In my commentary on the Northwest Front, I alluded to my own preference for a Southern ethnostate, but I didn’t expand much on this idea. The South has several advantages over the Northwest as the location for the White ethnostate. In the present political climate, I won’t argue that a Southern ethnostate is a realistic possibility, as I find that outcome unlikely to materialize. Instead, I will argue solely that it would be easier to carve out an ethnostate in the South than in other parts of the United States.
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 less 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.
8.) 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 U.S. 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.
Could you describe in a bit more detail what you mean by an “ethnostate”. Would you advocate the foced expulsion of all non-whites from the area controlled by the ethnostate? What would you do about mixed race individuals? Would you also advocate the expulsion of gays, as Covington does? Would there be expulsion or punishment for liberals, persons in mixed-race relationships? Would Jews be exiled, too?
Before I can evaluate your arguments for why the South would be the right place for such a thing I think a bit more description of *what* you envision by use of the term “ethnostate”.
Ethnostate: An independent, racially exclusive territory.
Re: Expulsion
1.) Yes, I advocate the expulsion of non-Whites and mixed race individuals.
2.) I would envision this starting in a manner similar to the creation of the “sundown towns” after the Civil War. In a national crisis, Whites in the most racialist cities and towns would expel their non-Whites. They would later be expelled from counties and subregions like the Ozarks in the twentieth century. As the number of Whites Only zones increased, they would eventually confederate in a White ethnostate.
3.) No, I don’t have a problem with homosexuals.
4.) The anti-miscegenation laws that once existed in the Southern states would be restored.
5.) I wouldn’t criminalize liberalism.
6.) Ideally, Jews would be expelled. I don’t there are many Jews in the Appalachia to begin with.
You bring up many good points, but…..southern whites are as clannish among themselves as any of the “white ethnic groups” (Poles, Germans, Irish, etc. are within the rest of the country). What I mean by this (and I lived in Kentucky for several years as a child and still visit friends in North Carolina every year), is that you can be white and still not be accepted by the indigenous whites of the south. As soon as they detect the absence of the southern drawl , they go cold, though this is more pronounced in certain areas (like Eastern Kentucky as opposed to Western Kentucky). Then too, you have the strong adherence to the “Scofield Bible banging dispensationalist evangelicals” who for some unfathomable reason, feel that God’s Chosen People can do no wrong and that they should support Israel and its unending wars without question. It is a very curious combination of mental qualities in this group of whites, but that , at least was my observation. These qualities would be a hindrance to the formation of an effective “white ethostate” in this region, don’t you think?
I’m going to deal with this in my next post. Now that you mention it, I was recently in Raleigh and some of the locals there were joking about Cary, a nearby city. The inside joke is that “Cary” stands for “Containment Area for Relocated Yankees.”
In my experience, Southerners can be xenophiles when it comes to other Whites. Being from another state, region, or country often marks you as a curiosity. It is definitely an advantage for an attractive woman.
One of the best if not the best post on this blog.
How would Southerners thread the needle of Greg Johnson’s dilemma? You can’t have strong racial consciousness without multiracialism
I don’t find it to be true. The issue is when our media and educational system are nothing but multicultural/multiracial, anti-white propaganda machines and there is no pro-white propaganda or real life experiences to counteract it. In a white ethnostate you wouldn’t need to go to school with niggers and be harassed and assaulted by them to know that the illusion of them presented on television isn’t true.
If you wanted to go a step further, you could do as the Jews do to their children as seen in the documentary Defamation, and take them on field trips to ghettos and third world cesspools to scare them.
Have you resolved who is White?
Will it be based on phenotype, and thus include those with Asian/Black/Jewish or other genetics that don’t manifest visually? Or will it be based on genetic screening? Personal sense of identification? Some blend thereof?
How do you define mixed race individuals? Given the reality of genetics, there will likely have to be acceptable or unacceptable percentages for mixed-race individuals – what are they?
In my experience, Southerners can be xenophiles when it comes to other Whites. Being from another state, region, or country often marks you as a curiosity. It is definitely an advantage for an attractive woman.
This is fine as long as they’re white/European. There will always be some sort of cultural and interethnic exchange. We just need to limit our exotic attractions to within our race. I personally find Anglo-Saxon women with British accents very attractive. It’s like I’m reaching back in time.
Will it be based on phenotype, and thus include those with Asian/Black/Jewish or other genetics that don’t manifest visually?
LOL, how does black ancestry not manifest visually? Legally it would have to be an objective measure, so ancestry and DNA play a greater role.
Are you having doubts about your racialism? I thought you had it all worked out.
Our ancestors already did the leg work. The one-drop rule for blacks, the Pocahontas exception for Mongoloids (1/16th or less), and the Nuremberg laws for Jews/mischlings/non-Europeans (1/8th or less).
If this is a strictly comparative exercise (comparing to the Northwest) then many of the factors listed in favor of the South make sense. However it really shouldn’t be mutually exclusive if possible.
If there is an increase in factors that promote White unity and ideological acceptance of voluntary segregation and ethnic confederacy then anywhere becomes viable territory for White homelands of varying sizes.
Such factors will all have to change anyway. Otherwise the expulsion of non-whites would basically be a declaration of war on the entire Western world’s ideology and your homeland would be squashed like a bug.
Mark, I have no problem with the rules you outlined. Those are pretty good, actually.
It should be clear that or something similar is what is accepted. I think there is too much dancing around the issue. Defining the parameters will help move things forward.
Jackson, Hunter can of course answer your questions for himself, and I’ll be interested in what he has to say, but I’ll throw in my two cents.
An ethnostate for whites means just that…a land for whites. A nation in which whites can live, develop their culture, and pursue their own destiny free from the interference of other peoples. Free from being amalgamated out of existence. By definition, such a land would not include non-whites (and yes, I define Jews as being non-white).
You speak in terms of “expulsion” and “exile.” At this point, we simply can’t know how matters will be resolved. In a violent conflagration, things could happen very quickly and with much suffering. On the other hand, one can easily envision many peaceful means by which people could separate into their own communities, including multi-racial communities. As for me, I would prefer the most peaceful and fair solution possible (think of an amicable divorce), though I recognize that things may not turn out that way. So be it. The most important thing is that our people survive.
What follows are some point by point answers. Certainly, white nationalists are not in unaminous agreement on the following, but this is my take at the present time:
1. As to mixed-race individuals: mixed-race is precisely what we are seeking to avoid. One of the primary purposes of the white ethnostate is to avoid amalgamation. We don’t wan’t to become Brazil, we want to be ourselves. I realize that people who are “nearly white” will have the tragedy of mixed blood. There will always be borderline cases. In my view, such people should be allowed to live out their lives in the ethnostate as equal citizens, with one exception: they should not have additional children that will inherit their misfortune. They can adopt, or utilize in vitro or artifical insemination. However, if they wish to pass on their mixed genes, they should be free to do so, but not in white lands. They should leave. As an aside, I don’t even care if numerous exceptions are made allowing certain non-whites to live out their lives in the new ethnostate. What I care about is that all of the babies born each year are white. All of them.
2. On the gay issue: There will always be white gays. Expel one group and you’re just going to get another with the next generation. I’m not terribly interested in a never ending witch-hunt, or wasting effort on intractable problems. What’s important, vitally important, is that we create a culture focused on preserving and perpetuating the tribe. That means families with children. The heterosexual family must therefore have the highest value in a society determined to preserve itself. White gays can and should understand this, as they benefit from living in a healthy society that is not decaying. So long as they accept this, I don’t see the problem. In such a healthy culture, tearing apart the white families that have a homosexual relative would serve little or no purpose other than to engender pain and resentment.
3. As to liberals: those who have actively worked for our destruction need to be punished. The greatest punishment, and the most just, would be requiring them to live by their own words. Requiring them to live as they demand of us: amongst the non-white hordes. Of course, we must also recognize that our people have been subjected to a historically unprecedented propaganda campaign. This campaign can and has duped many people, people who later “see the light.” Allowances must be made for this, but for those that have graduated from merely misguided to active evil, well, their right to live in the white ethnostate should be forfeit. But again, this punishment should be applied with caution. The birth pangs of the white ethnostate will likely be painful enough without going on perpetual witch-hunts that tear families apart, especially familes that have many blameless members. As appealing as vengeance is, the most important thing is to preserve our people. The former should never compromise the latter, engendering unnecessary division and resentment amongst blameless whites.
4. As to people in mixed-race relationships, I’ve answered some of that in #3. Those whites who are currently in mixed-race relationships when the white ethnostate is created, or those who have produced non-white children, will of course have to leave. Obviously, there must be viable mixed-race communities that they can join (always leave the other guy a realistic exit). Again, they must live by their words and their deeds. On the other hand, I’m not terribly interested in witch-hunts of people who may have been in a mixed relationship in the distant past, yet produced no non-white children. Many of those people have moved on and have created white families. Destroying those families would not be worth it, as tempting as it might be to some. I repeat: our goal must not be to inflict vengeance, but to preserve our people. Some vengeance may indeed help preserve our people, but one can easily see it becoming counterproductive. This will be a real challenge, balancing justice with prudence.
5. On the Jews: they already have their ethnostate. It’s called Israel. We want our own. Just as I don’t have the right to live in Israel, Jews would not have the right to live in my homeland. Fair is fair.
As a final note, I believe that most of these things will work themselves out. For example, determined race-mixers or militant gays are unlikely to remain in the white ethnostate. They will instead head for communities that share their values, which is at it should be. People aren’t one-size-fits- all. Rather than being miserable in a society (like the modern Kwa) which forces repugnant values into your face, people should be free to live in communities that reflect the values they believe in. Those who are hostile to the white race will no doubt prefer other climes, which should suit everyone better in the end.
My outlook is in agreement with what traditional America was and what they advocated for themselves. A Northern European racial standard is nothing extreme or out of the ordinary. When people protest against that it just shows how far we have fallen.
It seems to me that many minorities are attracted by welfare (in all it’s wonderful forms). Yes, there are the old-school Mexican farm workers who didn’t get involved in welfare system, just picked the apples, took the cash, and went wherever. But that’s going away.
Given this, it has always seemed that one way to do peaceful ethnic cleansing would be to completely end welfare in a state. This would, by necessity, be a very Republican and right-wing dominated state. As the state voted to “not participate” in Medicaid, Section 8, WICK, Food Stamps, etc. the message would quickly get out, and the dependent classes would leave. Even temporary suspension of these programs (prior to the judiciary re-instating them) would force a lot of people out. The message would be sent.
Now, in somewhere like Oregon I think a lot of blacks and many Mexicans would relocate to California. (Cali already has 32% of the welfare recipients in the USA and something like 12% of the population. Is it any wonder it’s also the number one destination for immigrants?). Of course Oregon is still very white, so many of the welfare recipients are white, too. (There is a real merging of all the lower classes in the counties around Portland. The so-called “hip-hop culture”. UGH!). These white neer-do-wells might leave too.
To me that would be a plus, but I have a less mystical belief in the power of whiteness to allow losers to reform, than many on this board.
Also it wouldn’t do anything to reduce the number of productive (read: Asian) minorities in the state.
Still, all things considered I think it would be a great way to get many undesirables, and probably most of the black citizens, and many Latino’s to move elsewhere.
A nice side effect woudl be that places like California and New York would get even MORE welfare cases, as their liberal ruling elite would never agree to similar laws in their states.
I offer this up for consideration because as fun as Harold Covington’s books are I don’t think that level of coercive force will ever be brought to bear to restructure a region in the USA, and I don’t think it would probably succeed either.
Using “lawfare” to achieve these same ends seems at least possible. And it would certainly be amusing to hear Charles Shummer and Obama explain to Wyoming or Idaho why the “MUST” provide Section 8 housing and AFDC.
Yes, Lockeford, a key stumbling block to a Southern homeland is the overly-large presence of blacks in the South. Period. To remove them would require a major, sustained, and very visible effort – sure to bring down the wrath of the entire Jewish-led West. It is unworkable, at least without some sort of general collapse – and we can’t depend on that. The Northwest’s strength? The region as a geographic bloc is the Whitest in the country. Less force will be necessary to remove those who are not. A period of lowgrade guerrilla activity targeting the few Northwestern cities in play (another strength of the Northwestern Imperative) would suffice to reduce these cities’ nonwhite populations, for the most part, as the aliens flee for more tolerant pastures.
Blacks, as a group in the Northwest, are few. The major ethnics in the area consist of the relatively new and mobile Asians and Hispanics. They will move more readily, if pushed. Blacks in the South are THE major ethnic group, and all have ties at least as deep as their white Southern neighbors. They will not be easily displaced.
The large presence of blacks is one of the top two or three objections to any Southern white secessionist movement. It is insurmountable. Demographics is destiny.
The problem I see is that Dixie has the highest percentage of non-whites in the nation, doesn’t it? Maine/VT/NH/Upstate NY and Western Mass is virtually lily-white, isn’t it? (And contrary to popular belief, there are *many* racially aware whites up there.)
The other problem, as someone mentioned on a previous thread, is that it’s too damn hot down there. White people aren’t made for all that heat, which is why Southerners are so nuts.
If you extend the Mason-Dixon line all the way to CA, everything North of it, outside of the big East Coast cities and pockets like Detroit, is lily-white.
If we were to build a wall around NYC and surrounding areas, New England would be nearly perfect.
By the way, to both Trainspotter and Hunter thanks for the detailed thoughtful answers to my questions.
As a Southerner myself, I’m not sure this is possible what with the large black population that could be used as antagonists by the progressive liberals to prevent any such secession. There’s a great black migration from north to south and every year we get more and more swamped with these people. It wouldn’t be too far fetched to think we may one day be outnumbered by them.
Look I’m half Yankee and half Southern myself, so please my Southern friends, don’t take this the wrong way:
From the Atlantic to the Pacific, from San Francisco to Baltimore all the way north to the North Pole – that’s ours. I wouldn’t wish it on my southern friends and family, but if we relocated all the non whites from the North to the South, we’d basically have White Utopia already. Canada should be ours too, and right now their ZOG is trying to resettle as many non-whites as possible to Canada.
As for Jew York Shitty, I’m sure Israel will false-flag it again, probably with nukes this time, so it’s sort of “problem solved.”
The presence of blacks in the South is an advantage, not a disadvantage. Racial diversity leads to racial consciousness, understanding of racial differences, and awareness of racial problems. It provides opportunities for the sort of racial combustion that could drive the creation of a secessionist ethnostate.
What incentive do Whites in the Pacific Northwest have to secede? Escape black crime? There are few blacks in the area. Escape blacks ruining the public education system? Public schools in Idaho and Montana are White. Escape illegal immigration? Most of the illegals settle in the Southeast and Southwest. Escape transfer payments to non-Whites? Public services in the Northwest work to the advantage of Whites. Non-Whites taking our jobs? Whites in the Northwest are competing with other Whites.
In the Pacific Northwest, life is pretty good for Whites in the region. They’re not sitting on top of a racial volcano that could explode at any minute. They have little to fear. Their grandchildren aren’t going to a minority in 2050. The Asians who live in the region aren’t really troublemakers. The Whites in the area don’t feel threatened by IT techs working for Microsoft.
It is a myth that the South is non-White. This is true of some parts of the South, but other areas like West Virginia are over 90% White. West Virginia is the only state in the Union that is becoming whiter. There are lots of counties in Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Kentucky that are almost exclusively White. These subregions are a lot more accessible and familiar to the typical Southerner than the Northwest.
The Midwest is whiter than the Upper South. Why should states like Indiana be abandoned? Indiana was a Klan stronghold in the 1920s. Half of the incorporated communities in the Midwest were once sundown towns that excluded blacks. Southern Ohio and Southern Illinois were Copperhead strongholds.
The solution to the racial problem in the South is migration. Whites in the Alabama Black Belt could relocate to North Alabama and Southeast Alabama. Whites in Central Georgia could relocate to North Georgia and Southeast Georgia. Whites in West Tennessee could relocate to East Tennessee. Whites in Southeast Arkansas could relocate to Northwest Arkansas. Whites in East North Carolina could relocate to West North Carolina. Whites in South Texas could relocate to North Texas.
“ZOG is trying to resettle as many non-whites as possible to Canada.”
I think it’s gone well beyone “trying”. I read recently that the majority of Canadian grade school age students are now non-English speaking, as their first language. So even if the current non-European percentage is only about 15% it’s going to go much higher.
There are already large AmerIndiand areas in the North, now. They are not officially ‘ethnostates’, but in practice are probably pretty close.
From Wikipedia:
Nunavut /?nu?n?v?t/ (from Inuktitut: [?nunavut]) is the largest and newest federal territory of Canada; it was separated officially from the Northwest Territories on April 1, 1999, via the Nunavut Act[5] and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act,[6] though the actual boundaries had been established in 1993. The creation of Nunavut – meaning “our land” in Inuktitut – resulted in the first major change to Canada’s map since the incorporation of the new province of Newfoundland in 1949.
As of the 2006 Census the population of Nunavut was 29,474,[2] with 24,640 people identifying themselves as Inuit (83.6% of the total population), 100 as First Nations (0.34%), 130 Métis (0.44%) and 4,410 as non-aboriginal (14.96%).[19]
What follows is not advocacy, but rather an exploration of hypotheticals.
Some good points are being made in this thread by all sides, but I still maintain that Southern versus Northwest versus New England is a false debate. Nobody is getting a white homeland as long as the Federal government is strong and largely unchallenged over most of the country. On the other hand, if the Federal government is challenged and sufficiently weakened, “everybody” can get one. Whether that takes the form of completely independent states or a Swiss style confederation (my preference is for the Swiss solution) is rather beside the point.
Like it or not, and I realize a lot of people don’t like it, this thing is going to have to unfold over much larger territory than any one particular region of the United States. Not advocating, just offering analysis. One particular region may get the party started, but if things don’t spread, the upstart region will be crushed.
I don’t have a crystal ball, but my analysis convinces me that any approach that leaves the Feds with unmolested control of over 90 percent of the continental United States is simply not going to work. That leads to the necessity of “Thinking Big,” not out of some macho impulse, but merely because it is the only viable route to success. I realize that may seem counterintuitive to some, but there it is.
Either Fed control is massively weakened over all or most of the country, or nobody breaks away. The idea that a powerful Fed is going to let somebody walk off with a huge tranche of the continental United States is laughable. But a massively weakened Fed? A Fed that finds much/most of the country ungovernable? Now we’re talking.
Therefore, the essential question is how can the Fed be weakened, not which region is “better.”
The only other possibility is if the central government “gives up the ghost,” so to speak. It just stops governing. Think Soviet collapse times ten. This would be a dream scenario. Well, in that case, the Southern versus Northwest versus New England debate would still be false, as whites should certainly not limit themselves to a small enclave when faced with such a golden opportunity.
Therefore, would be secessionists will either face a powerful Fed (which they must weaken) or they will face a weak Fed (Party time!). Either way, whites must reclaim far more than one particular region. Again, the issue isn’t really which region is “better,” but rather how can the current tyranny that lords over us be weakened? That’s the primary question.
As a secondary question, instead of asking which region is “better,” one might simply be concerned with which region is best positioned to “go first,” knowing full well that it won’t stop there.
By the way, as someone living in the Pacific Northwest for most of my adult life, I agree with many of Hunter’s points about the people here, and how they see things. Seattle and Portland are two very liberal cities, the states have morphed to reliable leftist / democratic. Which ever of the two Jewish candidates for the Democratic nomination for Governor wins will be the next Governor. There is not much racial strife here. There are some pretty bad black and latino sections around both Portland and Seattle, and Yakima is a sewer of drunk Indians and Mexicans. But, despite that, it’s impossible to imagine any of the political or power structure doing anyting whatsoever to help the agenda described here along.
The elites are proud mulitculturalists! They value every single Cambodian refugee we can teach to sea-kayak. So, it’s a very uphill fight in the NW, and one where the vast majority of whites here won’t “get it” and will in fact be opposed.
I’ve not spent much time in the South, so I can’t compare it.
I vote for Montana and Wyoming to go first in resisting Federal Mandates. (They already are.) Right now those are focused on gun control, but if they spread to enforcement of other laws it will really be ‘game on’.
If relocation as HW has described above has to happen, what kind of a homeland will that be, geographically? Strong pockets of whites living in non-contiguous areas broken up by enemy strongholds? A future white nation landlocked? I can see this Southern relocation occurring as a natural result of separatist leanings bound to take place as we continue down the path of US disintegration, certainly. But a future nation must have its ports, and a secure interior.
The Northwest region has potentially friendly areas in close proximity. Northern California to the south; Montana and Wyoming to the east; British Columbia and Alberta – and even Alaska – to the North. Not only could the NW interior be secured, but areas nearby share the same racial makeup and geography, lending to future expansion – or at least the lack of enemies breathing down our necks, living right next door.
The presence of blacks, yes, great for starting a secessionist movement. But that same presence would hamstring, fatally, the establishment of a real nation.
4 small problems…
1. There will never be another Jefferson Davis.
2. There will never be another Lee.
3. Like post 18 said, all the shit is running downhill. The north has been tightening up the welfare belt real good lately and it squeezing A LOT of yankee niggers into the south. It is getting worse here, exponentially. The welfare state must be ended, it is the yoke around the white mans neck, and if the south isnt careful, we will be drained to the bone, very very soon.
4. The current state legislators. They serve the old money, who has their pulse? What is going on in the country clubs? Would they sell us out if the old Aristocracy started feeling the pinch from the Feds?
The more I think about it, ending the welfare state is really the only non-violent, viable option to voluntary relocation. Some whites would suffer initially, but with directed effort they could be provided for by a network of friendly kin.
1.) Racial Consciousness
Southerners are far more racially conscious than Whites in the Pacific Northwest.
I don’t know from northwesterners, but I do know southerners and where I’m from (low country) pretty much all native white men are racially aware to a degree and in a kind that would make Swipples very uncomfortable. E.g., you get them away from their women and give them a few beers and broach the topic and you’re going to find you have a bunch of racial reactionaries on your hands. They’re deeply disgusted by the whole ball game, and these are guys who know basically jack shit about the game to begin with. This is mitigated by SWPLness obviously.
Will they seriously countenance racial separatism? On the tips of their tongues, yes, but in their hearts they’re as much sheep as any other breed and they “know” better because that’s what they’ve been taught.
I’d say 1 in 2 is an extremely conservative estimate. That’s the low bounds, for SWPL types.
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.
Yours truly. It gets my back up really quick when some shitbird pontificates on the presumed illegitimacy of my (or white Americans’ in general) claim to the title “American.” My father’s family has been here since long before the revolution, a lot longer than any shtetl-descended Jew.
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.
Er, propaganda? Christ it gets old, the tendency of people to want to come up with ideological answers to practical questions (it’s “the inevitable tide of liberalism,” not “we’ve been hoodwinked”). It seems especially strong whenever the media’s a cause, like people want to ignore the gorilla in the parlor. FFS we’ve been deracinated via a half-century-plus-long psyops campaign, deal with it.
Curt, I don’t know much about inland/upland southerners, but a lot of southern insularity here has to do with the shitbird attitude of a lot of transplanted yankees. A lot of them move down here with a big moral/mental superiority complex. They’re right that they’re smarter and more educated, generally speaking (immigrants are usually smarter and more educated than those they leave behind, btw), but wrong on the moral end.
“Our civilization depends on peace among Western nations, and therefore on united strength, for Peace is a virgin who dare not show her face without Strength, her father, for protection. We can have peace and security only so long as we band together to preserve that most priceless possession, our inheritance of European blood, only so long as we guard ourselves against attack by foreign armies and dilution by foreign races.
We need peace to let our best men live to work out those more subtle, but equally dangerous, problems brought by this new environment in which we dwell, to give us time to turn this materialistic trend, to stop prostrating ourselves before this modern idol of mechanical efficiency, to find means of combining freedom, spirit, and beauty with industrial life–a peace which will bring character, strength, and security back to Western peoples.
With all the world around our borders, let us not commit racial suicide by internal conflict. We must learn from Athens and Sparta, before all of Greece is lost.”
Charles Lindbergh, 1939
http://www.toqonline.com/2009/06/lindbergh-aviation-geography-race/
I agree with Trainspotter’s comment above. This debate should be looked at as where we, as WN’s, focus our top two or three efforts, only in order to get the ball rolling for secessionist attempts nationwide. Once the Pandora’s Box is opened, everyone goes to their corners.
Once again, the NW Migration is already well fleshed out. The history of recent, EXPLICIT white resistance is there. Covington’s inspirational novels of secession take place there. For over thirty years white resistance leaders have evolved the idea of Northwest secession. More and more racially conscious whites are being drawn to the area, whether or not they even realize (or will admit) they are moving for tribal reasons.
But now for the most salient point.
It will be in the Northwest/Mountain States where the first real resistance to federal control will take place: Montana, Idaho, Utah, Alaska. Nonwhites will not be needed to spark whatever act(s) of resistance will occur…ironically making these acts of resistance MORE likely to occur, than any acts directly related to race. That’s why they HAVE occurred, in the West, where resentment of the federal government runs deeper than anywhere else in the country.
Since it is most likely that resistance will first come from the West, WNs should be prepared leverage, and mount a secessionist challenge in the region. From there, the fire will spread. That is why we must latch onto and improve upon any NW secessionist infrastructure. So that no time will be lost between the inevitable confrontation in the region, and the raising of the Tricolor.
You speak in terms of “expulsion” and “exile.” At this point, we simply can’t know how matters will be resolved. In a violent conflagration, things could happen very quickly and with much suffering. On the other hand, one can easily envision many peaceful means by which people could separate into their own communities, including multi-racial communities. As for me, I would prefer the most peaceful and fair solution possible (think of an amicable divorce), though I recognize that things may not turn out that way. So be it. The most important thing is that our people survive.
We could just peg it to the Jews. Whatever they’re doing to the “other” in Israel, we’ll do to the “other” in our ethnostate. This way we know we’re kosher, and are following the example of the “light unto the nations.” G-d will approve.
I haven’t heard much talk about piggybacking. There are relatively strong anti-federal sentiments in some places that have nothing to do with racialism. I see no reason we couldn’t make common cause.
Jackson, in post 25 you mention that you have lived in the Northwest. The elites are shite, I certainly understand that. But what about normal whites, especially outside of Portland and Seattle? What are their racial attitudes? I’m sure there is a range of views, but perhaps you can give us a bit of a field report? I know that there was a substantial history of white racial consciousness in Oregon, so it wasn’t always Leftist Central.
Hunter Wallace said…
The presence of blacks in the South is an advantage, not a disadvantage.
*files that quote in his GOTCHA folder*
I went to college in Nashville Tennessee. Then moved back to Tennessee to do conservative, patriot, WN activism after living in racial chaos New York City 1985-91.
I think Tennessee is a great state, lots of good, tough Whites and many/most aren’t pussies, cowards, country club Republicans. There are Jews in Tennessee and they are mostly welcomed for their wealth, Judeo Christian Bible types in the South just love the Jews.
I think there are great opportunities for WN activism in the South, Tennessee – but don’t see full fledged White ethno States. There are few Blacks in Central and East Tennessee, Memphis is gone – horrible Black place.
Other problems with Tennessee is that there is lots of land, the economy is generally good, life is good -Japanese want to put their auto plants there. Whites only go for hard core WN when things are terrible.
I think WN should consider just moving to Tennessee and Kentucky and living good lives.
One particular region may get the party started, but if things don’t spread, the upstart region will be crushed.
This sort of thing always gets thrown around a lot on this topic. On the contrary, who gets “crushed” depends wholly on the quality and quantity of resistance. The US government CANNOT stop a sufficiently motivated resistance. The US government can’t beat towelheads in bumfuckistan when no one stateside gives much of a damn whose house gets blown up. But they’re going to win over here, against determined whites? No.
The trouble is that a sufficiently motivated resistance is one hell of a tall order.
Just a comment – the only people that care about blacks are the Southerners that live with them. Outside of maybe 8 cities in the North, blacks barely exist.
Welfare for blacks may cause all sorts of social problems, but in monetary terms? It’s nothing. It’s pure Republican politicking – targeted towards Southerners – that distracts away from the real financial issues like the Fed, the wars, de-industrialization, immigration. There are more mestizos than blacks now, and mestizos are having lots of babies – while Planned Parenthood provides blacks with free abortions.
Sometimes Southerners seem more anti-black than pro-white to me.
I am in general agreement with Trainspotter’s posts on this thread. If I had a couple million dollars, I would create a think tank on secession that would analyze every state and region of this country and spot all the fault lines: ethnic, racial, geographical, cultural, and economic. I would pay special attention to spotting economic conflicts of interest between different regions and the federal government.
I would then give seed money to start on the ground political secessionist movements in every one of these regions. It is important to do this as soon as possible, so these movements have deep roots and wide credibility.
We know that the US system is unsustainable. We just do not know when it will fail. Right now, I am hoping for a long depression that will create both racial tension AND discourage immigration. That would give us both time to organize and grievances to exploit. A long depression would also hollow out the federal system. At that point, a strong enough shock could cause it to crumble, and the various states and regions could bolt at the same time.
I agree with Hunter that the South has a lot of potential, IF whites can gin up the necessary level of resolve/cruelty to separate themselves entirely from blacks.
Sometimes Southerners seem more anti-black than pro-white to me.
Ethno-nationalism. Racial nationalism is good, but ethnic nationalism has a stronger glue, and trumps racial nationalism. Culture matters too.
Excellent post, Hunter! Sounds right in line with Lee in the Mountains, http://leeinthemountains.wordpress.com . If Whites can not/will not hold the Celtic Fringe, as you described it, Whites will hold nothing in the West, imo. Unfortunately most Whites will not cross the street for what they believe in, let alone form real community vice internet “community”. As General Washington said in the quote below. “If all else fails …”. IMO, All else has failed. Time for real community.
Intro paragraph from Lee in the mountains:
LEE IN THE MOUNTAINS by Donald Davidson (Davidson was one of the 11 Southron Agrarians from Vanderbilt University.)
“The mountains mentioned in the title of this poem refer both to the mountains of North Carolina, where Lee had hoped to escape with the Army of Northern Virginia in the closing days of the War (Jefferson Davis vetoed the idea), and the mountains of the Shenandoah Valley, where Lee spent the last days of his life.”
No question, IF Lee had known the consequences of his surrender he would have gone to the Mountains:
“Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand.”
General Robert E. Lee, to Texas Gov. Stockdale, Aug 1870
Lee’s desire to retreat to the Mountains, must be understood in the context, by General George Washington’s statement, 90 years earlier.
To paraphrase George Washington with what he stated at Valley Forge: “If all else fails, I will retreat up the valley of Virginia, plant my flag on the Blue Ridge, rally around the Scotch-Irish of that region, and make my last stand for liberty amongst a people who will never submit to [Globalist] tyranny whilst there is a man left to draw a trigger.”
“Duty is ours, consequences are God’s”
General “Stonewall” Jackson
Any place in “flyover” will work. LOL.
We need regions on both coasts. And if one must be picked, it is plain we need to face Europe, our homeland. When that glorious day arrives when the US central government collapses, for whatever reasons, take your pick because there are a bunch of them, Europe will probably face some sort of revolutionary change itself. I like the idea of from San Francisco to Baltimore everything north being ours. The South can liberate counties. I think what we need to make plans for is the system collapsing under its own weight, like the Soviet Union. Letting all these crazy Mexicans cross the border by the millions may actually be our ace in the hole. Yeah, let the Haitians all come here. Let the niggers come from Africa. Let the drug cartels set up shop. And let our federal government contain it all. If they can. I’m betting they can’t.
Svigor
Is it a coincidence that the first generation to grow up on TV were the baby boomers? If we could take control of the media, it would take one generation to reprogram everyone. This is a problem with a practical, not ideological, solution.
For those advocating lessening the power of the Feds – how do you plan on doing that? To the Southerners, state’s rights just means keeping the blacks segregated, they’d still send off their military to fight for Kike-istan. Wyoming has a half million people in it – ZOG could resettle a half million non-whites within *one year* before you had a chance to even notice it.
All this talk about the “welfare state” sounds like FOX-tardism at worst, ideological libertarianism at best. Is the Fed part of the “welfare state?” What about public airwaves, given to the dozen or so media companies? Mineral companies on federal land? Building houses and schools … in Iraq? Our biggest welfare problem is aid to Israel – and Jewish bankers – not food stamps for blacks.
Let me engage in a little escapism—the Ohio River Valley controls most of upper South & mid-West. With the exception of the City of Cinncinati (and excluding Over the Rhine it’s not that bad), the Ohio River Valley is almost 100% White. There are jobs there and a temperate climate.
There are four secessionist movements to my knowledge that have some chance of causing trouble: Southern Illinois Now! (On Facebook, has most of the advantages of Wallace’s Southern Homeland), The Second Vermont Republic, rumblings from Texas including comments from Perry (can never rule Texas out, it feels so right), and the NW Imperative (http://www.northwestfront.org/).
We may not have the money to analyze, but natural selection is putting up some candidates. Let’s at least agree in principle on secession, and actively support something that is happening on the ground, now.
@ See Something Say Something
I think you underestimate the depth of welfare issue within the states. Federal welfare issues concerning foreign countries is another issue altogether. Welfare is mostly funded by the state. Some federal dollars do go to the state for meeting certain “goals” but most of the welfare comes from the state budgets. Housing, food, medical, even power, phone, water and internet bills are subsidized by the state. Thus increasing taxes and increasing the cost of those utilities. What do you think the universal service fund charge on your telephone is for? It is to provide free service to “needy” people, and the other utilities have similar charges or hidden legislative regulations. Also the re-settlement you mention is mostly a burden on the state not the federal government.
Your fixation on ZOG and how it afflicts the US government is not relevant to the ideal of a “new” State. WE are not the federal government anymore, we need to focus on what will help us the most considering we have very little influence in where the feds spend our money. I think most people here are aware of the problems with the US foreign policy. So much so that they have failed to pay attention to their own backyards. Lets forget about what we can not control at the present time, and focus on what we can.
Svigor, you no doubt are right about the superior attitudes of transplanted Yankees having much to do with the resentment of southern whites toward outsiders , as well as their imported politcally correct mentality and culture being imposed on those southerners (and some of the resentment may go back to the War of Northern Aggression as well) but the gist of my statement was that that “us vs. them” perception on the part of southern whites will form a significant barrier to the formation of the theoretical white ethnostate with transplanted whites. Sure it is that white southerners have legitimate grievances, but in the long run, if our culture and race is to survive, then some way to cement a relationship between the factions will have to be found.
Hunter,
I think it’s a great idea! You are right — the raw material is there.
I lived in Florida for a year. I know some people will say Florida is not the South. Whatever. I got the flavor of Southern people. Here’s their weaknesses, that if corrected, would make them quite formidable.
I have noticed among Southerners a flair for drama. Maybe this is a good thing. It probably makes their lives richer. For my part, I live kind of a gray, unemotional existence by comparison. Everything is done for utility, with a vague dream of someday a more interesting or exciting life. But the gray life is stable — less divorce, the kids grow up under close tutelage, less bankruptcies, less domestic violence, less DUI, a better credit rating. The real “Terminator” is not muscles and leather shooting a pump shotgun from a motorcycle, but rather a family man with a rather dull life who always fulfills his duty, and perhaps tinkers in his spare time with politics or computer security or foreign languages or some other “mind-weapon” hobby.
The Southern men I knew who were good, staid family men were hard core Christians. It seemed like they only behaved because they thought Jesus was watching. The atheist or agnostic Southern men go for wine, women and song, and run up their credit cards and get divorces, so the Jewish credit card companies and the Jewish divorce lawyers get all their money, so they never accumulate wealth.
It might be a climate thing. But I would urge Southern men to be less emotional, stick with the woman who had his kids, raise those kids to be intellectually elite, and spend his spare time in Apollonian tinkering rather than Dionysian partying. Even when you know Jesus isn’t looking.
If we could get racially aware Southern men to be more serious and stolid, then we could really accomplish something. There’s an old joke, “Why did God invent whiskey? So the Irish wouldn’t take over the world.” I love drinking, but I quit it to be more militant, like the Muslims. We need Whites who are fanatical and sober like Muslim jihadists.