Lenny
11-27-2008, 05:52 AM
Now then, the recent election of a blatantly non-American president, in the form of B.H.Obama (yet who we are told embodies the American spirit perfectly), has caused many, many people to realize that something is very wrong with the postmodern USA. Tens of millions feel embittered, angry, and alienated, now more than ever. Not just because of Obama's imminent ascent to power, but also because the clownish "opposition" in the form of McCain did not represent them at all (McCain was clearly an ideological-clone of Obama's). And, to throw salt in the wound, a full 41% of the total votes for Obama were cast by nonwhites. Yes, "the writing is on the wall" (http://www.goenglish.com/TheWritingOnTheWall.asp)...
With the coming amnesty for 20 million illegal-immigrants and mass-giveaway of U.S. citizenship to those millions, and the relaxing of legal immigration laws (all layed out by Obama in his Change.gov site), it won't be much longer before post-1965ers will actually form a bigger voting bloc than pre-1776ers.
These realizations have made many people disgusted enough to start talking about secession from the putrid corpse of the postmodern USA. AP has run several articles on the spectacular growth of the various minor secession movements across the USA since the Obama election, especially the Vermont Free State movement (http://www.vermontrepublic.org/), which is best organized and is thought to have the best prospects for some modicum of success. In the wake of the declaration of independence by the Lakota Indians last year (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVC1KMTOgwiSoMQyT2LwZc9HyAgA), and a similar declaration by Hawaiian royalists earlier this year, it seems that everyone is getting bolder. And why not? It is only a matter of time before a group of white Americans try something beyond the polite libertarian talking points of the Vermont group.
After Obama's win, white backlash festers in US
In an election in which barely 20 percent of native Southern whites in Deep South states voted for Obama, the newly apparent political clout of "outsiders" and people of color has been unnerving to some.
"In states like Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama, there was extraordinary racial polarization in the vote," says Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University in Atlanta. "Black Americans really do believe that Obama is going to represent their interests and views in ways that they haven't been before, and, in the Deep South, whites feel exactly the opposite."
But for nonviolent secessionist groups like the League of the South, the hope is for a more vigorous debate about the direction of the US and the South's role in it, says Michael Tuggle, a League blogger in North Carolina.
Mr. Tuggle says his group isn't looking for an 1860-style secession but, rather, a model that Spain, for one, is moving toward, in which "there's a great deal of autonomy for constituent regions" – a foil to what is seen as unchecked, dangerous federal power in Washington.
"To a lot of people, the idea of secession doesn't seem so crazy anymore," says Tuggle. "People are talking about how left out they feel, ... and they feel that something strange and radical has taken over our country." :thumbs up
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20081117/ts_csm/aaryan;_ylt=As7qE.Q9lA1y2zRjG3Zq.6Zg.3QA
Let's talk about the possible scenarios of eventual U.S. partition along ethnocultural lines.
All whimsical fantasizing aside, it's hard for me to imagine 'a collapse of the US federal government and new national states being carved out of its corpse' actually happening, much less what direction such a chaotic reordering of things would take. The U.S. culture and government have done a good job suppressing anything resembling local quasi-national sentiments across the USA.
But there is hope (see the secessionist discussion above and in the article). Those with two eyes and a brain know deep-down that the USA is not a nation, but a sprawling economic-zone united weakly by scheisskultur, the McDonalds arches, and similar. A person faced with such knowledge is naturally uncomfortable with the implications, and so tries to repress it. He just rides the beast, earns his money, watches TV, and so on.
But such systems eventually self-destruct. Always. People know it will, and the Lakota were so brazen as to declare their tribal territories an independent country.
Others who have not surrendered to TV-watching nihilism have even produced "regional maps of America", which are basically pseudo partition plans, whether intended so or not. Three of these that I am familiar with are:
The McCulloch partition plan (http://www.racialcompact.com/partitionmap.html), which is too rigidly-racial to be of practical use (nationality =/= race anyway).
A little better is the totally-non-racial "Nine Nations" concept (http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/9714/afbeelding6sf1.png). This one is better because it is broadly culturally-based (it also includes Canada, which is something of an incoherent state as well, and not just because of Quebec). It is probably too economic in focus though.
And a map made four years ago by political-scientists that sought to identify cohesive culturo-political subunits of the USA: "Beyond Red and Blue" (http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/3592/largemapwithlabelscs0.jpg). (2008 version here (http://massinc.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/02/10_regions_2008_master_map_2.jpg).)
-- (Local knowledge of the ancestral stock of the population is of course a prime consideration too. Nine Nations is close, but the other two do not adequately address this at all).
-- (While on the topic of radically remaking the North American landscape;) -- One other thing I'd love to see happen would be the abandonment of permanent settlement in a great portion of the American interior, allowing for a full unfettered wilderness again: essentially a giant Yellowstone Park encompassing up to one-fourth of the continent and not regulated at all. A smaller version of this was proposed by the Sierra Club on the Great Plains, I believe, with the aim of revitalizing the wild buffalo. In the future we might even be able to genetically reproduce ancient megafauna and reintroduce them into this wilderness...).
The problem with the latter two "plans" is that they ignore racial considerations, and the fate of the blacks in particular. There would have to be an "African-American" nation carved out in any ethnoconscious devolutionary solution. Unfortunately, Obama makes the idea of a black ethnostate within North America seem almost impossible. American nationalist groups in the 1910s and 1920s had spoken seriously of carving a black ethnostate out of parts of of the Deep South, and ironically Martin Luther King himself supposedly privately favored racial-partition (http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/032308/met_191994.shtml) ("King was going to propose a separate state for blacks" it has now been revealed). But if the black ethnostate "dream" was narrowly out of reach from the 1920s-'60s, it's by now been tossed into the fireplace and incinerated by Obama. But, in the longer term, it may be more realistic than it now seems.
An American partition would see several European-derived "nations" emerge, most of which would be overwhelmingly-Germanic or CeltoGermanic. (An Upper Midwest "nation" would have just about an identical raw racial stock as Scandinavia-NorthGermany, for example). This is all obviously highly favorable to preservationists, and talking about it is like talking about a dreamland.
I ask you:
-- What do you think the map of North America will look like in 50 or 100 years?
-- What partition scenario(s) do you think are most likely?
-- What are your best-case scenarios for partition?
-- What can be done now to help along the process and facilitate an eventual partition favorable for the interests of European-Americans?
-- How much violence do you foresee the partition and/or post-partition involving? ("civil war" scenarios)
-- What would happen to the rest of the world in the event of the U.S. Federal Government going under? (Global power vacuum)?
-- What would happen to the USA's vast nuclear arsenal and vast military? All regular US Military units being "federal" units (drawing men from all over the country/world) and not state units, what role would the federal military play in the devolution process?
With the coming amnesty for 20 million illegal-immigrants and mass-giveaway of U.S. citizenship to those millions, and the relaxing of legal immigration laws (all layed out by Obama in his Change.gov site), it won't be much longer before post-1965ers will actually form a bigger voting bloc than pre-1776ers.
These realizations have made many people disgusted enough to start talking about secession from the putrid corpse of the postmodern USA. AP has run several articles on the spectacular growth of the various minor secession movements across the USA since the Obama election, especially the Vermont Free State movement (http://www.vermontrepublic.org/), which is best organized and is thought to have the best prospects for some modicum of success. In the wake of the declaration of independence by the Lakota Indians last year (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVC1KMTOgwiSoMQyT2LwZc9HyAgA), and a similar declaration by Hawaiian royalists earlier this year, it seems that everyone is getting bolder. And why not? It is only a matter of time before a group of white Americans try something beyond the polite libertarian talking points of the Vermont group.
After Obama's win, white backlash festers in US
In an election in which barely 20 percent of native Southern whites in Deep South states voted for Obama, the newly apparent political clout of "outsiders" and people of color has been unnerving to some.
"In states like Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama, there was extraordinary racial polarization in the vote," says Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University in Atlanta. "Black Americans really do believe that Obama is going to represent their interests and views in ways that they haven't been before, and, in the Deep South, whites feel exactly the opposite."
But for nonviolent secessionist groups like the League of the South, the hope is for a more vigorous debate about the direction of the US and the South's role in it, says Michael Tuggle, a League blogger in North Carolina.
Mr. Tuggle says his group isn't looking for an 1860-style secession but, rather, a model that Spain, for one, is moving toward, in which "there's a great deal of autonomy for constituent regions" – a foil to what is seen as unchecked, dangerous federal power in Washington.
"To a lot of people, the idea of secession doesn't seem so crazy anymore," says Tuggle. "People are talking about how left out they feel, ... and they feel that something strange and radical has taken over our country." :thumbs up
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20081117/ts_csm/aaryan;_ylt=As7qE.Q9lA1y2zRjG3Zq.6Zg.3QA
Let's talk about the possible scenarios of eventual U.S. partition along ethnocultural lines.
All whimsical fantasizing aside, it's hard for me to imagine 'a collapse of the US federal government and new national states being carved out of its corpse' actually happening, much less what direction such a chaotic reordering of things would take. The U.S. culture and government have done a good job suppressing anything resembling local quasi-national sentiments across the USA.
But there is hope (see the secessionist discussion above and in the article). Those with two eyes and a brain know deep-down that the USA is not a nation, but a sprawling economic-zone united weakly by scheisskultur, the McDonalds arches, and similar. A person faced with such knowledge is naturally uncomfortable with the implications, and so tries to repress it. He just rides the beast, earns his money, watches TV, and so on.
But such systems eventually self-destruct. Always. People know it will, and the Lakota were so brazen as to declare their tribal territories an independent country.
Others who have not surrendered to TV-watching nihilism have even produced "regional maps of America", which are basically pseudo partition plans, whether intended so or not. Three of these that I am familiar with are:
The McCulloch partition plan (http://www.racialcompact.com/partitionmap.html), which is too rigidly-racial to be of practical use (nationality =/= race anyway).
A little better is the totally-non-racial "Nine Nations" concept (http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/9714/afbeelding6sf1.png). This one is better because it is broadly culturally-based (it also includes Canada, which is something of an incoherent state as well, and not just because of Quebec). It is probably too economic in focus though.
And a map made four years ago by political-scientists that sought to identify cohesive culturo-political subunits of the USA: "Beyond Red and Blue" (http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/3592/largemapwithlabelscs0.jpg). (2008 version here (http://massinc.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/02/10_regions_2008_master_map_2.jpg).)
-- (Local knowledge of the ancestral stock of the population is of course a prime consideration too. Nine Nations is close, but the other two do not adequately address this at all).
-- (While on the topic of radically remaking the North American landscape;) -- One other thing I'd love to see happen would be the abandonment of permanent settlement in a great portion of the American interior, allowing for a full unfettered wilderness again: essentially a giant Yellowstone Park encompassing up to one-fourth of the continent and not regulated at all. A smaller version of this was proposed by the Sierra Club on the Great Plains, I believe, with the aim of revitalizing the wild buffalo. In the future we might even be able to genetically reproduce ancient megafauna and reintroduce them into this wilderness...).
The problem with the latter two "plans" is that they ignore racial considerations, and the fate of the blacks in particular. There would have to be an "African-American" nation carved out in any ethnoconscious devolutionary solution. Unfortunately, Obama makes the idea of a black ethnostate within North America seem almost impossible. American nationalist groups in the 1910s and 1920s had spoken seriously of carving a black ethnostate out of parts of of the Deep South, and ironically Martin Luther King himself supposedly privately favored racial-partition (http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/032308/met_191994.shtml) ("King was going to propose a separate state for blacks" it has now been revealed). But if the black ethnostate "dream" was narrowly out of reach from the 1920s-'60s, it's by now been tossed into the fireplace and incinerated by Obama. But, in the longer term, it may be more realistic than it now seems.
An American partition would see several European-derived "nations" emerge, most of which would be overwhelmingly-Germanic or CeltoGermanic. (An Upper Midwest "nation" would have just about an identical raw racial stock as Scandinavia-NorthGermany, for example). This is all obviously highly favorable to preservationists, and talking about it is like talking about a dreamland.
I ask you:
-- What do you think the map of North America will look like in 50 or 100 years?
-- What partition scenario(s) do you think are most likely?
-- What are your best-case scenarios for partition?
-- What can be done now to help along the process and facilitate an eventual partition favorable for the interests of European-Americans?
-- How much violence do you foresee the partition and/or post-partition involving? ("civil war" scenarios)
-- What would happen to the rest of the world in the event of the U.S. Federal Government going under? (Global power vacuum)?
-- What would happen to the USA's vast nuclear arsenal and vast military? All regular US Military units being "federal" units (drawing men from all over the country/world) and not state units, what role would the federal military play in the devolution process?