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.
I don’t think that people in this day and age would be comfortable with the barbarism of the past.
People of this day and age are gluttonous, cowardly and degenerate. They aren’t comfortable with even telling the truth about racial differences and become hysterical at the slightest sign of white racial identity. We need people with minds of a previous age.
Mark,
I don’t oppose sub-racial. As I’ve stated before, I believe it’s important to look at the big picture and try to work with the optimal in-group/out-group boundaries. Norwegians ought to be Nordicists, for example. America has truly been a melting pot for the different sub-races of Europe and I believe we should embrace that rather than sowing discord and contention among ourselves.
You can keep acting like I’m unreasonable or politically correct or whatever for arguing that case. But I’m not against drawing lines of tribal identity along sub-racial boundaries. I’m just against doing so in the contemporary American context. I’m not against promoting purity. I’m against setting up some sort of sub-racial caste system or whatever you’re envisioning would resolve our pressing Italian Question.
White Americans must be united, not divided!
Look at Ted Kennedy. He was the son and face of unassimilated Irish Catholic voters siding against White America. We do not want, say an Irish Nation siding with the non-White ethnostates against us, do we?
Trainspotter, great comments as per usual.
Completely agree about sacrifices to the God of Diversity. It seems built-in that humanity is innately genocidal, seemingly even of one’s own race if another race is not around. Bizarre, but it is what it is.
As for not letting Whites go, first, only a certain segment of Whites will want to separate. Second, many insular ethnic groups couldn’t care less. East Asians, for example. The men would probably be happy to get their women back. Black nationalists would obviously support it. The La Raza gang want their own area. Etc.
I’m not so sure it would be so hard. If it’s relatively peaceful and there is enough public support there will be other groups who support it or don’t care or can be divided against each other.
It mostly comes to down to what enough White people want to do.
As usual I’m right, you agree with me, but want to argue out of spite or something else.
You’re certainly more politically correct than I am.
Racial average is racial destiny as McCulloch said. I am for preserving the traditional American Nordish people that founded and defined the country. America is not just a “white” country for any remotely Caucasoid person to lay claim to. When you think of a White American, what do you see? A swarthy Mediterranean? A hook-nosed Semite? No, it is a clean cut, fair-skinned, light-eyed, brunet, blond or redhead of Celto-Germanic descent.
You keep repeating this Italian angle, but I’ve never said anything against Italians specifically, they’re certainly better than the Spanish and Portuguese.
As to the comments about segregation, racial preservation requires separation, not segregation. As McCulloch says in this article, the solution to the Nordish racial crisis is separation, “[n]ot immigration restrictions, segregation, white supremacism or other half-measures, nor anything that need harm other races or violate their legitimate rights and interests.”
Here is part of the article “Separation: The Preservationist Imperative” by Richard McCulloch
http://racialcompact.com/preservationimperative.html
In 1988 I had the opportunity to meet William Gayley Simpson, author of Which Way Western Man . At that time he was in his nineties and in declining health. He compensated for his lack of conversational endurance by distilling the essence of his thought into one very terse and pointed message: “Separate or die.” Those were his last words to me, and that is fitting, for that simple phrase tells us two vitally important things. First, that racial separation is necessary for the long-term preservation of the Northern European race, the founding and still the majority American racial type, which I refer to as the Nordish race. It is a simple matter of either-or — either racial separation or racial death. Second, that the alternative to racial destruction, the solution to the Nordish racial crisis, is racial separation. Not immigration restrictions, segregation, white supremacism or other half-measures, nor anything that need harm other races or violate their legitimate rights and interests. [Note 1] None of these things can save us. Only separation can. Separation is the preservationist imperative.
The reason separation is necessary for racial preservation is simple — the evolution and continued existence of different races is made possible by reproductive isolation. When different populations are reproductively isolated they cannot interbreed or intermix, and consequently evolve in different directions, developing into different races with their own unique and distinct ensemble of genetic traits. Reproductive isolation requires an absence of physical contact. As a practical matter, this requires geographic separation.
There is already a law of biology (Gause’s law of exclusion) which states that multiple animal species with the same requirements cannot coexist in the long term in the same habitat. One will eventually replace the others, which will become extinct. This law can also be applied to human races occupying the same territory: one race will eventually assimilate or replace its competitors. Since it is a fact that every human population living today has interbred with every other human population with which it has had extensive contact, there should also be a law of sociology which states that different races sharing the same habitat (i.e., lacking the race-creating and preserving condition of reproductive isolation) will eventually intermix and blend into one race, destroying their racially unique traits. The more extensive the contact and interaction between the races the more rapid the process of interbreeding will tend to be, but whatever the rate, slow or fast, it will occur, with the most racially destructive consequences for the race with the more recessive genetic traits.
For the Nordish race, with its many recessive genetic traits, the consequences of extensive intermixture are racial destruction, and as intermixture is unavoidable in a multiracial environment, the inevitable consequence of multiracial conditions is the destruction or extinction of the Nordish race. Since the Nordish race requires racial separation for its continued existence or preservation, to oppose racial separation is to effectively oppose the preservation or continued existence of the Nordish race, to effectively propose and support Nordish racial destruction or extinction, and this is the position of the presently dominant or “mainstream” elements.
Since intermixture is an unavoidable consequence of multiracial conditions, those conditions themselves are the proximate cause of intermixture, and the blame for racial intermixture and its destructive consequences belongs to all those who promote, support or defend multiracial conditions and oppose the separation-isolation which is the only effective means to prevent intermixture and secure racial preservation. This is true even for persons who ostensibly oppose racial intermixture, for if they support multiracial conditions of existence — or oppose separation, which amounts to the same thing — they are in fact supporting the cause of intermixture. They might say they favor the reimposition of a segregationist, white supremacist or “traditional” society, where intermixture is prohibited by law and custom, but a multiracial society is not a “traditional” society. The “traditional” society of the Nordish race, the type of society in which it was created and preserved for many thousands of years, is a monoracial society. Such a society provides reproductive isolation, the condition required for both racial creation and preservation, and does not need to prohibit intermixture by law or custom because by its very monoracial nature it prevents intermixture far more effectively than any law or custom ever could. Thus the only effective cure for intermixture, the only way to prevent it from destroying the Nordish race, is to restore it to its traditional, separate monoracial existence.
Unfortunately, the fact that separation is required for Nordish preservation is either not known or evaded by far too many people, thus permitting multiracial conditions to proceed toward their inevitable consequences without those consequences being recognized and addressed. It often seems as if everyone in the “mainstream” behaves and speaks as if they were racial ingénues, ignorant, thoughtless and naive regarding racial realities and consequences. Even those race-conscious conservatives regarded as being on the extreme right fringe of the limits of “respectability” on the racial issue (typically defined by opposition to affirmative action and support for immigration restrictions), by their evasion or denial of the requirement for racial separation for racial preservation, offer no more than palliatives to soothe the symptoms of this fatal disease without effecting a real cure. In fact, many mainstream conservatives and liberals actually view intermixture as a cure, as a means to promote national unity and prevent ethnic differences from fracturing or tearing the country apart, and thus as highly desirable. Such intermixture (euphemistically referred to as assimilation) is of course the true end of multiracialism, revealing it as a sham, a temporary or transitional social condition which provides the means for racial destruction by the assimilation of (i.e., intermixture with) incompatible elements. Multiracialism is thus the prelude to Nordish extinction. The prelude might seem long, lasting generations or even centuries, but the extinction that follows is forever. Racial preservationist alternatives — i.e., separation if multiracial conditions already exist, or immigration restrictions to prevent the creation of multiracial conditions where they do not yet exist — are not considered, but are evaded or denied.
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.
McCulloch acknowledges this: “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.”
What McCulloch says (in point 1. Maximize Racial Preservation in “Separate or Die”) is that any member of our race who has no family connections to other races but wants to live with other races and cannot bear to live in a white ethnostate should have to make their own arrangements to enter whatever nonwhite state will take them in. Adherence to an ideology or litmus test is not to be the basis of partition. The purpose of partition is racial preservation through creation of ethnostates, not “proposition nations” based on adherence to a certain ideology.
As for not letting Whites go, first, only a certain segment of Whites will want to separate.
From “Separate or Die”:
6. Partition cannot be Voluntary
My sixth principle is that a racial partition plan cannot be voluntary, requiring the free consent of any individual whose movement would be required for its implementation. Such a plan would be a non-starter. The plan would require the support of most of our race, or at least most of the part that matters, the most intensely committed, determined, and active part, sufficient to compel and enforce its realization. Hopefully it will have more support than that, and every reasonable effort should be made to increase its support and lessen opposition without futile catering to obstructionism. And every reasonable effort should be made to minimize or negate the property losses of those required to move by assigning them property of comparable value in their new homelands. But it will be opposed by many, including many of our own race, and especially many of those who will be required to move.
I’ve read McCulloch and have benefited from him. I think that he does a wonderful job of fleshing out the benefits and necessity of racial separation. In fact, he was probably the first person that I read who made a convincing case for the ethnostate. First I can remember, anyway. I’d love to have a long conversation with the guy and pick his brain.
But the quotes provided, and the partition plan that he has outlined, simply do not address some of the most important facts on the ground. I’ve been harping on BosWash and, not to beat a dead horse, I’m doing that for a reason. BosWash can’t just be wished away. It doesn’t disappear simply because we express various reasonable sentiments. It’s still there, it is solid “enemy” territory, and it contains an enormous concentration of wealth, demographic strength, and resources of all kinds – from great ports to Ivy League universities, from heavy industry to the financial industry. Not to mention massive concentrations of non-whites that are not of the black and brown variety, namely Jews and Asians. People that are capable of keeping complex systems running at least reasonably well, and people who aren’t going to crumble under pressure as easily as blacks and mestizos. People that can actually get some shit done. It is not going quietly into the night.
Any partition plan that does not account specifically for the main power concentration of our opposition is simply not dealing with reality, and therefore is not terribly helpful. I would love to see McCulloch address this issue, and perhaps he would open my eyes to something that I’ve missed. But he has not done that. Until he does, and despite the fact that he is an excellent writer and offers much of value, his partition plan is simply not connected to reality.
It’s as if he is imagining that the continent is a clean slate, a blank canvass upon which we can create new non-white nations wherever we want. Where we can move pieces around as if they have no will of their own. Well, you CAN do that…if you’ve already achieved a complete and total victory, and literally possess control over the continent. (I’ll mention as an aside: if we were to achieve total victory of that magnitude, why not do better than his map?)
Point is, you can’t do it peacefully when these other peoples still have a voice and the means to act. There is no damn way that the non-whites would agree voluntarily to McCulloch’s map. Again, no way are they going to abandon BosWash without a fight. They have their preferences too, they have their concentrations of power too, and McCulloch’s map simply doesn’t account for much of this. So, whether it’s peaceful or a bloody mess, that map just ain’t ever gonna fly. Not because it’s a “bad” map, but simply because it doesn’t take into account one of the most obvious obstacles that we face: our opponent’s strongest concentration of power.
After India got independence from the British Empire, not long after Pakistan broke off along the line of a bunch of the Muslims ending up in Pakistan.
If such a thing were to occur with Nordics, what would the line actually be?
Is this about ancestry? Because there were Nazis who were clearly not of purely Nordic or even purely of Central/Nordic European descent *note I haven‘t confirmed the statement about Guderian yet*:
“Some of the highest ranking German generals in the Wehrmacht were of Slavic-German origin. Their family names are clearly Slavic and their skull morphology points to a large variety of all European subracial types, from the Alpine (“ostisch”), the Mediterranean (“westisch”) to the Nordic: Hans Hellmich, Curt Badinski, Bruno Chrobeck, Emil Dedek, Heinrich Domansky, Walter Dybilasz, Erich Glodkowski, Kurt Mierzinsky, Adalbert Mikulicz, Bronislaw Pawel, Georg Radziej, Hans Radisch, Franz Zednicek, Walter von Brauchitsch. So were the other high German officers such as the master of panzer warfare, the round-headed Heinz Guderian, who was of distant Armenian origin, or the tall and big-nosed Wilhelm Canaris, who was of Italian/Greek origin.”
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Sunic-RaceIII.html
If the Far Right German Nationalist Hitler wasn’t willing to tell non-Nordics Whites to go away, what reason is there to think that any serious leader in the future will?
If there was an Ethnic/Racial Group of Whites in America who were Nordic enough for the Nordicists’ standards, then getting them to be Ethnic/Racial Group X Nationalists would probably be the best hope of getting the Nordics racial separation.
I understand if pure Nordics breed too much with Italians and Greeks, they’ll stop being Nordics and instead just be plain old European Caucasians.
Even if they bred too much with Russians, who I think are at least a little closer to the Nordics (I’m saying that mostly just because a lot of Russian ladies are blondes, though, so I’m not sure), I guess they’d stop being Nordics too.
Where would the Nordic State be, though?
It was obvious where to put Pakistan, but it isn’t obvious at all where to put Nordistan.
Where would the Nordic State be, though?
Alaska.
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.
Crypto I’m starting to believe you don’t possess the requisite brainpower to comment intelligently on these issues. That’s the charitable interpretation of your posts.
People will leave for one of two reasons: to move to something better; or to get away from something worse. When people relocate across the country to take a better job that’s an example of moving to something better. When people move because the neighborhood’s becoming niggerfuxated that’s an example of moving away from something worse. Any racialized society could offer a myriad of incentives for people to move that falls far short of ‘being forced at gunpoint.’
Again, WNs (or any racialists, who see something for themselves in racialism, be they white or not) can focus on ‘attainable’ objectives and keep an eye on larger objectives. (Are you going to stop them?)
There really isn’t any one ‘right answer’ to race. Most of it will come down to sentiment. People like Trainspotter and WP here, it’s because they feel an overwhelming amount of racial intensity that they promise to stop at nothing until every square inch of N. America is in their hands. But there isn’t any particularly good reason to think such views will necessarily come to hold sway among a critical mass of whites.
Mark,
As usual I’m right, you agree with me, but want to argue out of spite or something else.
You were the one who picked an argument with me, quite randomly. You called me out by name, as the quintessential opponent of racial purity.
You keep repeating this Italian angle, but I’ve never said anything against Italians specifically, they’re certainly better than the Spanish and Portuguese.
You said something against “Meds”, which presumably includes Italians. They’re the only sizable Med population in America.
Silver: “People like Trainspotter and WP here, it’s because they feel an overwhelming amount of racial intensity that they promise to stop at nothing until every square inch of N. America is in their hands. But there isn’t any particularly good reason to think such views will necessarily come to hold sway among a critical mass of whites.”
Silver, I would agree that such a transformation of thought seems unlikely today. However, it should be pointed out that it wasn’t all that long ago that such views were widely held amongst whites. It was called Manifest Destiny, which more or less viewed the entire continent as belonging to whites. Yes, it’s a little more complicated than that, but close enough for our purposes.
I’ve said again and again that I would prefer a peaceful, voluntary dissolution of the current regime in such a way that would enhance white survival. I mean that. There has recently been a big discussion over at Auster’s site about dividing into a Red Nation and a Blue Nation. I’m all for it. Milton Friedman once said that he never saw a tax cut that he didn’t like. Well, so far, I haven’t seen a peaceful partition/secession proposal that I don’t like.
It’s just that, at the end of the day, I don’t see it playing out like that. It might well start that way (which is why it’s worth encouraging), but that’s not likely how it would end. I’m not advocating any particular policy, just stating an opinion that the survival of our people is not likely to be secured by any purely voluntary arrangement. Our enemies are too strong, they’ve got their boots on our neck, and they are too invested in exploiting/feeding off of/killing us. Why should they stop, as long as they have the power to continue? Let’s hope I’m wrong about that, but I’m confident that I’m not.
And yes, the assumption that we will not be able to secure our survival through purely voluntary arrangements does in fact color my thinking. Again, I’m not advocating, merely analyzing.
I’m also interested in the reality of power dynamics. Power is not just something to be projected, it also has a certain pull, a certain gravity. That’s one of the reasons that I’ve been harping on the Boston Washington Corridor, the obvious power base of our opposition. That’s also why McCulloch’s map is pretty much useless, because he doesn’t take account of this at all. On the other hand, whatever their other flaws may be, the Red Nation/Blue Nation people do take into account this particular reality. BosWash would of course be part of the Blue Nation. As in, duh. If you are going to have a purely peaceful arrangment, of course it would.
I realize that, at this point in time, all of this seems like a flight of fancy. But things change. So if we’re going to discuss this issue (and I definitely think that we should), we need to discuss the facts on the ground, the reality of the situation. The truth is that, until recently, this issue has been discussed and debated so little that our thinking is foggy at best. For example, McCulloch is obviously a very intelligent man and has much to offer in his writing. But look at his map. The idea that such an arrangement could be achieved peacefully is absolutely ludicrous. Even if most people in the country were in favor of partition, they wouldn’t support that map. It’s just a non-starter. The Red Nation/Blue Nation people are far more realistic in that regard.
Then we have other people attributing power to groups/places where it doesn’t exist. The best example of this is the Black Belt. In reality, the Black Belt is a total joke, a paper tiger, yet it looms large in the imagination of many, while the real power center (BosWash) is ignored.
So, whether the final outcome be peaceful or not, in either case we need to do a good job of ascertaining the facts on the ground. We ain’t there yet, not by a long shot.
Covington comes closer to reality. He recognizes the entrenched power of the system. His error, in my view, is to conclude that instead of weakening/destroying the system, the only viable route is to fight it as a war against a colonial power and carve off a slice of territory for yourself, while leaving enemy strength fundamentally intact.
Sounds good, but I don’t see this as viable. As long as the central system has real power, it will never let us go. Therefore, the necessary solution would involve an outcome in which the central system does not have real power any longer. It would have to be either removed entirely, or at least weakened to the point where it no longer could aspire to imperial status. If economic contraction doesn’t do it (and it may well), see Fourth Generation Warfare. And if that precondition is met, a whole host of other things become possible that would seem downright fantastic today.
Of course, as you point out, the real problem is the state of mind amongst whites. As of now, whites as a group are not willing to assert their right to survive as a people, as a nation. However, once this changes (and I believe that it will change), all sorts of things that today appear impossible will enter the realm of the possible. What will then result will be a complex interplay between ideas and aspirations, power dynamics and the facts on the ground.
One of our jobs is to provide the intellectual foundation for that coming transformation. Again, we aren’t there yet, which is why we stumble so.
166Matt Parrott
You were the one who picked an argument with me, quite randomly. You called me out by name, as the quintessential opponent of racial purity.
It wasn’t random, you’ve been very outspoken on the issue and against me personally. Your definition of white is probably representative of what the people here believe.
What I mean by arguing is that I describe your beliefs accurately, but you protest, only to agree with me. And you say you’re not against it, but then are you against it in America, which is the context obviously.
America is not ambiguously white, and not all subraces and ethnic groups are the same, as neither are all races the same. Would you argue that America would have turned out the same no matter which Europeans populated it? The Latins would have made a mess of it just as they have South America.
I don’t see what’s so divisive or controversial about honoring and preserving the founding stock that created America.
You said something against “Meds”, which presumably includes Italians. They’re the only sizable Med population in America.
It includes the majority of Italians, more so the Southern Italians, and some French, who are also a sizable population in America. It’s not about ethnicity per se, but subracial preservation. Which you have stated you don’t value for Americans.
Do you agree with the US Census Bureau’s definition of White?
White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as “White” or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish.
McCulloch elucidates the problem with the modern use of white:
The dividing line between “white” and “nonwhite” is not as clear as it once was. In the United States before 1880 — before the “new immigration” (1890-1924) added a large Mediterranid and Armenid element — the population consisted almost exclusively of Northern Europeans and West Africans, and the racial designations of “white” and “black” referred to these two groups. For all practical purposes, and in popular usage, “white” was synonymous with Northern European. With the increase in the number of intermediate types there has been an expansion or inflation in the definition of “white” in its common usage to include a much broader range of racial types, many of which are quite racially distant from, and genetically incompatible with, the Nordish race. In current popular usage the dividing line on this scale between white and nonwhite would probably be in the 18-20 range. As a result, for purposes of Nordish racial preservationism the racial category of “white” is now clearly inadequate, since so many of those included in this category are far removed beyond what the Nordish race is capable of assimilating without losing its own racial identity. As presently defined the “white” race is not really a race, if a race is defined as a population that shares both a common biological ancestry and essentially similar, mutually compatible genetic traits which are not diminished or lost by within-group reproduction.
Mark,
You suggest that my definition of White is sloppy when you’re unwilling to provide any kind of testable definition of this ephemeral “Celto-Germanic” sub-race you speak of. I think that “people from Europe” is pretty simple and straight. I’m not sliding down any slopes to considering Middle Easterners and Berbers White, and it’s dishonest of you to imply that I am, given how many times we’ve been over this.
I agree with your contention that America’s history and character has been shaped by the sub-racial qualities of its founding population. But:
1. I’m against significant migration to America from anywhere. This removes the hypothetical threat of Meds overwhelming our largely “Celto-Germanic” population.
2. America’s White population is completely integrated.
3. Quibbling over the sub-racial qualities of that integrated population is politically retarded.
Once it’s understood that you’re speaking in the American context, there’s really little factual disagreement – only tactical disagreement. You say it was obvious that you were speaking in the American context; it wasn’t obvious to me. I strongly believe that what you’re doing is politically retarded in this context. But you either disagree or don’t care, so that’s that.
Mark,
Many Northern Spanish and Italians are blond Celtic/Germanic appearing people, or at least many have a number of those traits.
From a genetics perspective there will always be enough recessive genes in an exclusively pan-European population to constantly produce Nordic types.
169Matt Parrott
Mark,
You suggest that my definition of White is sloppy when you’re unwilling to provide any kind of testable definition of this ephemeral “Celto-Germanic” sub-race you speak of. I think that “people from Europe” is pretty simple and straight. I’m not sliding down any slopes to considering Middle Easterners and Berbers White, and it’s dishonest of you to imply that I am, given how many times we’ve been over this.
Are you suggesting that Celts and Germanics aren’t real? Don’t be silly.
There are numerous books on physical anthropology that detail Celts, Germanics, Latins and the subraces therein, and the rest of human biodiversity. Don’t be disingenuous. All of this is the basis of white nationalism.
You’ve said that Jews are white, not just white but White, so you’re contradicting yourself.
I agree with your contention that America’s history and character has been shaped by the sub-racial qualities of its founding population.
Good, it would be delusional otherwise.
But:
1. I’m against significant migration to America from anywhere. This removes the hypothetical threat of Meds overwhelming our largely “Celto-Germanic” population.
Why do you keep using quotes as if Celts and Germanics don’t exist? The majority of Americans have one or both of these ancestries, and all of the Founding Fathers did.
Stopping immigration is a good start, but as we all well know it’s not enough at this point.
2. America’s White population is completely integrated.
This doesn’t preclude honoring and preserving Nords and furthering their interests.
3. Quibbling over the sub-racial qualities of that integrated population is politically retarded.
In our current political environment any kind of white racialism is “politically retarded,” but we have to do what is required for our people to survive. It wasn’t politically retarded for traditional American racialism or NS Germany.
Once it’s understood that you’re speaking in the American context, there’s really little factual disagreement – only tactical disagreement. You say it was obvious that you were speaking in the American context; it wasn’t obvious to me. I strongly believe that what you’re doing is politically retarded in this context. But you either disagree or don’t care, so that’s that.
We’re both American, this website is American and expressly American-oriented as Hunter has stated on more than one occasion, so I don’t know why this wouldn’t be obvious to you.
I don’t think it’s any more politically provocative or “retarded” as many other ideas that are advocated by some commentators here, such as mass polygyny, misogyny, disenfranchising women, mass deportations, partitioning America and eugenics. In fact it’s just a better and more honest White nationalism.
Robert believes it has value, it can’t be that bad. I would like to hear his opinion on this and if he thinks McCulloch’s work, traditional American racialism, NS Germany, and advocating for the preservation of Northern Europeans is politically retarded (as you have repeated many times)?
*(to be clear) advocating for the preservation of Americans of Northern European descent is politically retarded (as you have repeated many times)?
170Lockeford
Mark,
Many Northern Spanish and Italians are blond Celtic/Germanic appearing people, or at least many have a number of those traits.
I agree and they probably have Northern European ancestry. They are assimilable.
However, this is not just about pigmentation. Otherwise Eurasians and mestizos would be white, and many do pass.
Reginald,
What sub-race are you?
Mark,
Are you suggesting that Celts and Germanics aren’t real? Don’t be silly.
I was merely failing to endorse the curious “Celto-Germanic” neologism and its political implications. I wasn’t contesting the existence of Celtic or Germanic people. Though, while we’re on the subject, I do think it’s necessary to note that the original Aryan invaders from which the Celtic and Germanic languages are largely derived bestowed their language and culture on a separate people – the indigenous Old Europeans (R1b). So I suppose I do have my reservations about throwing around “Celtic” and “Germanic” as sub-racial designations.
I have a great deal of respect for Robert and value his opinion. But I disagree with him on this.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/016158.html
The Red/Blue division plan Auster and his followers are discussing is completely nonsensical. It is the “proposition nation” through and through. Race is peripheral to Auster and company’s discussions about the idea, and Auster says he “[doesn’t] think we should get hung up with [race] at this point.” “Jeffersonian”‘s ill-conceived plan would certainly not advance the goals of racial preservation.
blake,
You’re giving me a Sophie’s choice, guy. Should I say Germanic and thus renounce my Celtic forefathers?
Should I say Celtic and thus renounce the Mediterraneans?
Though it must be said that the Celtic side seems to have control of a very important part of my brain considering I find Redheads more attractive than Blondes. (Given how White Women are more likely to dye their hair Blonde than Red, this appears to put me in a minority…)
“I agree and they probably have Northern European ancestry. They are assimilable.”
You mean assimilable into the Nordish race without it leading to a loss of type?
That tends to make sense.
After all, the National Socialists didn’t view Goebbels’ genes as undesirable just because he clearly was a hybrid of Northern Europeans and Mediterraneans at least as far South as Rome (a City about half of the way down to Italy’s tip, and thus hardly a part of Italy’s north).
“The Red/Blue division plan Auster and his followers are discussing is completely nonsensical.”
Yeah, for just one thing they really don’t seem to get that the Federal Government has an interest in keeping every single White American community under its authority, due to Whites being the economically productive cash cows of our politico-economic system.
Remember what happened to the South when they tried to shake off the yoke of people in Washington telling them what to do and taking their money?
It wasn’t the sort of pleasant scenario Auster is discussing, to say the least.
“is peripheral to Auster and company’s discussions about the idea, and Auster says he ‘[doesn’t] think we should get hung up with [race] at this point.’ ‘Jeffersonian’’s ill-conceived plan would certainly not advance the goals of racial preservation.”
I 100% know what you are saying here, but the thing to bear in mind is that the closer White Americans get to secession, the closer this Country is to a Race War.
The Blacks and Hispanics are too dependant on transfer payments from Whites for them not to side with the Federal Government under even so deracialized a plan as Jeffersonian‘s being carried out.
From the standpoint of racial preservation, the only thing that will do the trick over the long haul is for us to have a MAJOR Race War, and for that Race War to occur at a time where Whites still have enough younger men to actually win a Homeland of sufficient size.
And even if the Whites involved in this war start out relatively deracialized, they won’t be that way at the end because of the savagery that will inevitably be involved awakening the Tribal side of their natures.
Reginald,
I’m a Nordish preservationist, so I’m more concerned with the Nordic/Med division rather than intra-Nordic differences and sub-types.
So I take it that you have some Med ancestry? How substantial?
Madison Grant’s Passing of the Great Race (pp. 354-360) said that Welsh, Irish, and to a somewhat lesser extent Scottish and Western English people are intermediate between Nordics and Mediterraneans.
I’m just not liking the idea that Celtics, who exclusively spoke their own language family separate from Germanic until very recently and who have easily distinguishable physical characteristics, are a subtype of Nordics.
“So I take it that you have some Med ancestry?”
Yes.
“How substantial?”
Will people have to answer this question to get a passport into a Nordic Ethnostate?
What’s the cut off?
It’s only fair for you to answer, given that people will want to know if they qualify for entry into the Nordic Ethnostate before deciding whether or not to support its creation.
“So I take it that you have some Med ancestry?”
Yes.
“How substantial?”
Will people have to answer this question to get a passport into a Nordic Ethnostate?
What’s the cut off?
You almost gotta laugh (respectfully, of course) at some of these ‘Aryan Internet Warriors’ (or as I like to call them – Internet Vikings) who like to fantasize that jolly ole’ England is a land where virtually all its indigenous White inhabitants are the Viking descendents of Alfred.
It’s only fair for you to answer, given that people will want to know if they qualify for entry into the Nordic Ethnostate before deciding whether or not to support its creation.
So your support for Nordics who wish to preserve their ethny and type and live amongst themselves within their own ethnostate is entirely contingent upon whether or not you would have full and equal access, rights, and citizenship to the future Nordic ethnostate?
It would partly depend on the timing issue.
If a Nordic ethnostate is created BEFORE a White Ethnostate of some kind is created, where exactly are European-Americans who aren’t Nordic enough to enter Nordistan supposed to go?
And if you take a ton of the prime real estate where there aren’t too many Non-Whites to kick out, you’ll leave insufficiently Nordic Whites to muddle through in areas which will have incredibly high concentrations of violent NAMs.
It would be incredibly stupid for an insufficiently Nordic White to support such an idea.
“The Red/Blue division plan Auster and his followers are discussing is completely nonsensical.”
I would say that it is inadequate, not nonsensical. It takes the most obvious and “acceptable” division that we have today – Red versus Blue – and seeks to act upon it. Years ago, Yggdrasil advocated something quite similar to this sort of division. I suspect that Ygg’s views have changed somewhat in the intervening years, but the Red/Blue division does have some merit…as a starting point. Does it go far enough? Nope.
” ‘Jeffersonian’s’ ill-conceived plan would certainly not advance the goals of racial preservation.”
As a final outcome, it would not suit us. But I would tend to look at it merely as a start. As I’ve said before, we aren’t going to get what we want if the current system maintains its full strength. The system is simply not going to let us whites go if it has any choice in the matter. It currently has its boot firmly placed on our collective neck, and it likes it that way. So anything that weakens the system is good for us, and makes it more likely that we can achieve our goals. In that sense, any successful secession movement, however inadequate, has the potential to be good for us. Whatever gets the party started. This Red/Blue division could well be something that could get the party started, and might even be successful for a time.
One tremendous advantage that it has is that the groups in question are so large. There are a huge number of Red Staters. While the central government could certainly prevent one state from leaving the fold, what about if twenty did so in close order?
Think about it this way. Are the Blue Staters willing to send overwhelming force to crush an Aryan Northwest revolt in a state or two? Absolutely, no doubt in my mind. But are those same Blue Staters willing to do 1861 all over again, and try to fight huge sections of the country? Are they willing to pay that price today? I doubt it. I seriously doubt it. Frankly, the Red/Blue division seems to be the only one big enough, and “on the table,” to achieve a dramatic outcome in a short period of time.
Just because it starts out as non-racial, doesn’t mean it will end as non-racial. If secession really gets some momentum, even on grounds that do not satisfy us, the racial divisions will quickly become readily apparent. The blacks, for instance, are not about to support any sort of Red State secession. They are instead going to support the system which butters their bread, and promises to allow them to continue feeding off of the whites. It’s going to be pretty much the same with all of the other non-whites. Jews support Red State secession? Ha! A possible wildcard would be the mestizos with Aztlan, but if they determine that they can’t do their own thing, they will be pro-system and, in any event, certainly against Red State secession.
In a Red/Blue secession scenario, it will be obvious to everyone except the brain dead “conservatives” that Red is a proxy for white. No matter how much the secessionists deny it, and even believe their own bullshit, the reality will be obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. It will certainly be obvious to blacks, browns and Jews. The rifts will be so obvious that they simply will not be able to be swept under the rug. This can only be very good for us.
Reginald,
Ok, so your support for Nordics who wish to preserve their ethny and type and live amongst themselves within their own ethnostate is NOT contingent upon whether or not you would have full and equal access, rights, and citizenship to the future Nordic ethnostate, but rather on how the establishment of a Nordic ethnostate would affect non-Nordic Whites under various circumstances? In principle you have no problem with us forming a Nordic ethnostate, correct?
Also, you never answered my original question. How much of your ancestry is Med?
Blake: If the White Race survives, there is absolutely no need to worry about the Nordics going extinct. The blonde-haired and blued eyed Nordics will still be around, as long as the White race is!
Why risk the extinction of the Whole White Race, in the name of fulfilling a Nordicist fantasy?
A Nordic ethostate could take sides with the non-Whites against the non-“Nordic” Whites; or the non-“Nordics” could ally with the non-Whites against the exclusive Nordic state.
We must make sure Whites do not betray each other again. This was our mistake with Ted Kennedy and the Irish Catholic voters.
Steve,
Nordic preservation requires not only separation from non-whites, but from other sub-races and sub-types of Whites as well.
I never said or suggested anything about risking “the extinction of the Whole White Race” nor am I indulging in any kind of “Nordicist fantasy.” There’s nothing fantastic about Nordic preservation. It’s concrete and involves biology and genetics. I don’t give a damn about mythology or worshipping Odin or pretending to be a Viking.
“Ok, so your support for Nordics who wish to preserve their ethny and type and live amongst themselves within their own ethnostate is NOT contingent upon whether or not you would have full and equal access, rights, and citizenship to the future Nordic ethnostate, but rather on how the establishment of a Nordic ethnostate would affect non-Nordic Whites under various circumstances?”
Yes. It isn’t that I’m against every club that might not have me as a member.
It’s that the generally outlined plan for the creation of a Nordic ethnostate is so ill suited for the unfortunate context we find ourselves in, so likely to seriously endanger so many innocent Whites, that I would be skeptical of it even if I was entirely of Nordish descent.
“In principle you have no problem with us forming a Nordic ethnostate, correct?”
That is correct.
Reginald,
Ok. Thanks for answering some of my questions. Now my original question: How much of your ancestry is Med? I’d like to know because this matter will obviously inform your position on Nordic preservation to some degree.
About 50%.
Ok. That’s what I thought.
I’m 100% Celto-Germanic and I reject Nordic Preservation in the United States because it compromises the tribal unity we’ll so desperately need in the years and decades to come. I reject Nordic Preservation because the whole paradigm is an anthropologically antiquated one which was more like a creation myth for the NS regime than sound science to begin with.
Besides, blake. We’ll deal with eginaldray and the rest of the edmays AFTER they risk their lives and fortunes on the assumption that they’re fighting to preserve the White American nation.
the whole paradigm is an anthropologically antiquated one which was more like a creation myth for the NS regime than sound science to begin with
No.
It’s interesting that some of the same people who are telling us that Northern European racial preservation is too divisive are also heavily promoting polygyny, extolling sharia law, and praising the greatness of Muslim and Middle Eastern civilization and society.
MGLS,
I dropped “the topic of which we will not speak because it has been debated to death” after seeing the kind of hostile reaction it produced. I agree that it’s divisive and should be set aside, but I had to find out the hard way.
Now, would you care to explain how Nordic Preservation could be accomplished in America? What would be the advantages? How would one determine who is and is not Nordic? I don’t know what you mean by Nordic or what you mean by Preservation, but it sounds pretty anthropologically dubious and potentially divisive. I would appreciate it if you could explain what you’re promoting.
Reginald,
Ok. Thanks for answering some of my questions. Now my original question: How much of your ancestry is Med? I’d like to know because this matter will obviously inform your position on Nordic preservation to some degree.
—
The more apropos question would be for a lot of you guys: How much of your British ancestry is indeed MED??
In case you all didn’t remember (or, more correctly, wish to remember) is that the British Isles, from which many Americans are descended from, is in no way an exclusively ‘Nordic’ land — all fantasies and wishful thinking aside. The racial history of England did not begin in 476AD or 1066AD. Much of the indigenous British peoples are the descendents of the pre-Germanic population of post-Roman Britain, and much of this population is, genetically, Atlanto-Mediterranean.
As well, it has been shown time and again that only 20-30% of the British gene pool is of continental Germanic ancestry (Angel, Saxon, Dane, Jute and Viking), with much of this being strongly concentrated in southeastern England as well.
C’mon guys – get back to reality on these issues and stop needlessly driving away potential supporters to our cause with such picayune concerns.
MGLS,
It’s interesting that some of the same people who are telling us that Northern European racial preservation is too divisive are also heavily promoting polygyny, extolling sharia law, and praising the greatness of Muslim and Middle Eastern civilization and society.
I’ve noticed this as well.
I find it interesting that some or seemingly most of the same people who oppose polygyny oppose women having the right to vote.
Now, would you care to explain how Nordic Preservation could be accomplished in America? What would be the advantages? How would one determine who is and is not Nordic?
Technically it’s Nordish or Northern European, not specifically Nordic, as that is a specific type. It’s really not as hardline as you might imagine. All it is is recognizing differences that we all take for granted and associate with White already. Now, we could copy and paste all day and create a huge thread, but just go take a look at http://www.racialcompact.com.
I don’t know what you mean by Nordic or what you mean by Preservation, but it sounds pretty anthropologically dubious and potentially divisive.
You complain about being called politically correct and using liberal memes, but then you keep providing more examples!
I find it interesting that some or seemingly most of the same people who oppose polygyny oppose women having the right to vote.
I don’t see that, if anything it would be those who are in favor of polygyny oppose the female vote. Women are not going to vote for polygyny, as men are not going to vote for polyandry.
Matt,
You said, “I oppose Nordic preservationism because…”
Are you saying that you reject Nordic Supremacist ideology and its divisive implications, or are you saying that you would deny me the right to reproduce with another Nordish person?
Nordish preservationism is exactly what it says it is: preservation of Nordish people from extinction. Are you saying Nordish people should be amalgamated into some giant, pan-European racial soup of “Whiteness,” regardless of their feelings on the subject? Are you telling me I have no right to be proud of who I am and safeguard the legacy bequeathed to me by my forefathers? You acknowledge that these ethnic differences do exist, but you’re trying to claim they don’t matter and that we must all become White Universalists? How is that any different from any other race-denying Universalism?
Do I misunderstand you entirely? I hope so.
The more apropos question would be for a lot of you guys: How much of your British ancestry is indeed MED??
So how about it fellas – ‘care to share’ who your ancestors were with us, since some of you wish to grill others like an inquisitor about theirs?
I mean, what’s fair is fair.
“I find it interesting that some or seemingly most of the same people who oppose polygyny oppose women having the right to vote.”
Not me! I do not oppose women’s suffrage.
I do realize, it’s actually the polygamists who tend to oppose women’s rights.