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.
Please understand I love the South. Love a Southern accent. Love traditional Southern Women, can’t stand bitter, no fun NOrthern Career women. My two best girl friends were from the South one from Tennessee, the other from Texas. Southern women are not raised to hate healthy, White men. Northern women are raised by the TV and it’s non stop competition, talk back, fighting with White straight men, until maybe they are 45 and unmarried and they might have second thoughts.
I lived in Tennessee for 6 years and did patriot, WN activism for a year and a half – most Whites in the South are receptive, respectful to you if you present intelligent, principled WN.
But a huge problem in the South is Southerners love for THE MILITARY, all things involving war and guns – no other region goes for the New Con wars/propaganda more than the South. World War II is a sacred war for most Whites in the South and the terrible influence of the Judeo X’tian Bible mentality really hurts our people there.
The horrible fact was that most White Southern voters wasted the 2008 Presidential election being obsessed that Mitt Romney a White Latter Day Saint might get elected president and these idiot Bible believing Judeo X’tians have been told that LDS aren’t really Christians and they are supposed to make every human on planet earth a true Christian ie. bring all 155 million Black Nigerians to America and get them to become good Bible believing Christians.
Again, I was doing pretty well wo years ago presenting a patriotic WN, America First program during George Bush Sr. Gulf War I, until the propaganda blitz came down with AMERICA MUST FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM IN IRAQ and there was some terrible country and western singer Hank Williams Jr. putting out some idiot song about GETTING SADDAM. 16 years later the powers that be turned out Ted Nuggent and Toby Keith to do similar Neo Con war mongering song and most White Southerners fall hook, line and sinker for it. They’ll call you a YANKEE or a hippy peace nik if you ever go against any ZOG Neo Con war. Yep, White Southerners love guns and war.
Funny enough I think two places in the South should be Black “homelands”; the Black Belt and coastal South Carolina. In South Carolina some of us were so isolated until recently, when Whites decided to find the place attractive vacation spot, they still spoke an highly African language.
Jamara,
I have heard about what you’re talking about, with the dying dialects spoken on those coastal islands of South Carolina and Georgia. It’s very fascinating stuff.
I enjoy reading your blog and can’t help but feel that we’re of a similar mind…while obviously dedicating that sense of stewardship toward our own respective people.
Jamara, are you referring to the “Republic of New Afrika?” Do you advocate that?
What about you Matt? Since you say you’re of similar mind to this Afro-American traditionalist.
Jamara A Newell:
What’s included in your Black Belt? I know Whites will lose South Carolina. But what “Black Belt” do you have in mind in the rest of the Deep South?
Actually if blacks are to be given any state(s), which I don’t think they should have, it would be to join liberal whites and Jews from states who voted for Obama. Since they want to be ruled by blacks and support them I’m sure they would find that appealing.
Since California is majority non-white now, has the largest non-white population of all the states and is quintessentially liberal, it’s a good choice. The name itself is derived from the fictional black Amazon Queen Califia.
Mark: I do not want to sacrifice a Southeastern state to a Black ethnostate, either. Regarding South Carolina: it would be strategically very bad for me, for there to be a significantly sized Militant Black ethnostate just north of me.
However, I am curious if Mr. Newell wants or does not want also the whole Mississippi Delta, Alabama, Georgia, and maybe even North Florida.
Steve, if a state is already majority non-white, is liberal and wants to be ruled by non-whites, loves homosexuals, etc, and hates white nationalists, sounds like they’re already too far gone anyway. Would be a natural transition for them. California would become another Brazil in time.
However, I am curious if Mr. Newell wants or does not want also the whole Mississippi Delta, Alabama, Georgia, and maybe even North Florida.
He sounds like an advocate of the Republic of New Afrika plan. They want Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina, as well as billions in reparations, and blacks are still allowed to live in white states. 😀
Mark: Of course! It’s part of the trick.
Also though: if they get the New Afrika Nation in the Deep South-by logical extension, they can also very easily snatch the Florida Panhandle and Northern Peninsular Florida. So, even nominally with a New Afrika “excluding Florida,” I am logically still “f-worded.”
If we give them an inch, they will take the full mile!
http://racialcompact.com/partitionmap.html
Richard McCulloch’s proposed partition
http://www.toqonline.com/archives/v8n4/TOQv8n4McCulloch.pdf
Here is the article “Separate or Die” by Richard McCulloch in The Occidental Quarterly. In the article McCulloch discusses principles regarding racial separation and partition.
Mark,
I’m not opposed to working toward some sort of equitable partitioning arrangement with community leaders from the other nationalities within the current US. If that’s what you’re getting at. The RNA boundaries seem pretty ambitious, though I would prefer a traumatic loss of territory if it would mean a dramatic increase in likelihood of survival.
I regret to admit that I’ve put quite a bit of thought into how America would be partitioned, though I believe it’s probably best not to share that speculation. A lot of it would come down to political realities at the time of deciding these boundaries which can’t really be foreseen.
All Jamara explicitly claimed were the Black Belt and coastal South Carolina. That’s not as expansive as the RNA’s boundaries.
“All Jamara explicitly claimed were the Black Belt and coastal South Carolina. That’s not as expansive as the RNA’s boundaries.”
Matt Parrott: Yes, but the term “Black Belt” can be very subjective.
“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.”
And Whites in South Florida could move to Central and North Florida.
One of the main purposes of my blog is to actually encourage Whites to migrate from areas already lost (i.e. South Florida, South Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and much of California).
Steve,
Also though: if they get the New Afrika Nation in the Deep South-by logical extension, they can also very easily snatch the Florida Panhandle and Northern Peninsular Florida. So, even nominally with a New Afrika “excluding Florida,” I am logically still “f-worded.”
Why would you be “logically f-worded”? In any sort of racial solution millions and millions would have to move; why shouldn’t you — who presumably understands very well why it’s all necessary — be one of them? Oh, I wanna save my race and everything, but geezus krise almitey not if I have to move!
Silver:
“Oh, I wanna save my race and everything, but geezus krise almitey not if I have to move!”
Please do not put words in my mouth.
I do not understand how giving the whole lower South away to a Black ethnostate entails White Survival.
Even the Zionists have entirely failed in their efforts to remove what are now five million Jew-hating non-Jews living in Palestine.
White Nationalists would be better off focusing on attainable goals, like restoring racial/cultural/ethnic pride and cohesiveness among whites, or ending immigration and legalizing private discrimination. Or even calling for the dissolution of the USA into two or more sovereign entities, at least one of which would have a strong, non-dispossessed white majority. But people will simply not get up and leave their homes, unless they’re forced to do so at gunpoint, as were the Germans leaving eastern Europe, the Arabs leaving the new Jewish state in 1947-48, and the Hindus leaving present-day Pakistan at that same time.
Blacks are not going to be given any land at all in White North America, not even in The South.
What we could do is allow them to settle in the southern half of the state of Georgia (from about Augusta and all land southward) where we will train them how to build a self-sufficient Black-African civilization of their own. We will teach them racial self-sufficiency again: to farm and raise livestock (Black food security), to start schools, build factories, build and maintain roads, have functioning hospitals, etc…all of the things needed to live in an independent Black nation of their own.
After about 25-50 years (or 1-2 generations) of living in this temporary Black ethnostate in southern Georgia we will start (humanely) transporting them back to western Africa (with all of their new-found skills and goods) wherein they will build a civilization of their own (with the assistance of the pro-White U.S. government) using the skills they learned in the temporary Black ethnostate in southern Georgia.
The reason the southern half of Georgia is a good spot for a temporary Black ethnostate is that it is far south and has an amenable climate for Blacks (it is somewhat tropical), it is large (Georgia is the largest state east of the Mississippi River), it has a good port (Savannah), and other reasons.
Basically, we ought to let ALL Blacks in North America temporarily settle the coastal plains region of Georgia, the green portion of the following map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Georgia_elevations.png — then as I said above we will teach them how to build and maintain a civilization of their own in preparation for humanely and helpfully transporting them back to west Africa in about 1-2 generations after they have (re)learned the skills needed for racial group-determination.
Sorry I can’t resist: a lot of you WNs are being rather niggardly with the amount of land you’re willing to give up :>)
Like I said, this is a pipedream. Its also a good idea for a simcity-style computer game (you could call it “Ethnostate” or some such). As well as a diversion from a realistic pro-white agenda, which I listed in my previous post.
Jamara,
I have heard about what you’re talking about, with the dying dialects spoken on those coastal islands of South Carolina and Georgia. It’s very fascinating stuff.
I enjoy reading your blog and can’t help but feel that we’re of a similar mind…while obviously dedicating that sense of stewardship toward our own respective people. – Matt
—
Matt,
I agree with you as well regarding Jamara – he is a decent and articulate gentleman, and is welcome to post here anytime.
Perhaps we can learn a good deal from eachother, as White and Black Nationalists, and I fully respect good men (and women) of any and all races.
@ Mike Parrott, May god make both our goals come to fruition.
I don’t no subscribe to the New Afrika plan nor do I follow their philosophies in general. But I do like them. My plan is less expansive than theirs. I just want the Black Belt proper and coastal South Carolina, I suppose on one level of SC or Georgia could be fitting because I imagine them being Black majority states eventually.
I’d never live anywhere West. I find the culture to be too bland and the Blacks there are ardent supporters of interracial dating it seems, far too much so to even fight.
I don’t find White Preservationist idea to be too bad especially considering I feel Liberia is rightfully ours.
The Whites in the Black Belt will never surrender the area.
Why would they like to remain in a majority Black area anyway? I think given the resources they’d love to relocate.
I’m from the Alabama Black Belt. My parents still live there. I know the region well. The Whites who live in the area will never consent to the establishment of a black ethnostate. In fact, it would be much easier to convince the liberal Whites in the Northeast to get on board with that scheme. The White minority in the Black Belt is heavily armed and would certainly annihilate a black uprising.
Still that doesn’t answer why they’d like to live in the Black Belt, it is sort of unseemly. If they were indeed interested in a White Nationalism, it would be in everyone best interest if they left and Blacks relocated to the Black Belt. It is close to win-win.
How so?
My family has lived there for almost two hundred years. I have relatives buried there. I own land there. My friends and kinfolk live there. The region is also one of the few areas in America that is explicitly white. Taboos against White racial consciousness are weaker in the Black Belt than anywhere else.
Most of Alabama’s counties are largely majority White. The AL Black Belt-unlike most of the other Deep Southern state Black Belts-is relatively thin and containable. There would geographically be more pressure on AL Blacks to move than on AL Whites.
Yes, if they move some miles north or south they’d be among like cultured and like minded people. I can’t really see why’d they live in a place that is majority Black. I’m not grasping it. Most of the Blacks there have roots dating back 300 years, it is logical they stay there.
Jamara A. Newell: I am not saying AL Blacks must move. I am only saying it makes no more sense for AL Whites to move than for the AL Blacks to do so.
In 10-20 years, South Georgia and Mississippi may even become Black strongholds. Both GA and MS are very close to the AL Black Belt, as you claim North and South AL are close to each other.
Indeed. But I think it would be easier to maintain a region that has been in existence for centuries than to create new place. The Black Belt has been there for a long time, it would be easier to let it stay Black and work from there. I think it would benefit everyone, WN and Blacks alike.
But, the AL Black Belt is a relatively narrow strip. It would not be necessary for AL Whites to leave, and create a Black ethostate in AL.
MS, LA, SC, and South Georgia (in 20 years)- maybe. But giving up AL, it would be forfeiting a key assest and one of the very few Deep Southern strategic advantages for Whites to give up AL.
I have NO ancestry from AL; I have NO particularly sentimental feelings about it. But, Whites are making a huge strategic blunder, if they allow even one AL county to turn into a Black ethnostate-at least in the context of the current and near future demographics.
Hunter,
Whites in the South will refuse to relinquish the Black Belt? So what happens next? White Supremacy? Segregation? Mass deportations? To where?
What’s your proposed solution to the BQ?
I agree with the general location of McCulloch’s scheme, the southwest is a natural extension of the already established Afro-mestizo populations in Latin America, although I think he concedes way too much.
I also don’t think every single immigrant group deserves a partition. The ones who have only been here since the 20th century can just as well go back to their homelands. Asians can move to Canada, Hispanics can go back to Latin America, blacks and Amerindians are the only two groups that deserve any consideration, the Amerindian tribes more so.
If Jamara is willing to accept a move back to Africa, certainly he wouldn’t be against moving west.
Ideally blacks would be sent to Africa or Latin America, but if we are to concede any part of the US to them the southwest seems politically the best option.
I think people are under the assumption all whites would be on board with this or desire to live in the white ethnostate, but I don’t think so. No doubt a significant minority of whites would want to stay with their black and brown friends.
Hunter, I’m glad you’re taking a stand on this and I fully agree. Considering we uprooted native Amerindians, who had roots in the South for thousands of years, with the Indian Removal Act of 1830, we can do the same again with blacks. This isn’t about climate or roots, it’s about political feasibility, and California revels in their liberalism so they will surely welcome it.
Jamara,
Whites own the overwhelming majority of the actual land in the Black Belt.
Matt,
In Alabama, I could see several scenarios happening: the creation of racially exclusive zones in North Alabama, a return to segregation in the Black Belt, most likely some combination of the two.
Blacks don’t have 300 year old roots in Alabama. Even the Whites didn’t settle there en masse until the early nineteenth century. Alabama joined the Union in 1819. Most of the negroes were imported between 1819 and 1860.
This is a moot question. There will never be a black ethnostate in South Alabama. The Whites there will not relocate. They own by far most of the land and businesses. If the government ever “collapses” by some miracle and racial tensions explode into open violence, the Whites in the area will quickly establish their dominance like they did in Reconstruction.
Let’s not forget that half of the negroes in the South migrated to the North under Jim Crow. South Carolina and Mississippi used to be majority black. They are actually whiter these days than ever before.
Some random thoughts:
1. As to McCulloch’s partition plan, I just don’t see it as corresponding to the facts on the ground. The reality is that our opponents are concentrated in the Boston/Washington Corridor (BosWash). There are a few other enclaves of dyed in the wool opposition, but BosWash is truly the heart and soul of the beast. It makes no sense to think that we are going to bring that section of the country around to white nationalism, or that our opponents would voluntarily relinquish the region. If faced with armed insurrection, the anti-white opposition would be willing to cut loose any other area of the country before giving up on BosWash. There is no question that it would be their priority area.
That’s not to say that we won’t recruit many individual white nationalists from the area, we will. We might even be able to pry some particular pieces off of it. But as a region, the only way it could become part of the white homeland would be by force of arms and the ultimate deportion/sterilization/whatever of much or even most of of the region’s population. Short of such extreme measures, it is the logical place for our liberal/Jewish/non-white opponents to locate and circle the wagons. The ones that matter are already there. For “anybody who is anybody” in the anti-white population, pretty much everything they care about is in BosWash. They will not let it go if they have any choice in the matter.
2. On the other hand, the whole Black Belt thing is misleading. The vast majority of counties in the Black Belt are small, rural and poor. You can look at a map of the Black Belt, and the first reaction is often “Holy shit!”
It looks like little Africa. But again, this is misleading. The Black Belt is a paper tiger, at best. Most of the counties have very small populations. A few thousand blacks, largely on government assistance, can make a county part of the much vaunted Black Belt. It’s a joke. Cut off subsidies from whitey, and these populations would have to flee for more favorable climes (like gee, I don’t know, maybe BosWash?). The only real problem in the South, at least as far as blacks are concerned, is the same thing you find in much of the country – an archipelago of non-white urban areas dotting vast tracts of land. Land that is otherwise quite suitable for inclusion in the white homeland (or homelands as the case may be). In short, there is no good reason to concede the South. Or, if there were, the paper tiger known as the Black Belt isn’t one of them. So my view is, no way. We’re taking the South. All of it.
You want to see real power? Massive infrastructure, massive population, massive economic and political strength? Take a tour through BosWash. Start in Northern Virginia, continue on north through D.C., New Jersey, New York, and then on up to Boston. No need for a tour guide, just following I-95 will pretty much get the job done. It is no joke, let me tell you. It’s ugly and noxious…but it is no joke.
Then, for a study in contrasts, take a cruise through some of these much vaunted Black Belt counties. Total joke. The idea that we would concede anything to that worthless rabble is beyond me. The first thug you see trying to pimp a white girl should cure any willingness to concede a square inch of Southern land.
For that matter, the Hispanics of South Texas are a joke. And SoCal, while certainly not a joke, is probably unsustainable for the non-whites if whites chose to contest it. San Francisco might be sustainable for them, I’m not sure. But L.A. would fall apart under any sort of meaningful strain or, hell, just a disruption in water supply. Yes, it’s got massive population, but its overall situation seems vulnerable.
No, all signs point to BosWash as the heart of our opposition. Any partition plan, peaceful or otherwise, must take that into account.
From “Separate or Die” by McCulloch
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.
141Hunter Wallace
In Alabama, I could see several scenarios happening: the creation of racially exclusive zones in North Alabama, a return to segregation in the Black Belt, most likely some combination of the two.
I don’t see segregation ever being a possibility again, there’s way too much tension and historical grudges. You can see how blacks riot now with much less cause. Two black savages killed Terre’Blanche for allegedly merely arguing over wages.
Those are wonderful sentiments by McCulloch but, true or not, they are largely moot. The reality is that we are going to have real opposition, including amongst certain sections of the white population. There is no getting around this. The question, at least in terms of geography, is where will that opposition be centered? Where will our opponents circle the wagons? If you are doing a geographical partition, one might want to consider these realities as having some relevance. McCulloch is dodging the problem.
I enjoy McCulloch’s writing. He’s insightful, and has a lot to offer. But as to his partition plan, it has little or no connection to reality. The idea that our opponents, both white and non-white, are going to give up BosWash without a fight is laughable. As I said above, any realistic partition plan must take this into account.
Though any ideas concerning relocation of major population and creating “ethno-states” are unrealistic. I think any serious thought would have to be based upon a peaceful transition and physically self determined movement. I don’t think that people in this day and age would be comfortable with the barbarism of the past.
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.
The problem I have found is that a lot of white nationalists actually oppose this when it becomes subracial. They want egalitarianism, but for whites only.
If status is determined by ancestry, subrace and racial purity, there would be protests from people on this very blog. Matt and others have already made this clear.
I don’t see segregation ever being a possibility again
I could see segregation happening if it were voluntarily decided by a majority or an influential enough minority of more than one race. Blacks and Whites both mostly deciding in favor of voluntary segregation is possible. Those individuals who disagree can find their own area or they are disobeying the will of their own people and must meet the consequences.
This approach would fit into the dominant pro-diversity paradigm if you take the pro-diversity claims seriously: True diversity is only maintained if distinct ethnic groups can maintain themselves. That, of course, requires some form of segregation.
Though any ideas concerning relocation of major population and creating “ethno-states” are unrealistic. I think any serious thought would have to be based upon a peaceful transition and physically self determined movement. I don’t think that people in this day and age would be comfortable with the barbarism of the past.
—
Well said Jamara, and welcome.
One of my favorite Biblical quotes that demonstrates that you can, and should, love your own People, tribe or faith … while at the same time giving honor and showing respect to other human beings –
Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king. – 1 Peter 2:17
Some of you guys are really choking me up with your interracial friendships, brings a tear to the eye. T.J. Leyden would be proud.
“I don’t think that people in this day and age would be comfortable with the barbarism of the past.”
People in this day and age have proven themselves to be quite comfortable with a lot of things that, objectively, should be quite disturbing. It’s easy to criticize the “barbarism of the past,” but in an age of massive murder, rape, abuse and general ugliness – who are the barbarians? Who are the savages?
What we’ve got going on now is, essentially, a society based on human sacrifice. Each year, we sacrifice many thousands of raped and murdered whites to the God of Diversity. Is that so much different than the sick societies of the past that butchered their virgins on some fucked up altar or another?
Having said that, I agree with you that a peaceful transition is preferable. Let’s work toward that, remembering that we are going to have to consider some of the realities that McCulloch ignores. But if a peaceful plan doesn’t happen, well, so be it. You play the hand that you are dealt. I’m not advocating anything, but were I a betting man, I’d say things are going to get pretty messy. The unfortunate reality is that we aren’t the Slovaks and Czechs. Whatever gripes they may have had with one another, they are both European peoples that are each more or less capable of standing on their own two feet.
But in America? Whole demographic groups are now, in essence, feeding off the white population. Everything from massive transfers of wealth to essentially harvesting as many of our women as they can – one way or another. I don’t see them letting us go in a peaceful transition. They naturally want to continue to feed off of us, all the while enjoying the spectacle of our steady decline. Why let us go if they don’t have to? And, no offense, but I don’t see the blacks and browns being able to create sustainable homelands in North America anyway. They will probably need to group themselves in a multiracial homeland where they will have Asians and Jews to, in essence, exploit them, but also to keep complex systems at least semi-functional. It won’t be pretty, but the blacks and browns can probably hobble through if they have enough Asians and Jews to actually make things work.
There are no easy solutions here, only hard choices.