

The purpose of TOQ‘s essay competitions is precisely to solidify our position as “the central address for the most advanced strategic thinking among intellectual antisemites, scientific racists and anti-immigrant white nationalists” by encouraging the best minds in our movement to apply themselves to issues of vital importance to our people’s survival and flourishing.

Click here for details on our next essay contest, on “Libertarianism and Racial Nationalism.”

For reviews of Zeskind’s Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream, click here and here.

In the cradle of the civil rights movement, a new secession effort is under way that would break off Atlanta’s predominantly white, wealthy suburbs to the north from poorer, black neighborhoods in the south.

There’s a renewed push to take some suburbs out of Fulton County, Georgia’s most populous and home to most of the city of Atlanta, and put them under the now-extinct Milton County.

Its supporters hope resurrecting the county would give residents there more responsive government. But opponents say the measure is racially motivated and will open up a deep rift between black and white, rich and poor in a state with a complicated racial history. The area that would be split off is more than 75 percent white, while a large block of the remaining portion of Fulton County is 90 percent minority.

. . .

The idea isn’t new. But these days, there’s some muscle behind the movement now that its sponsor is about to become House Speaker pro tem, the second-most powerful position in the Georgia House of Representatives. The measure made it out of House committee this year. It’s been stymied so far by questions about the counties’ financial viability and the tangle of laws that would have to be changed.

The region that became Milton County was originally part of the Cherokee Indian Nation until the state of Georgia grabbed the land in the 1830s. The Cherokees were expelled to what is now Oklahoma and cotton plantations flourished there, helped along by cheap slave labor before the Civil War.

But a boll weevil infestation of cotton in the early part of the 20th century decimated the county’s economy. After limping along financially, Milton County was folded into Fulton County in 1932 during the Great Depression.

Race a factor?

. . .

“The issue is what the hell are they doing with our money,” Joe Stewardson said as he sipped coffee at a shop in Atlanta’s Old Fourth Ward neighborhood, home to Martin Luther King’s birthplace.

“Is race part of the equation? Probably. But I think money transcends all other considerations.”

The legislation’s sponsor, state Rep. Jan Jones, an Alpharetta Republican, denies race is behind the proposal.

. . .

Her bill would amend the Georgia Constitution to allow the return of Milton County. It would need a two-thirds vote in each chamber of the state Legislature and must then be approved by voters because state law limits the number of counties to 159.

If the Legislature approves the measure, it would be on the ballot in November, but the split wouldn’t take place until 2013.

Newly elected Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed opposes the measure, worried it will hurt the city’s bottom line.

Changing faces

. . .

What used to be Milton County is now largely white and Republican and affluent. Atlanta and its southern suburbs are mostly black, are controlled by Democrats and have neighborhoods with some of the highest poverty rates in America. Buckhead, a trendy Atlanta neighborhood known for its clubs, restaurants and mansions, would remain in Fulton County.

The entire Milton County area is now incorporated in one city or another which means those cities could provide some services like police and fire, cutting down on the county costs.

. . .

Splitting off the county’s wealthiest cities could be a devastating blow to Atlanta, which is grappling with a steep budget shortfall and skyrocketing pension obligations. State Rep. Tyrone Brooks, an Atlanta Democrat and civil rights activist, called it a “sucker punch” for the city, which is the engine for the state.

. . . Read the whole article.

For more on reviving Milton County, see here.

The county power movement, as it’s called, is centered on some 70 western counties that are surrounded by the public domain and are defiantly declaring their independence. It’s a kind of mini-secessionist movement, charged by anger at federal authority and environmentalism. No better example of this insurgency can be found than in Wallowa County in eastern Oregon. Bounded on one side by Hells Canyon, the deepest gorge in the United States, and on the other by the serrated, snow-capped peaks of the Wallowa Mountains, Wallowa is one of the most remote and isolated counties in the nation—fifty miles of hard driving from the nearest highway.

Forty years ago, ranching, logging and mining formed the economic backbone of Wallowa County. Over the past two decades, however, Wallowa County has been undergoing a dramatic structural transformation. First, the small sawmills closed, victims of their own rapacious appetite for old-growth Ponderosa pine, which had been nearly eliminated from the region’s mountains by the late 1980s. Then in the early 1990s, the corporate mills, owned by transnational timber giant Boise-Cascade moved out. While the corporate executives blamed the closures on environmental regulations and lawsuits, the prime factor was a desire to find more efficient locations (such as the forests of the Sierra Madre in Mexico) for their new high tech mills.

Meanwhile, here in the heart of cowboy country, there are only 46 ranchers left in a county nearly the size of Delaware. And, according to one economic study, total farm income in Wallowa county represents only about eight percent of total employment. Of this, ranching represents less than two percent. For at least the past twenty years, the biggest single employer in Wallowa County (and most of the rural West, for that matter) is the federal government—in this case the Forest Service. Oh, the irony.

Wallowa County’s demographics are also changing, Young people are fleeing the county for better paying jobs in Spokane, Boise and Portland. This is a phenomenon at work across the entire region. Indeed, the contemporary West is much more urban-centered than the East or the South. More than 80 percent of Westerners live in cities.

As the children of ranchers, loggers and sawmill operators scramble towards the cities, new kinds of urban refugees are moving into the county. For example, the small town of Joseph, named after the famous Nez Perce Chief who was born in a cave near town, now resembles a kind of yuppie colony with art cooperatives, herb farms, an organic farmer’s market, designer coffee shops and microbrew pubs.

In short, Joseph has become a vacation retreat, a wannabe Jackson, Wyoming. And the old timers don’t like it one bit. They fear rising property taxes, pressures from mortgage holders, displacement from traditional lifestyles. All they see are urban-transplants throwing cash around while they lose their jobs in dying industries.

The way the town elders see it, it’s the federal government that’s to blame for their deprivation. In 1994, county residents voted to adopt an ordinance aimed at kicking the federal government off lands they insist belong to the state of Oregon, and in so doing, turned Wallowa County into a Firebase Charlie of the West’s war against the federales. . . . Read the whole article.

Harold Covington: I was born in Burlington, North Carolina in 1953. I had my first dose of racial reality at age 15 when I was thrown into an integrated high school in Chapel Hill, NC which was bad by the standards of the day (1968) but which of course was a kindergarten compared to the racial situation that exists in our schools today. All we had to worry about back in my time was blacks with knives rather than organized gangs and drug dealers armed with semi-autos, and of course there were the hippy-dippy SDS type radicals, many of whom I noticed even at the time appeared to be Jews. Homosexuals didn’t even come into the equation back in those days, and the drugs at school were just beer and grass and LSD, not ecstasy or coke or crack.

I won’t go off into a long digression about the various horrible racial experiences I had in high school, but on the day I finally left there, I looked back and made a silent personal vow that I would devote my life somehow to making sure that no young White person ever again had to go through what I had to go through in that place. Again, I didn’t realize how relatively mild my problems had been and how terrible things would become in my lifetime.

For reasons I won’t get into, basically having to do with the fact that my father was a psychopath, he ordered me out of the family home and I went into the United States army at 17. My experiences in the military provided a further dose of racial reality, although once again I understand they were nothing compared to what young White enlistees go through nowadays when the military has in desperation lowered the recruitment criteria to include drug addicts, criminals, gang-bangers, etc.

I did my basic at Fort Polk, Louisiana and then was sent for infantry training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and Ranger School at Fort Benning, Georgia. At Fort Jackson I picked up a paperback book in the day room called The Order of the Death’s Head, by a German named Heinze Höhne. Rare among studies of the Third Reich, the book was actually reasonably objective, and it had the effect of more or less converting me to National Socialism. I remain a National Socialist in my personal outlook to this day. While I was stationed at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii I joined the National Socialist White People’s Party (NSWPP), which was founded by George Lincoln Rockwell, and was then run by a man named Matt Koehl. I formed a unit of a Party front group called the White Servicemen’s League and ended up getting discharged early, albeit under honorable conditions. Nowadays, of course, I’d probably end up in Leavenworth for it.

After I got out of the army I served on permanent NSWPP staff at the headquarters in El Monte, California under the now-legendary Lt. Joseph Tommasi, who was murdered in 1975. I then became editor of the Party newspaper White Power in Arlington, Virginia. In 1974 I worked for a construction company in Johannesburg, South Africa for about six months, and then went to Rhodesia and joined the Rhodesian Army. In 1976 I was deported from Rhodesia for my activities with the proto-NS Rhodesia White People’s Party, along with two of my fellow Americans, Eric Thomson and Jeffrey Spencer. That’s an interesting example of conservatives being our true worst enemy. I was deported on the personal orders of Ian Smith, and we all know what Mr. Smith’s conservatism did to Rhodesia.

From then on it was the usual long Movement history of different groups, different approaches, all of them pretty much dead ends because there basically isn’t anything that can be done on an all-America basis in order to reverse the terminal decline of Western civilization on this continent, at least not without the use of a level of armed force which practically speaking, the Movement will never have at its disposal.

In 1982 I more or less went on the run for five years due to a legal situation which I’m still not certain it’s completely safe for me to get into, given the paranoid nature of our lords and masters these days and their eagerness to find something, anything, to use as an excuse to plop me down in the cell next to Bill White and Matt Hale. I ended up in Ireland, which at that time had no extradition treaty with the USA, due to the embarrassment and political complications for the Dublin government which would be caused by possibly extraditing IRA men back and forth across the Atlantic.

I learned a lot in Ireland. I didn’t just hang out in pubs guzzling Guinness; I read all the newspapers and watched RTE and BBC Northern Ireland, I made trips into the North, I talked to certain people (very carefully) and I sat quietly in certain known IRA pubs nursing a pint or two of Smithwick’s, listening and observing very carefully. Basically, in Ireland, I saw how it’s done in the modern world, not in 1930s Germany, and it was an invaluable education.

It’s true the IRA didn’t win in the main sense of the term, but Communists though they are (and I know that) this small band of dedicated White working class men and women fought a major Western democratic military power to a standstill, and forced the Brits to buy them off instead of crushing them. Like Rocky Balboa, they went a full fifteen rounds with Godzilla and they were still standing at the end of it. The lesson I draw from this and other events in the past 20 years is that it can be done.

In 2000, in the aftermath of what Morris Dees did to Pastor Butler, I finally came out openly for territorial White separatism in the form of the Northwest Imperative.

TOQ: Can you explain the Northwest Imperative, and tell us how you came to believe in it?

Harold Covington: The Northwest Imperative is based on the conviction, an accurate one, that the United States of America in its present form is doomed, and that it is necessary to the physical survival of the White race that we establish a Homeland for all of our people worldwide somewhere on the North American continent. Economics, demographics, and logistics dictate that the best location for such a Homeland is here in the Pacific Northwest. In addition, we have a long history here of commitment and martyrdom here in the Northwest: Bob Mathews and the Order men, Sam and Vicky Weaver, Gordon Kahl, and our latest martyr from the Northwest Front, Jeff Hughes of Vancouver, Canada.

The essence of the Northwest Idea is to reduce the problem to manageable proportions. We are simply too weak, disorganized, and too few to take over the United States, and we need to accept that just ain’t gonna happen. Instead of a whole huge continent and 300 million mostly hostile people to worry about, we reduce the problem geographically and demographically to three and a half states with about 12 million people, mostly White. Given the inevitable coming implosion of the United States and the collapse of the central authority in Washington D.C., when they run out of money to pay their mercenaries, bureaucrats, and enforcers, the Northwest Imperative is do-able in a way that no other plan we’ve ever come up with is do-able.

The Northwest Imperative also reduces the problem to that of a colonial war, and there are numerous models from the last century as to how to wage and win a colonial war. The objective is to make the disputed territory ungovernable and turn it into a massive rathole down which the occupying power bleeds money, manpower, and resources until it can’t stand the hemorrhage any longer and cuts its losses. The most important statement in any of my Northwest novels, so important that I have various characters say it over and over again in all four books, is this: “In a colonial war, it’s never the generals who surrender. It’s the accountants.”

TOQ: Can you tell us what you are doing to promote the idea of a Northwest homeland and to prepare for its concrete realization?

Harold Covington: We have formed the “Party” of the Northwest novels, called the Northwest Front, although it isn’t really a Party yet and probably won’t be for some time. Right now it’s just what the name says, a broad front rather than a party. We have participation from people who are involved with other groups and from people who are involved with none. There is no formal membership status, no chain of command, and no hierarchy. We provide what support we can to anyone who lives here or who is willing to come here to the Homeland and work for Northwest independence.

Eventually that will have to change, of course. Eventually there must be a disciplined, fighting revolutionary Party of political soldiers, but that’s going to take us a while. White Americans are the sloppiest, laziest, most narcissistic and most undisciplined people in the world, and they simply can’t wrap their minds around a European concept such as the political soldier. Not yet. They will have to change, or they will perish from the earth.

Read Part 2 here.

Read Greg Johnson’s review of Harold Covington’s Northwest Quartet here.

For full visual effect, the Guardian has Terre’Blanche standing in front of the Boer swastika, which has been designated a “hate symbol” by the ADL. It was undoubtedly included to trigger the desired Pavlovian response: this man is a Nazi, the epitome of evil, dismiss everything he has to say. A similar picture of Nelson Mandela and Joe Slovo standing in front of the USSR’s hammer and sickle would have been given an entirely different treatment.

It would have been explained away as “resistance to oppression,” “solidarity with the working masses,” or some crap along those lines. The terrorist Nelson Mandela has his own statue in Parliament Square. He is one of the most revered figures in multicultural Britain. I shouldn’t have to explain the double standard: by definition, as oppressors of “people of color,” White Calvinists cannot be freedom fighters or a beleaguered minority worthy of our sympathy.

Terre’Blanche’s proposal really sticks it in the liberal craw: he has disavowed the use of violence, plans to petition the United Nations, and wants to organize a referendum on secession. In some ways, this is not unlike what the NAACP was doing in the 1940s.

Unfortunately, Terre’Blanche and the plight of the Afrikaners will continue to fall on deaf ears in the liberal West. No amount of rape, murder, theft and discrimination can make up for the crime of being born White in a non-White country.

From Occidental Dissent, October 4, 2009

In a recent column for the Charleston City Paper, I explained how my moniker, the “Southern Avenger,” came from my advocating for states’ rights and even secession in my early 20s, a brand of politics I still subscribe to today. Long comfortable with such concepts, it’s easy to forget that plenty of folks are not, and was reminded promptly by a number of readers that very notion of Americans no longer living under the same government is still considered “crazy” by many. Here are a few of those comments:

“Just great! What we need is to divide our country into a Balkanized mish-mash of impotent little ‘countries.’ This is crazy talk, meant only to incite as far as I can see.” Another wrote: “So, are we asking for the idea of 50 individual countries? Talk about a screwed up idea.” A kind critic wrote: “Jack—I’m a big fan … but the secession idea these days is on par with colonizing the moon. It just doesn’t make sense.” And a less kind critic wrote: “You need to broaden your exposure to world ideas. This column shows how narrow your focus is. You haven’t grown much from your early years. You thought you knew it all then and still do.”

While I’m always more fascinated by the amount of stuff I don’t know, than I am the narrow worldview that exists between my two ears, I am quite certain of two things: big government doesn’t work–and yet it is always considered sound, sane and respectable to advocate for it. And the opposite is also true—to advocate for smaller government is acceptable so long as you’re talking about voting Republican or lowering taxes, but the moment you try to actually seek limiting Washington, DC’s jurisdiction; it’s time for a straightjacket. . . . Read the whole article.

There are numerous interesting parallels. Like White Nationalists, the Fire Eaters spent decades in the political wilderness as a cornered minority. They were dismissed as “extremists,” “hotheads,” “ultras,” and “radicals” by their mainstream contemporaries. They chafed under the rule of conservatives whom they believed sacrificed Southern rights and honor. The Fire Eaters subscribed to a version of the ‘worse is better’ theory and worked to ensure the election of Abraham Lincoln and the defeat of Stephen Douglas. They were convinced that the Union was unsalvageable and only a minority of White Southerners were could be replied upon.

The Fire Eater strategy is of particular relevance to White Nationalism. It tackled an important question: how are the passive, fundamentally conservative masses to be awakened from their slumber? The Fire Eaters invested their hopes in separate state action by a handful of the most radical states. In the context of a national outrage, this would force the moderates into choosing between resistance or submission and allow the radicals to carry the day. The federal government would overplay its hand and the ensuing backlash would lead to a further wave of secession.

Their answer to this problem is worth considering in our times. Will anything short of troops in the streets and boots on the neck suffice to get the job done? In 2009, I seriously doubt even that would galvanize timid suburbanites, but much could change in decades to come. South Carolina wasn’t ready to leave the Union in 1833 over the “Tariff of Abominations.” The principle of secession triumphed in the South long before it was acted upon. The idea that Whites have legitimate interests must be established before a White ethnostate is given a serious hearing.

By 1860, the perpetuation of the Union had become a question mark. It was no longer taken for granted by all parties. A radical milieu had been advocating secession for almost thirty years. Fringe ideas had penetrated the mainstream national conversation. There is profit to be made in studying these precursors of ours.

Occidental Dissent, September 29, 2009