It’s unfortunate that in metropolitan areas the blue and red pieces of land are intertwined very closely at the county level, and it’s more like differences in census tracts in lots of places. I’m sure this would go even for parts of New Jersey and Massachusetts, the bluest of the blue.

I’d be willing to move, if a nice boundary could be drawn up. The ctrl-left ought to be glad, as any “reds” moving out are often moving from very high property-value locations. Some odd-ass lefty from rural Montana can buy that 1/5 acre lot in New Jersey and take over the $1,500 monthly property tax bill to help pay for that lefty stuff he LUVS, LUVS, LUVS.

It takes a 2nd glance, A.E. to get the rhythm of it, once you understand “separate” is a verb, not an adjective there.

“2, 4, 6, 8,
when we gonna separate?
Leave the USSA,
today, Hooray!”

Epic trolling by an author here.

I guess there is a competition going on. When I thought that Vitcheck (don’t care if spelled wrong) character can’t be outdone with his “China stuff”, we got this one.

Must be some internal joke going on around this site. Owner, mods, and a group of authors.

This author character, who gets a mind block when words as “violence” or, God forbids, “shooting”
are mentioned, talks about dissolution of, and succession from the USA.

Anyone, any idea what that internal joke could be?

As for secession itself, well…….I guess we’ll see the start of some serious talk in…say….3 years from now. Not on the (public) Internet, of course.

Surely both–or all, depending on how we’re going to split this up–parties will be able to agree to a grace period prior to separate sovereignties where people so inclined to do so will be able to freely move to a polity of their liking.

Prior to this, though, you’d have to decide which are to be the red polities and which the blue. That would not be impossibly difficult, but it could get pretty damn ugly – particularly if the division is to include race as a criterion.

Still, it’s a line of thought worth pursuing. One of the great failings of democracy is that it forces us to live with people whose values differ tremendously from our own. To overcome this, we endlessly preach tolerance. But since it’s much easier to tolerate people different to yourself if you never have to interact with them, why not simply allow us all to go our own way and live around and be ruled by those like ourselves instead of imposing our values on those who are not constitutionally suited to them?

Are you being serious with this?

You could also add that red states as far as I know have more retirees per capita than blue states.

That’s actually not a bad rallying cry. It has this idea of being against hate, but just being realistic about the direction things are headed and wanting to remedy it before things get too horrible.

Someone can write a very well reasoned and mature case for it. Here, I’ll get it started:

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation…”

And you can take it from there…

Peace.

I noted that this dude Atkins lives in Santa Barbara. Santa Barbara. If ever a city was invented as a gated, whiteopia, implicitly designed to prevent blacks and browns from establishing a foothold, it is Santa Barbara.

Critters is like David Adkins are way too smart to go for separation, in their heart they know about the lack of capabilities in the diverse hoards they will be left behind the enemy lines with, they don’t want them to be their airline pilots, nuclear plant operators, and oil rig operators.

Separation is going to be have to be demanded by red state whites, honestly I believe this time there’s gonna be no pushback from the blue state people, they just don’t have the guts or the energy to pick a fight.

Wow, what a choice; either an extreme Right wing country or an extreme Left wing.

No thanks. I’m planning on moving out altogether from USA, et al.

The idea of Constitution, liberty for all, freedom, and all the “rights”….were really nice while they lasted. Unfortunately, it worked best for the nation when White males dominated and minorities and women were “kept in their place”. So, the theory goes, anyways.

The world is constantly changing. Did you really think the party was going to keep on going for one group of people…forever? How did it work for that spotted owl?

It might be easier to build walls around all the major conurbations and let them starve.

Where Whites build, orcs soon follow.

If Redlandia isn’t prepared to build massive border walls and hand out the death penalty like candy at Halloween for ferals, it won’t work.

blessed with political affirmative action & overrepresentation

The trouble is there are only two parties and they have a gentleman’s agreement to refuse to compete for or represent white voters. Ergo, not only are we not overrepresented, we’re not represented at all.

“Never mind all that. If we accept Atkins’ perceived problem as a legitimate one, isn’t the obvious solution political separation? . . . How could Atkins possibly object to this?”

He’ll object to it because the people on the Left believe they can have it all. In a few decades, demographic trends will insure that a Republican presidential candidate cannot win a national election (at least not by espousing the values they do today). Why let the Red States go when you can simply crush them politically and keep the country intact? Unfortunately, if a political separation is to happen, there will be blood.

As things are today, there are not nearly enough people in America willing to consider secession. Things here will have to get much worse before secession becomes more than a fringe idea.

Leftists want collectives where everything is under their control. The thought of an independent entity outside their control frightens them, even if it means getting rid of people they don’t like.

This is why they are against separatism in general, and why they favor supernational organizations where the group can be used to collectively punish any dissenters. It’s basically the mentality of middle aged women.

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same design, evinces its Object to reduce them under an absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such a Government and seek another…”

Billboard Hot 100, baby. Somebody just mix in a rhythm track.

You know, I get a lot of crap for suggesting repatriation of immigrants and negros here, but after reading the above, I am baffled as to how anyone can see it as a more logical, sensible, or realistic possibility.

Before I can expand on my opinion of this, first I must ask AE specifically: Who exactly gets what? Meaning, which part of the US goes to blue states (BS) and which part goes to red states (RS)?

One thing I can say is this: Even if a clean separation was possible, how long before the RS begin to be invaded by BSers looking to escape their new banana republic or merely plunder the wealth of the red states? I am supposed to believe that after a separation, RSers will suddenly find the will to refuse entry from foreign invaders, as well as forcibly remove aliens who have managed to enter illegally? How long before National RS Review is making the conservative case for more immigration?

Call it divorce. Maybe we can’t all just get along. Most of us are already living separate lives. Segregation along racial, class and, indeed, sexual lines is already the living condition throughout the country. Except for government integration mandates, the separation would be even more extreme.

This in no way prevents interaction across those lines. People of differing backgrounds can be friends, but only on an individual basis. Even Methodists and Baptists. Sometimes.

Instead of blue states subsidizing red states, it is really productive people subsidizing non productive people. Overall, government wealth transfers don’t make the country better off. If the government takes a dollar from one person and gives it to another, then it is usually less than a zero sum game. Usually there is a politician who got elected by advocating the transfer, a government bureaucracy to collect the money, and another government bureaucracy to pass it out. The person who receives the money may only get 70 or 80 cents of the dollar collected at the other end. The politicians, the bureaucrats, and the recipients are all engaging in nonproductive activities that slowly impoverish the country. That’s who we need to separate ourselves from.

Not true at all.

Per the census, Santa Barbara is only 52% white and 38% hispanic.

White nationalists and “alt right” men need to stop pretending that blue states are homogenous hypocrite states. The average overeducated urban liberal SWPL lives near plenty of colored people. It’s just that they are different colored people compared to red state ones.

In red states, colored people are mostly black and native american. In blue states colored people are mostly hispanic and asian.

I’m all for it. Let the coastal counties along the Pacific rim become their own country ( We get to keep the name USA, and our flag, since we love it and they dont) the interior counties in CA, OR, and WA will mostly want to come back to us, they don’t like their coastal elites either.

They get everything from San Clemente and North, we get San Diego and the military bases. (They hate the military anyway) In fact, we get pretty much all the military, and we promise to protect them like we protect Europe, unless they piss us off.

Oh, and we’re gonna build a big beautiful wall through the CA desert so the leftist retards will quit moving to Texas.

It is time to end the hate. It’s time to separate.

I’m not wavering.

I tell you, I’m not!

Thinking about and evaluating an idea is not wavering!

I had wondered where you were, Peter. Then I remembered that FBI agents like to take July as vacation time. 🙂

Anyone, any idea what that internal joke could be?

It’s no joke. There is an actual difference between discussion based on political considerations and calls for violence.

This is important because we saw, within our lifetimes, not only a small scale political dissolution like Czechoslovakia (Brexit can be considered potentially on this spectrum) but the dissolution of the Soviet Union which could have been extremely bloody given all the factors involved.

Sure we saw plenty of violence in various separations as well, but it goes to show it can indeed be done relatively cleanly and without resort to violence if there is a will and cooler heads prevail.

Peace.

Well, he’s not at all clear on what his shibboleth(s) will be. For example, are we to have religious freedom? Will we allow the killer Ms (Muslims, Mormons and Mennonites)? He needs to address MMDM’s comment.

David is not wrong, however. And is this secession movement truly being considered? Golly..

Audacious, seems to me a high roller who wants to make a splash would be eager to aggregate those high political questions in a think tank operating under his or her name. Separation, secession, new constitutional convention, sovereign independent statehood, union of individual states, and what have you.

I think there’s already some extant and fairly recent literature, something about the seven regions of the United States, but I don’t know much about it.

As you suggest in your post, I think, we ought to put the full palette of political solutions out there, if only to encourage more robust and honest debate.

Seems to me, much of Peter’s assumptions and views on the world are basically influenced heavily by his experiences in the Yugoslav civil war, so you can take them for what they are worth. That experience may provide insight into our situation or be completely irrelevant.

Mennonites kill??!!

For example, are we to have religious freedom?

I certainly hope not – as I’ve mentioned before, I’m for (and would totally vote for) a secession along White nationalist lines ONLY if they promise to ban Islam within their borders.

Now if we are talking Red vs Blue – not sure.

He needs to address MDM’s comment.

Well, the new entity would certainly be much more solid on preventing immigration than the current setup due to the opinions of the people in that demographic versus overall. Yeah some people would make a case for immigration, so what? Maybe some people will make a case you should be legally allowed to beat your dog to death. Just ignore them.

Peace.

Secession is a terrible idea, particularly since the left advances in all places.

The cuckservatives who want California to leave the US are just as bad as the leftists who want to abolish the Electoral College.

the problem (and i’m surprised AE didn’t mention this) is that atkins himself is opposed to secession. It’s like he’s an ideological imperialist.

1. You can't divide a country between its urban and rural populations.

2. There's no need. California's conservative contingent went out with a whimper, not a bang, over the space of 20 years. So will it go across the rest of the country.https://t.co/tQquoASeRp

— David Atkins (@DavidOAtkins) November 15, 2018

IT IS TIME TO SEPARATE, BUT MANY GOPHERS IN THE SOUTH ARE UNWILLING TO ACCEPT THE DEMOGRAPHIC FUTURE

California is gone. New Mexico has been long gone.

Florida is on its way out and so too are Arizona and Georgia.

Illinois and New York are gone, not because the states are blue, but because of two big cities in each of those states respectively, Chicago and New York City, dominate the votes in those states.

The fix of course, is ceding these states to the Democratic Republic of America: California (except the far northern part), Nevada (the southern part south of Tahoe), Arizona, New Mexico, Texas (yes Texas, folks), Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and the eastern seaboard from Charleston, South Carolina to New York City. Oh and give them Puerto Rico and Hawai’i too.

The rest must remain in the hands of the USA and a people who want to restore the Republic, complete with negative-rights jurisprudence only, i.e., no welfare and no subsidy to anyone, ever.

The Republic must keep Oregon and Washington because successful countries must have warm water, deep-water ports. On the North American continent, that means ports for the Pacific and ports for the Atlantic.

The chief problem remains: The great divide over the USA is one over jurisprudence: positive-rights social democracy of socialists, social democrats versus negative-rights restoration of those favoring republicanism.

A lot of California’s conservative contingent completely left the state and went to other states. I have a cousin there who would like to leave but she is an auditor for the state government and is near retirement. She hates it there. All the new immigrants cause road congestion and it takes hours to drive anywhere. There’s no money to build new transportation infrastructure. The city sidewalks are filled with homeless people shooting up drugs and her grandkids have to see that when she takes them anywhere. Most of the remaining whites there either work for the government or are extremely wealthy and can insulate themselves from all the dysfunction. This is the new utopia the left has in store for the rest of the country?

If the US split into Redstan and Bluestan, Redstan would be like the US of the much-maligned 1950s – overwhelmingly White and Christian. Bluestan would be populated by members of every race, ethnicity, religion, gender and gender orientation on Earth and they would tear each other apart.

The Democratic Party consists of “warring tribes in the common pursuit of plunder.” They hate each other, but are united by a hatred of Whites. Different factions would fight for dominance. Eventually what might happen is that Bluestan will further split into two or more countries – I can see a Hispanic southwest, possibly dominated by White Hispanics (typical of Latin America) and a Black country.

Liberal Whites might eventually refugee to Redstan – should they be allowed to settle and, if so, under what terms? What about Asians, Indians and Moslems – do they get their own turf? Of course, what will be the fate of the Jews?

Yep, to the white privilege and anti-racism crowd:

If you won’t split, you’re full of shit.

Hey AE, maybe you have stats on the number of Jewish homosexuals, trans, pedophiles in society compared to other groups?

Contempt is the luxury of the powerful and hate is the reaction of the powerless.

Whites are powerless because they are individualistic which, in a time of “peace” makes each an easy target by groups that are more collectivist. However that individualism evinces individual integrity which, under a formal declaration of a State of War, unites them with equal integrity. This makes whites a potentially invincible military force against groups that are merey instinctively cohesive. What the powerful fear most is that the powerless individual, motivated by hate of the contempt in which he is held by the powerful, will unite with other such individuals of integrity, Declare War formally, and bring True Social Justice.

In the present instance, what these “hateful, ungrateful, rural white Americans” can and, if things do not change, most certainly will do, is blow the airlocks on the space stations known as urban counties.

One of the great failings of democracy is that it forces us to live with people whose values differ tremendously from our own. To overcome this, we endlessly preach tolerance. But since it’s much easier to tolerate people different to yourself if you never have to interact with them, why not simply allow us all to go our own way and live around and be ruled by those like ourselves instead of imposing our values on those who are not constitutionally suited to them?

Ironically, this is how the FEDERALIST United States was designed. We all go our own way and only share governmental roles that can’t be devolved to the local polities: defense, trade, monetary policy, disputes between states. Everything else is a local issue.

But most Americans in their quest to rule over their neighbors (and live like princes in DC by buying votes) have pretty much forgotten that was ever part of the plan.

I believe Goddess Oprah owns an estate in Santa Barbara. Most of her acolytes are progressive white women who are blinded by her shining light so they forget she’s black.

I have been saying for a couple of years now that after the financial reset, after the empire finally and truly collapses and the dollar becomes shit – the U.S.A. will balkanize. Washington will be too weak to prevent it. I envisioned new Republics in various regions. But a nation could exist as an archipelago. The left could keep the cities. The rest of us could occupy the spaces between the cities. This would require a treaty spelling out which counties would be red and which blue.

One way or another it will happen, normalcy bias notwithstanding. We can separate peacefully or we can kill each other. But we cannot continue as one nation.

“It’s like he’s an ideological imperialist.”

That’s another good term for the propagandists of the authoritarian left. If you are on the bottom of the intersectional pyramid (straight white males) and don’t submit to Drag Queen Story Time at the library and spidery Somalis crawling all over your neighborhoods and cities you will be unpersoned. And remember, Woke Capital is a major if not dominant economic force. Which means we have to take this crap seriously.

“… the U.S.A. will balkanize.”

Maybe this is the goal of Bond Villain Soros’ Purple Revolution.

Middle Class whites like me are thinking about or actively working towards leaving the Golden State.

….a think tank….

….to encourage more robust and honest debate.

About secession? In public? At this stage?

Impossible, for several reasons.

The major reason is a mental block in an average White American.
To break through that block will require……..anyway….too early now. The only interesting thing is: when the block gets broken will it simply be too late.

We’ll see.

….Contempt is the luxury of the powerful and hate is the reaction of the powerless….

…What the powerful fear most is that the powerless individual, motivated by hate of the contempt in which he is held by the powerful, will unite with other such individuals….

Yes.

About a month before the late, great Lawrence Auster left us, one of the regular commenters redrafted a proposal which outlined a well-thought out program detailing just how a serious separation could be undertaken. While it isn’t perfect (what is?) the proposal has much merit.

The essay is quite long, but (in my opinion) well worth the read. It begins thusly,

Secession: The Road to a Rebirth of America
2013, February 16 | Jeffersonian

I) The Reds and the Blues

In the aftermath of the presidential election of 2000, a map of the United States was published in which the counties that had voted for the Republican candidate (George W. Bush) were colored red and the counties that had voted for the Democratic candidate (Al Gore) were colored blue. The result was striking: The “Blue counties” made up only a small fraction of the area of the United States, but they included roughly half of the total population. Outside of the Northeast, the map consisted mostly of a large expanse of red, interrupted by geographically small – but densely populated – urban areas. (A copy of that map is attached to this article.) Note that although the original map showed the United States divided into red and blue counties, it has given rise to the terms “Red states” and “Blue states.”

In what follows, I shall often refer to the Bush voters or sympathizers as Reds (although you may prefer to think of them of them asRepublicans or conservatives) and to the Gore voters as Blues (although you may prefer to think of them as Democrats or liberals). Note that the term “Reds” in this context has no implication of Communist sympathies. Note also that if a map of the United States was made which colored red the counties that voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 and that colored blue the counties that voted for Barack Obama in 2012, it would look very much like the map made after the election of 2000.

Some writers have suggested that voters chose Obama over Romney primarily because of his looks, or personal charm, or because of his clever campaigning, and no doubt some voters did so. But it is clear that the main reason that Obama won is that millions of the Blues preferred his policies to those being proposed by Romney. His supporters in the media repeatedly stated their disapproval of the policies proposed by Romney, and their opinion that the programs that Obama had been trying to carry out would be better for the country than those suggested by Romney and the Republicans; so did Obama’s numerous supporters in academia. You and I may disagree with these people; but it is silly to say that they had not been following the news for the previous four years and that they just liked Obama’s smile. Most of those educated Blues (and most of the uneducated ones as well) really do have policy preferences, and in November 2012 they voted in accordance with those preferences.

What sort of society are the Blues aiming for? Obviously, they do not all hold identical political views. By and large, however, most of them want the United States to become more like the ‘socialist’ countries of Western Europe such as Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Holland.

• Most leading Blues strongly favor significant redistribution of wealth, partly by a steeply progressive income tax, and partly by other means.

MORE …

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/024257.html

You know, I get a lot of crap for suggesting repatriation of immigrants and negros here, but after reading the above, I am baffled as to how anyone can see it as a more logical, sensible, or realistic possibility.

Before I can expand on my opinion of this, first I must ask AE specifically: Who exactly gets what? Meaning, which part of the US goes to blue states (BS) and which part goes to red states (RS)?

So deciding on a red/blue division is impossibly difficult, but deciding who gets “repatriated” is logical, sensible and realistic. LOL.

Where does a half-Chinese, quarter-white, quarter-latino get “repatriated” to genius?

And if you manage to come up with a logically coherent scheme, why assume that is any simpler than deciding upon red/blue division?

Or any more morally plausible than a red/blue division?

What it comes down to is an aversion many people have to surrendering an inch of territory. That’s all it is. It doesn’t matter how impressive the promised benefits are, if it requires giving up land, then no way, no how.

Well, as Mao Zedong reportedly said: “Save people, sacrifice land – land can be retaken. Sacrifice people, save land – soon lose people and land.”

“I’d be willing to move, if a nice boundary could be drawn up.”

That’s mighty nice of you. So compared to repatriation, which would require the relocation of the mostly useless contingent of the US population, the more sensible solution is to require millions of normies (of either political persuasion; there are left leaning normies) to pack up, uproot their families, and move from their hometowns, some of which may been there for generations.

Makes perfect sense.

Wiki on the demographics of Santa Barbara in 2010:

The racial makeup of Santa Barbara was 66,411 (75.1%) White, 1,420 (1.6%) African American, 892 (1.0%) Native American, 3,062 (3.5%) Asian (1.0% Chinese, 0.6% Filipino, 0.5% Japanese, 0.4% Korean, 0.4% Indian, 0.2% Vietnamese, 0.4% other), 116 (0.1%) Pacific Islander, 13,032 (14.7%) from other races, and 3,477 (3.9%) from two or more races. Hispanics or Latinos of any race were 33,591 persons (38.0%). Non-Hispanic Whites were 45,852 persons (52.2%).

The only really drastically under-represented group appears to be AAs.

Santa Barbara is almost 40% Hispanic.

Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.

“So deciding on a red/blue division is impossibly difficult, but deciding who gets “repatriated” is logical, sensible and realistic. LOL.”

Deciding is the easy part. Bringing it to reality is the real issue. You and AE haven’t even begun to consider the logistical challenge of separation. Compared to that, repatriation is a much simpler concept.

“Where does a half-Chinese, quarter-white, quarter-latino get “repatriated” to genius? ”

This is America, comrade. Jose McChang can choose where he wants to go, as long as it isn’t here. But more seriously, you’re attempting to simplify a course of action just so you can mock it. Not surprising. A vetting process would be imperative.

The rest of you comment is just pearl clutching, cucky rhetoric. Only a clown speaks of morals and then quotes Mao.

What it comes down to is an aversion many people have to surrendering an inch of territory. That’s all it is. It doesn’t matter how impressive the promised benefits are, if it requires giving up land, then no way, no how.

There’s a small idealistic minority with libertarian-ish views that sincerely believes in secession and allocating separate territories peaceably. But most don’t, even those who claim to support secession. Most regard it as a strategic retreat that’s necessary in the short term, with a long term expectation of reconquest. That’s why secession rarely happens without violent conflict.

It’s not just an aversion to surrendering territory, but also to surrendering the US state, which is a continental, imperial state, and its institutions. The US state and its institutions still have enormous power and prestige, and the various factions right and left want to obtain this power, which will disappear with the territorial breakup of the US.

Okay. Where was the decision made that it was going to be along strickly racial lines? AE needs to weigh in with his ideas.

It’s basically the mentality of middle aged women.

WTF?

You exemplify one of the problems, Mikey. SS is a thoughtful commenter and you shouldn’t arbitrarily disregard his comments. All of your bullshit rhetoric is just that.

…pack up, uproot their families, and move from their hometowns, some of which may been there for generations.

Makes perfect sense.

That’s the crux of the matter.
For most Whites the very idea is simply unthinkable.

We’ll see in….say…..7 years from now.

It’s funny actually. USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa were created, precisely, that way. By White people willing to “uproot”.
Or South American states too, by White immigration from Portugal, Spain, and Italy.

By people willing to “uproot their families, and move from their hometowns, some of which may been there for generations”.

That “move from their hometowns” is exactly what the immigrants are doing in this “replacement/demographics” change.

Did I say “soft”?

No fear. The “other” side will make enough of Whites hard enough, in time.
Did I say “time”?

Hehe…I am sure that plenty of South African Whites are quite willing to “uproot” …just…they can’t anymore.

A food for thought in …say….10 years from now: you want to “uproot” but can’t anymore. The chance is gone.
Just a thought, mind you.

The Democratic Party consists of “warring tribes in the common pursuit of plunder.” They hate each other, but are united by a hatred of Whites.

The Democratic coalition is a great deal more United than the right. I’m increasingly beginning to think there is no such thing as a dissident right. Many are still stuck in the old politics of implicit whiteness that opposed the welfare state. That is now totally irrelevant as mass automation looms. Then there are the woman-haters, the boomer-bashers, the anti-Christians. All White people ever do is find reasons to hate each other.

I think that you are right.

I’m of working age and live in northern NJ, but expect to eventually need to leave. It’s a question of where. A large number of New Jerseyans leave anyway upon retirement.

I expect civil war.

Zman on his blog has repeatedly said that the Dissident Right must stand for something and not just be opposed. A philosophy based on hate will not triumph.

Mennonites kill??!!

Muslims, Mormons & Mennonites would kill the ideal.

$250 million lawsuit from Covington student against Washington Post dismissed by judge

Next move is yours, AE.

Skimming through. Not bad….some very good ideas.

Then, on the page 21 of 24:

….. we must promptly disavow any groups that advocate violence……

“I have to lose weight.” A long list of benefits of not being overweight. “I don’t want to cut on meals, sugar in particular, and I really don’t want to exercise”.

“I can’t rely on police to protect me and my family. I can’t stand violence, guns in particular. I hate combat sports and can’t stand exercise.”

Etc.

“Most of those educated Blues (and most of the uneducated ones as well) really do have policy preferences, and in November 2012 they voted in accordance with those preferences.”

It’s just that they do not believe they will have to live with the consequences of their policy preferences. That’s for other people to deal with.

Well, I’m at least glad you got to read it. The instant I posted my comment it was flagged as spam and wouldn’t allow me to edit it. Done. Over.

So I’m relieved it finally made the cut!

As to Jeffersonian, I did warn that not everyone was going to like everything. But I still say it’s an excellent start.

I still say it’s an excellent start.

See, that’s is where we disagree.
Practicability.

This childish fascination with “violence” is starting to feel……..weird.

“We” want to challenge the POWER of the entity which uses violence so deliberately it boggles the mind and “we” can’t even think about the concept.
I am starting to get the vague feeling there is a careful effort there to “manage the proles”.

Well, those efforts work well until they don’t.

So, curious….why that character who wrote the article didn’t say something as:
“We must take into account the high possibility that the opposition will use VIOLENCE against us…”
“….we must also think about important issues as self-defense and security…..”.

What do you say?

Hahaha…..hilarious.
Department of Defense.
Israeli Defense Forces.

Oh my……..

Are “we” really that stupid?
Rhetorical question, mind you.

For now.

parasites cannot allow the host to leave.

the only thing they hate more than white people is the idea of white people leaving and separating.

that will never be allowed.

so it’s conflict or die, hosting parasites.

Now, true, I have seen in that article some rudiments about it. Highly impractical, naive, idealistic. In my book anyway.

It’s understandable. A nice “civnat”. Smart, intelligent, educated….civilian. Zero understanding of POWER and related state level violence.

But, feels like it, “we” could get some (retired) Colonels, even up, on “our” side, rather soon. With sprinkling on (retired) FBI and …some other agencies….senior guys too.
Probably even within this year.
“We” could see some rudimentary intelligent effort online re the topic/subject, then.

And only then the topic will start becoming interesting. More than fishing.
O.K…equal at least.

Why thank you, honorable white knight cucky iffen! You are such a gentleman, coming to your fellow cuck’s aid in his time of need. I bet you’d throw your coat over a puddle for him too!

He had no intention of initiating a civil discussion. His comment was immediately mocking and rhetorical. I seem to remember making him butt hurt some months ago and he promised to never talk to me again. You lefty cucks are all liars.

You: “A lot of California’s conservative contingent completely left the state and went to other states. I have a cousin there who would like to leave but she is an auditor for the state government …”

Irony: being unaware what the audience sees.

Your cousin is “conservative” but does make-work for lawgivers, in essence, overpaid welfare.

You have it about right. But the time scale of the break up of the Democratic Republic of America likely would happen after you die.

If an orderly break up fails to happen between 2045 and 2055, a civil war certainly will make that happen.

No truly successful country exists without deep-water, warm-water ports. A republic USA needs Washington and Oregon along with New Hampshire at minimum.

The rest of the coasts can go to the commies, socialists, progressives.

The Jew is on the left. The Jew is the brains behind social democracy. The Jew controls the thoughts of mestizos and New World Africans.

Social Democracy reflects Jewism, the ethics of humanist Jews — multi-racialism, open borders, abortion, positive-rights welfare. They are the advocates of Mohammadans. They have engaged in lawfare since the 1950s to strip the USA of Jesus and Anglo-Protestant ethics.

Here’s an interesting article by Jewish holocaust revisionist David Cole, that coincidentally rejects the notion of packing up and moving out of a conquered land.

https://www.takimag.com/article/conquered-california/

“But the No. 1 reason I refuse to leave California is that I’d rather die here than give leftists the satisfaction of driving me out.”

He had no intention of initiating a civil discussion.

Not with you, certainly. You’re incapable of it – when your illogic is exposed you distort, you evade, you twist, you whine, you make the whole “discussion” an exercise in futility.

I know I promised to never address you again, but I can’t permit extreme idiocy like yours to express itself unchecked. AE is rightly concerned about keeping his blog free of nword-level invective . It would be wise to treat “deport all non-whites” [cos this here’s America, mac] the same way. Nothing good can come of it whatsoever.

Here’s an interesting article by Jewish holocaust revisionist David Cole, that coincidentally rejects the notion of packing up and moving out of a conquered land.

Wow, David Cole just advised deporting all non-whites too! You guys are saying the zact same thing!

Mike, I can sort of see some sort of repatriation incentives included in a package that discusses the political options I mentioned in my #22 comment above:

“Separation, secession, new constitutional convention, sovereign independent statehood, union of individual states, and what have you.” Add your reparations to that list.

Put out a sober 300 pp. study drawn up by young lawyers and policy people showing with enough detail how separation or reparations or what-not offer strong benefits to people that are simply not going to be talked about under our current debate-deoxygenated system. Give the study a “hook” by calling it something like Responses to Mass Immigration, and send someone with the right chops to work the MSM.

Our interview with Juan or Melatonia of the MSM:

J or M: “You’ve come out with a study that makes some extraordinary policy recommendations. Some people are calling it racist. How do you respond?”

Us: “How can you call a sober argument for separation racist? The United States was founded on the idea of separation as a way to better get at ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ Ever heard of that, Juan? Think about it, Juan. Do you really prefer the Virginia of the Confederate States, or do you prefer those citizens of western Virginia, who during the course of the Civil War, courageously separated from that slave power to create today’s West Virginia?”

Political separation, even if it weren’t wildly unfeasible, would accomplish nothing so long as They still control the commanding heights of the mass media and international commerce. The globohomo cancer can’t be fled from within the confines of its very heartland (or possible, anywhere): it can be defeated only by cutting its heart out.

Well, it’s a pipe dream anyway, Mike, but the point would be that if you had truly separate areas, then it would be worth it to me. In other words, if I were in a small island of red in a big blue splotch, it may be worth it to pack it up. The Free State project was something sort of like this, but there were nowhere near the numbers. There would have had to be 20 – 50 times as many people, meaning 100,000 to 250,000 (from the 5,000 number that I recall).

No, people don’t like to be uprooted, but I don’t have as old a ball of roots where I live as some do. As I wrote, the people who are at odds are intertwined at the country or census tract level. It’s not like the situation in 1860 (even, though, granted, there was some brother-against-brother action and places like Kansas). That’s why that war could rightly be called “The War between the States”, rather than “The Civil War”.

They hate the military anyway

I can’t imagine why — it’s their military now

Half the posters here would like to separate from their wives and kids…so not likely.

In other words, if I were in a small island of red in a big blue splotch, it may be worth it to pack it up.

Very reasonable of you. I don’t understand the big deal. I would be happy to relocate if it meant securing a future for White children. Just tell me where White people will be permitted to carry on existing and I’ll pack my bags.

No conceivable way race would be a criterion. Dissolution will require majority support, and there is nothing close to majority support for ethnostates of any kind in the US.

Then there’s no point.

Demographics = Destiny

Here in California, I am already separated, in the family/friends sense, having lost their affection and respect, all for the sins of being a moderate Republican, and sane. A bad person. National partition will never happen. The entire country will become a blend of Brazil, Venezuela, S. Africa, and Idiocracy. Daily life for proficient, conscientious people will become frustrating, humiliating, crumbling, and defensive. The only relief will consist of being, as a poet wrote, continually drunk, on wine, poetry, or virtue. Signing off from “Good enough — just get it basically okay” California. (And our standard is spreading; Boeing got the MAX basically okay.)

Auster, Doolittle, Robertson, etc. aren’t going to be able to organize sufficient numbers of whites for two reasons:

1) Any moral appeal to whites must be founded on their heritable individualism, and without a moral appeal, it cannot form a credible basis for a Declaration of Independence or, in the event, Declaration of War that will unite whites.
2) The complexity of their proposals — as simple as they are in comparison to the miasma of “political discourse” — provides too great an “argument surface” (the political/legal counterpart to the cyber security “attack surface”).

Sortocracy provides a framework within which their proposals can be realized. Based on individuals choosing to assortatively migrate AND allocate territorial value by those individual choices, it more effectively guts the source of violence.

That this leaves in place the womb-war that is civilization is the primary complaint — and it is immediately obvious. However, what is not so obvious is that every other proposal also leaves this womb-war in place — its just that there are so many other problems and so much complexity with other proposals that people never get around to realizing that civilization IS a womb-war — or it is an eat-or-be-eaten level of evolution.

You don’t like it? You don’t like civilization.

Half the posters here would like to separate from their wives and kids…so not likely.

And the other half of the WN contingent are gay, as they have openly admitted.

40% (and rising) of White Nationalists openly say that they would rather have sex with a white man than a black woman, since race loyalty trumps sexual orientation, and producing no baby is better than producing a mulatto baby.

So that is where a lot of them are coming from.

No conceivable way race would be a criterion. Dissolution will require majority support, and there is nothing close to majority support for ethnostates of any kind in the US.

Bingo.

WN comprises largely of the bottom quintile of white men. Their female counterparts are the fat bluehaired feminists.

Mainstream whites are appalled by both, but social exclusion of the bottom rung of men is much easier than excluding even the worst women.

WN wiggers can’t even get successful whites to invite them to their parties.

Disunity tends to be more salient the more enmeshed in a movement you are. There are many similar major fault lines on the left.

That may be, but the Left also has numerous strengths that the right does not have: funding, MSM access, control if education, etc.

We cannot afford this.

As things are today, there are not nearly enough people in America willing to consider secession. Things here will have to get much worse before secession becomes more than a fringe idea.

Yep.

Catch: longer it takes to get there, less chance of success.

The entire country will become a blend of Brazil, Venezuela, S. Africa, and Idiocracy. Daily life for proficient, conscientious people will become frustrating, humiliating, crumbling, and defensive.

Most likely.

Still, I’d never underestimate the power of that x-factor when people are concerned.

“Timisoara”.
“Send her back”.

Stuff like that.

Curious.

I guess that, say, 10 % of people posting, even reading, here have gone through a scenario or two re “secession”.

Question:
What was the point in that (imagined, of course) process/chain of events, when the “Authority” sends armed police to arrest some people?

In this case, an FBI task force , reinforced/supplemented by some other outfits, of course. Guys in combat gear. Armored vehicles, automatic weapons, armed helicopters…stuff like that.

Anyone?

And this will be good for the world too. It may end American imperialism around the world.
Imagine an unicorn army of libtard hippy pussyboys, flaming homos, sluts of all shapes and colours (rainbow sluts), fat weak dot Indians and low IQ blacks facing an Army of Iranians or Chinese or Russians. The enemy would die of laughter.

Ah – OK – got it.

Peace.

Typical wigger trashionalist with his misinformed hogwash. Non-Hispanic whites were 52% of the pop. Latinos of any race were 38%. Whites altogether were 75%. Pretty big on the brown population

As the Catalonia movement dragged on, liberals started to attack it from the left, claiming that its separatism was elitist and undemocratic, that the Catalonians didn’t want to live with “lesser” people.

It was a mistake to allow mass hispanic immigration, but they are not really such bad people. They are infinitely better than muslims, of course. Many of them loath muslims too, which makes their stock go up a few points.

This is my point exactly. There are plenty of scenarios where a possible secession could be achieved and through completely non-violent means. A lot of it has to do with context and history.

So, for instance, you cited the situation in Scotland seceding which will likely be a political process just like it was ultimately a political process in uniting it with the rest of the UK a few centuries ago.

Now if the island of Bali wanted to secede from Indonesia, you could expect a few divisions of grim-looking Kopassus to arrive in a couple of days, dissidents to start disappearing, and bodies start piling up very quickly. Different context, different history.

Peace.

And is this secession movement truly being considered?

It’s growing steadily. Already there are dozens of people in alt-right echo chambers who support it. I can imagine that in a few years’ time it may have hundreds of supporters nationwide.

If Trump is re-elected, we’ll have hundreds of people ON OUR BLOCK talking secession. Throughout California, millions will claim to favor secession, some minority of them quite seriously.

We can separate peacefully or we can kill each other. But we cannot continue as one nation.

How many people do you seriously believe would want to secede? The sorts of people who want secession are a tiny minority. You could fit them all in one small state. So if you divided the country into Redstan and Bluestan then Redstan would have a population of a few hundred thousand.

This is classic alt-right delusional thinking. Take a fantasy, and then assume it must come true because you really want it to be true.

And remember, Woke Capital is a major if not dominant economic force.

And do you think Woke Capital will be happy to allow secession?

Where does a half-Chinese, quarter-white, quarter-latino get “repatriated” to genius?

And what are you going to do with the Derb? Are you going to repatriate him to England and his wife to China?

And what about those brought to the U.S. as slaves? Which African country are you going to repatriate them to?

It’s not just an aversion to surrendering territory, but also to surrendering the US state, which is a continental, imperial state, and its institutions.

What are you going to do with the military? If Redstan secedes do you think Bluestan is going to allow them to take a share of America’s nuclear weapons stockpile with them?

The Democratic coalition is a great deal more United than the right.

Yep. They’re more united, and they have organisation and leadership and discipline. They have unlimited funding from the bankers and the billionaires. They have the absolute support of the media. They have the police, the military and the apparatus of the surveillance state behind them.

The mainstream right is only united on two issues – they love tax cuts and they love Israel.

I’m increasingly beginning to think there is no such thing as a dissident right

.

As an actual political movement it doesn’t exist. It’s just a handful of keyboard warriors. On the whole they do more harm than good to the causes they claim to espouse.

If there ever is a viable dissident movement it will come from the Left because they know how to organise.

All White people ever do is find reasons to hate each other.

Because they don’t think in racial terms. There is no such thing as “white people.”

The white middle class hates the white working class more than it hates non-whites. The white working class hates the white middle class more than it hates non-whites. Urban and rural whites hate each other more than they hate non-whites. White homosexuals hate white heterosexuals more than they hate non-whites.

Reuters-Ipsos commissioned a poll asking respondents whether or not they’d support their state peacefully seceding from the federal government. 1-in-4 respondents said they would, and the younger a respondent was, the more likely he was to support the idea.

But do they have the slightest trace of a coherent idea as to how it could be done?

It’s a bit like Brexit. It sounded like a great idea. It hasn’t happened. If it does happen it will most likely be a disaster, leading to a massive increase in Third World immigration. It sounded like a great idea as long as you didn’t think about the practicalities.

What do you think they’ll do to you and me?

I say this only in half-jest, but do you think Pol Pot set out to slaughter a couple million people? No, he had a plan, and when a sizeable number of the population objected to it, there was no viable alternative to the slaughter.

The sustainable solution for our problem children, most of whom reside in the conurbations is not more UN Sustainability Agenda concentration of the populace in conurbations, rather it is to march them into the countryside and make them feed themselves and live sustainable lives where they deal with their own externalities, like their waste (human and otherwise).

IOW, the Pol Pot dilemma: Many will not go peacefully and would need to be slaughtered. Would it not be more humane to all involved to keep them out of sight and let nature take its course? You need the walls because, repeatedly throughout history, the city folks wander out to the countryside to plunder the overwhelmed and outnumbered farmers.

I don’t say the following in jest: The so-called Sustainability Agenda and similar moves to put the mass of people in conurbations for better “sustainability ” are canards; in fact, it positions the mass of humanity perfectly for the mass kill-off some folks have been hinting at when they say the ideal human population of Earth is only half a billion. I’d rather take my chances in the countryside.

Not much discussion anywhere about what post imperial America will look like. Most folks assume tomorrow will look pretty much like today.

Shit happens. Things change. It’s called history. This is why we say “It came to pass”.

Let’s get this question into the next democrat debate: “Would you support the peaceful partition of the United States, if demanded by the people, since your conception of the US currently relies on it being an idea and not a geography?” I would love to see the partition question asked in the next debate. Why don’t we tweet this at the candidates en masse and get it noticed? They’d have to respond at some point. I want to hear what they have to say on the subject. Do they support it? How could they not after their rhetoric?

You could fit them all in one small state. So if you divided the country into Redstan and Bluestan then Redstan would have a population of a few hundred thousand.

This is absurd. Obviously White people want to live with other White people, which is why they pack their shit and move another exit down the highway every ten years. Indeed, I’m beginning to think your average normie is to the right of the so-called “dissident right” on the Aryan Question. This place is rapidly turning into a civic nationalist sausage fest where it’s perfectly acceptable to talk about disenfranchising White women, but our brothers of color? No, we mustn’t consider touching a hair on their innocent heads.

Forcibly repatriating people whose ancestors have been here for centuries is an enormous violation of that moral foundation so most whites are never going to support it.

I wonder if they’d still oppose it after seeing a few videos like the black pack attack at the Washington Hilton the other day.  I’d argue for removing every member of the gang and also all of their immediate family members who are reliant on public assistance.  It’s no doubt cheaper to house them in Monrovia anyway.  (If the whole family has something to lose for such crimes, the “community” will quickly start to enforce better behavior.)

If Redstan secedes do you think Bluestan is going to allow them to take a share of America’s nuclear weapons stockpile with them.

Apparently AE thinks so.

I wonder if they’d still oppose it after seeing a few videos like the black pack attack at the Washington Hilton the other day.

So true. The (((media))) determine what is thinkable.

Audacious Epigone says: • Website
July 27, 2019 at 4:09 am GMT

No way it will be along racial lines.

This place is rapidly turning into a civic nationalist sausage fest where it’s perfectly acceptable to talk about disenfranchising White women, but our brothers of color?

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that AE’s blog is not a WN blog.

Audacious, seems to me a high roller who wants to make a splash would be eager to aggregate those high political questions in a think tank operating under his or her name. Separation, secession, new constitutional convention, sovereign independent statehood, union of individual states, and what have you.

Maybe he could just hold this post in the top spot for a while (like AK does sometimes) and not close the comments.

We could get at some basics and the idea could serve as an educational and outreach tool.

A constitutional convention could get us back to a confederation. Once we were in a confederation we could make the necessary changes in the states.

I like the idea of sovereignty being placed with the states and the devolved units of the states rather than the people. Chicago, Atlanta, Denver, etc. could become city-states.

Redstan and Bluestan would each need access to the Gulf, the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Great Lakes.

The agri-business would have enormous power in Redstan and would push for “cheap migrant labor.” I assume the commenters here will not be willing to pick the grapes.

etc

Right away we would have to deal with the JQ and the RQ.

leading to a massive increase in Third World immigration.

How so? I thought that one of the main drivers was the desire to get out from under the EU’s open borders stance.

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that AE’s blog is not a WN blog.

What is it then?

A kumbaya-singing rainbow gathering of oppressed men of the world uniting against the Matriarchy?

EDIT: Nevermind. Of course it is, as has been obvious for some time.

This is absurd. Obviously White people want to live with other White people

But they want non-whites to provide cheap labour for them.

And wealthy whites like having non-whites as nannies, gardeners, etc. If immigration were to be stopped servants would become ridiculously expensive.

Again the problem is that there is no such thing as “white people” – whites put class interests ahead of racial interests.

And white Christians sure do put a lot of effort into making sure that white countries get flooded with lots and lots and lots of non-whites. They put virtue-signalling ahead of racial interests.

If Redstan secedes do you think Bluestan is going to allow them to take a share of America’s nuclear weapons stockpile with them.

Apparently AE thinks so.

Yeah. My guess is that Bluestan will react even more hysterically to the idea of a nuclear-armed Redstan than neocons contemplating a nuclear Iran.

Again the problem is that there is no such thing as “white people” – whites put class interests ahead of racial interests.

And white Christians sure do put a lot of effort into making sure that white countries get flooded with lots and lots and lots of non-whites. They put virtue-signalling ahead of racial interests.

We can fix all of this with one wierd trick: democracy.

The overwhelming majority of White voters (men and women alike) have always opposed displacement-level mass immigration, but elite machinations subvert the popular will. We need a strongman.

That’s a fair response, AEN.

I suppose if we are going to engage in hypothetical, I like the ones where the useless are removed completely and the heritage stock gets to stay put.

wealthy whites like having non-whites as nannies, gardeners, etc. If immigration were to be stopped servants would become ridiculously expensive.

Robots are about to become cheaper than crimmigrants.  We already have automated lawnmowers.  Shortly there won’t be much in the way of gardening labor required either.

The ultra-rich might enjoy an immigration cutoff which forces the merely-rich to have robot servants and reveal themselves as not being able to afford human labor.

leading to a massive increase in Third World immigration.

How so? I thought that one of the main drivers was the desire to get out from under the EU’s open borders stance.

As an EU member Britain gets an unlimited supply of cheap labour from impoverished eastern European EU member states like Poland. After Brexit that supply of cheap labour will be cut off. So immediately there will be whining from the corporate sector that they must have cheap labour. And where will it come from? From the former British Empire. From places like Nigeria.

There will be horror stories in the media about the critical shortages of workers.

And with an unprincipled clown like Boris Johnson as PM the immigration floodgates will be opened wide.

virtually no one is prepared to do something awful like that.

Have you heard the chants of “BUILD THE WALL” at the Trump rallies?

But a wall is only as good as the will to keep people on the other side of it.  Hanging invaders from it, or putting their heads on spikes at the top, is a damn good way to show that you mean it.  It wouldn’t take too many before they stopped coming.

We can fix all of this with one wierd trick: democracy.

The overwhelming majority of White voters (men and women alike) have always opposed displacement-level mass immigration, but elite machinations subvert the popular will. We need a strongman.

Or maybe what you need is to have a moratorium on democracy? In times of crisis the Romans would appoint a dictator with a time-limited term of office. A dictator might be the only way to drain the swamp.

Democracy cannot work because it is inherently corrupt. It is political prostitution – the buying and selling of political favours. Democracy will always become corrupt. Democracy cannot deal with internal crises.

The ultra-rich might enjoy an immigration cutoff which forces the merely-rich to have robot servants and reveal themselves as not being able to afford human labor.

You don’t have servants because you need servants. You have servants so that you feel like you’re rich. And so that other people know that you’re rich.

Robots won’t do that.

“WEIRDOs put a lot of moral emphasis on fairness. ”

I don’t know what a WEIRDO is. Fairness is secondary consideration to survival.

“Forcibly repatriating people whose ancestors have been here for centuries is an enormous violation of that moral foundation so most whites are never going to support it”

How is it any less a “violation of moral foundation” to forcibly require people whose ancestors have been here for centuries to relocate based on their political views? Separation might seem like a more gentle term than repatriation, but it’s applicably no different.

More specifically, you are referring to blacks. Either plan requires a large portion of them to relocate. It has been established that blacks and whites cannot peacefully integrate en mass. Why does “separate nations” require the same continent? If blacks remain on the continent, they will require subsidy to survive, regardless of anything else.

“As much as we like to deride the legal/illegal immigrant distinction, that too is significantly influenced by our conceptions of fairness. It is conceivable to me that a majority of Americans support the repatriation of illegal aliens in the future just as they have in the past.”

If you are a believer in the idea of demographics is destiny, then you would have to be willing to go further than that. “Legal” immigration is already permanently changing the fabric of the nation. You have to decide if you want what America was meant to be, or what it’s about to be. Your high minded morals and sense of fairness are going to create quite a burden for your descendants and mine. Not so moral or fair to them in my eyes when it’s put that way.

“As for who gets what, I don’t know, there will have to be negotiations. At first approximation, very little will change, especially if the new countries settle along existing state boundaries. Federal withholding goes away, state withholding goes up, government services shift around–which for most reading here means nothing–and otherwise things pretty much stay the same.”

That’s all you’ve got? Come on man.

I guess you live in District 13.

Dividing the US into Red and Blue nations seems so complicated and controversial that the idea will probably never get out of the realm of fantasy. A much simpler (and therefore doable) idea is for the US to devolve from a nation-state to an EU-style transnational organization, with the 50 states (or possibly more at the time of dissolution) becoming independent nations.

Here’s a basic outline of the plan: https://www.unz.com/freed/civil-insurrection/#comment-2267711

But in the meantime we could propose dividing or redrawing various state borders. AE mentions Cascadia and Greater Montana as possible future nations, which is an excellent idea. Here are some others: https://www.unz.com/anepigone/saving-the-union/#comment-3059219

Unfortunately any plans for dissolution will inevitably butt up against the most powerful force in the universe: inertia. It will be extremely difficult to get the secession ball rolling, and I don’t think the impetus will come from within the US, but from Canada. And not from Quebec either, but from Alberta, the disgruntled paymaster of the federation.

And this could happen a lot quicker than almost anyone realizes, particularly if Trudeau is reelected this October. Already support for secession is polling at about 50% in Alberta, but the movement is hopelessly divided and without even common goals. Should the endgame be an independent Alberta, a Western Canadian federation, or possibly even Alberta as the 51st state?

There is no agreement on such a basic question as this, and no leadership capable of uniting the various factions into a single-minded, laser-focused machine. But all this could change very quickly if the right leader came along.

Consider John Adams, the prominent citizen of Massachusetts and loyal British subject who, owing to the hostile actions of the British government, gradually became a firebrand patriot and one of the foremost leaders of the revolutionary cause. He went from working for change within the existing system (and shunning radical patriots such as his own second cousin Samuel Adams) to leading the movement to overthrow the British regime altogether.

The equivalent to Adams in Alberta is Premier Jason Kenney. Though loyal to Canada (for now), Kenney is very hostile to the federal government, and if that eco-extremist fedgov is reelected, it poses an existential threat to the lifeblood of Alberta’s economy, the energy sector. The population of Alberta will be outraged beyond belief, and Kenney may be swept up in the secessionist tide, just like Adams was in his day.

If Jason Kenney (or a similar prominent, charismatic figure) flips from loyal Canadian to Alberta separatist, Canada is over, finished, kaput. All the movement needs to succeed is good leadership, and there’s no way such a brittle federation like Canada could survive the loss of Alberta, Quebec or any other province. The country would quickly disintegrate into a half dozen or more independent
nations.

Then, and probably only then, would secession fever hit the United States. If Canada could provide a template for the peaceful separation of an unwieldy, too-big federation into smaller, more culturally and ideologically homogeneous nations, then I believe the US would almost inevitably follow suit. So if you’d like to see the breakup of the US into smaller, more manageable units, then you should pray for the continued electoral success of the clown-prince who will inadvertently make it happen, Justin Trudeau.

Of course, there are many productive members of the Democratic coalition – I would say a majority of the working-age people – they’re not all welfare recipients and government employees. The productive members complain about taxes and government regulations, but still vote for the Democrats.

White flight from regions is happening – I know two people here in NJ who plan to move to Idaho. Blacks are returning to the South. Even without a breakup of the US, there will be reshuffling of the US population with different groups in different regions.

Behold, natural selection at work.

WEIRDOs put a lot of moral emphasis on fairness.

No they don’t. How much emphasis to they place on “fairness” to “deplorables”/incels/”Nazis”/”losers”/etc? Zero, that’s how much. What they actually put a lot of “moral” emphasis on is peacocking. That they have down very well, reaching new insane heights every year.

Jews are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. On one hand, a Jew may or may not consider herself White, and the lefties don’t seem to, but non-Whites regard them as White. Uber Whites, if anything. Non-Whites don’t care about Israel and may even sympathize with the Palestinians, regarding them as an oppressed POC, victims of the world’s last White colonial power. On the other hand, more and more White gentiles realize that Jews are a hostile elite and Jewish individuals and organizations have been in the forefront of political radicalism and cultural subversion in the Western world since the 19th Century. Which way they jump is anyone’s guess.

As for who gets what, I don’t know, there will have to be negotiations.

Well, if blacks created and built everything like some of them and most of their white supporters say, there will be no negotiations; they just get to keep it all.

The Republic must keep Oregon and Washington because successful countries must have warm water, deep-water ports. On the North American continent, that means ports for the Pacific and ports for the Atlantic.

While I hesitate to lend credence to this silly fantasy, “the Republic” wouldn’t need the entire coastline necessarily — just a corridor.

So immediately there will be whining from the corporate sector that they must have cheap labour.

But I thought that Brexit was going to destroy the corporate sector. 🙂

The irony of all the moral hand wringing surrounding the idea of deportations is that American constantly and voluntarily uproot themselves throughout their whole lives to pursue their “careers.” We’re basically “deported” every time our position is made redundant, or whatever. It’s not like one has any more practical affinity for the consumer zombies in the next American city than one would for the populace of Kuala Lumpar.

On the other hand, more and more White gentiles realize that Jews are a hostile elite and Jewish individuals and organizations have been in the forefront of political radicalism and cultural subversion in the Western world since the 19th Century.

It is a tiny, despised and profoundly alienated minority that perceives this.

This is a great link and I read it carefully.

There is one major flaw–the blue (coastal) country will be absolutely broke in no time at all–even if they defaulted on their portion of the national debt to get a fresh start.

There would be too many people riding on the cart and not enough tax donkeys pulling the cart.

So, at the end of the day the heartland country would be faced with a third world s___hole on all of its borders with hostile intent.

The war would still have to be fought–the plan would just buy some time…

Another advantage to using your “End the Hate, Separate” as a political vehicle is that it could potentially force the Borg and its supporters to articulate which parts of “Let My People Go” they find objectionable.

That would definitely be the ideal.

California, Texas, Alaska and Florida are potential stand alones and could decide what sort of devolution they wanted if any. Bluestan would have to have a corridor through to San Diego, maybe taking the Central Valley with it.

Bluestan could have Nevada, Utah, NM and Arizona.

Bluestan could have all of NE and the coast down to Charlotte.

Upstate NY goes Red.

Absolutely. There would also be a fight for dominance.

Civic Nationalism is a White gentile belief. Non-Whites and Jews rarely hold this belief.

Asians and Hispanics despise Blacks and don’t feel guilt for slavery and segregation. They won’t pander unless they must for political reasons.

I can see Bluestan breaking up in additional countries – a Hispanic southwest, possibly dominated by White Hispanics (the traditional norm in Latin America) and a Black region.

Short of a breakup of the US, there might be autonomous regions for various groups.

Diversity is not a strength.

Most of the military is notionally opposed to the Forever Wars too. Yet, they go on.

When has the right ever succeeded in beating the left at their own game though. There’s seems to be something inherent to rightist movements that lends itself poorly to this approach — probably a paucity of the necessary mendacity, disingenuousness, etc.

The Borg believes that with “education” aka brainwashing they would be able to convince the Infidels to see the light–sort of a modern version of “woke person’s burden” spreading “the true faith” around the world–and like the old Christian missionaries with their military ready for action, if they have to kill the “deplorables” in the process, oh, well…they tried. 🙁

The idea of Constitution, liberty for all, freedom, and all the “rights”….were really nice while they lasted. Unfortunately, it worked best for the nation when White males dominated and minorities and women were “kept in their place”. 

AGREED!

It’s not theory, dude, we have ~ 200 (arguably) years of experience.

Thanks for the inane boilerplate pablum. Can’t do without my daily dose.

t.latino

No seriously, you’re definitely a Hispanic. The Muslims that go to the US are infinitely better than the Hispanics, because they aren’t such intellectual laggards, and because they don’t draw up the costs and the burden of the welfare leeching habits of the Hispanics. Blacks are obviously not included. Anyways, the numbers and crime rates speak for themselves. Unless they are black, muzzies in the US don’t really do anything. Hispanics have a negative tax impact, high welfare usage rate, and we can already see California and Dallas. But no seriously, nice try Hispanic.

That’s a false dichotomy and you know it!

In theory, perhaps.

In practice, definitely not.

White men can either fight the plutocracy alongside White women, or they can try to cut a separate deal: Go ahead and brown out the West while you reduce the native White working class to penury, just give me an even-more-powerless wife to lord it over so I can feel like a real man despite my utter debasement and humiliation.

“As far as that being all I’ve got, I’m by nature an incrementalist. Propose radical change and people get scared. The left’s incrementalism has been masterful over the last fifty years. It’s a big reason why they seemingly win on everything.”

We’re comparing two different versions of radical change, and neither are the type of radical change that is mostly likely to happen. The left’s incrementalism goes back 100 years, in my observation, but you’re correct about the winning. I do not see any scenario where a strategy of incrementalism returns the US to a version of its former self.

“Proposing forcibly removing large portions of the population that have been here for centuries is going to strike the vast majority of people as horribly immoral.”

You said this already. To which I replied your proposal of splitting the nation also requires forcible relocation for millions of people. People who, in my opinion, hold the better claim to remaining in place. It’s funny though, you make the correct observation that the left wins by receiving small concessions from the right but then you propose a solution that concedes half the current nation’s land mass to the left. Your proposal is soundly defeatist.

“Peaceful separation, on the other hand–well, R-I showed it getting about 25% popular support, which is roughly the same amount of support as Calexit got. It’s a long way from a majority, but it’s not a fringe position liking kicking blacks out to Liberia or something is.”

My idea may be fringe, but at least it isn’t passive aggressive. It addresses the issue directly. 25% is remarkable, but 95% of those respondents likely never gave the issue any further thought than “It sure would be nice to not have to live near people who don’t think like me.” None have a clue as to what separate nations would require just to have a small chance.

Anyway, repatriation doesn’t have to be violent. A sweetener can (and should) be offered to any individuals willing to leave peacefully and promising never to return. Others can stay if they submit to voluntary permanent sterilization. All workers’ visas revoked and all resident aliens returned going back 20 years. Violent and career criminals are the easiest to remove immediately. Ending welfare entitlements would likely get a couple million to return to their homelands voluntarily.

Repatriation isn’t absolutist either. A vetting process would be imperative. But the US must be returned to 90% Euro, preferably western Euro, in order to have any chance.

“Bottom” as defined by generally illegitimate, facile criteria (mainly, conformity). There’s about as much shame in “losing” America’s vile, rigged race to the bottom as losing Connell’s ‘most dangerous game.’

“Character” is not objective, and I see little evidence the rest is true. The real objective bottom feeders are the wastrel leftist sycophants you find on reddit.

Well, if – in the scenario you described – it ever came to war there would be a much great likelihood that those who comprised the Red regions would be the kind of character and stamina to engage in battle and not mush out.

In such a case as war, any battles lost by the warring Blue region ought also to be grounds for acquiring those territories lost for the victor.

Appreciate that you took time to actually read the essay in its entirety. Again, it’s a place to start for working out the bugs to all parties satisfaction. I believe a secession along the lines Jeffersonian has drawn up is doable so long as everyone understands that they’re not going to get everything they want – elsewise no one is going to get anything.

Think of it as another Constitutional Convention if you like.

That’s just a coincidence.

…I believe a secession along the lines Jeffersonian has drawn up is doable ….

May I suggest something? Like, thinking about this scenario:

A sizeable group of people in a bunch of counties decide to push for secession.
They get organized in a movement, with leadership.
They go for that….” another Constitutional Convention” of yours..

Then the leadership gets arrested by Federal task force.
Stop reading, please.
Tell me, please, have you thought about that chain of events? Honestly.

I’ll leave to you to imagine media coverage of the arrest and the legal proceedings later. Probably some new, hasty, laws passed by Washington as well.
The usual.

Makes sense?

If it does, well, any thoughts/ideas?

There was a Reuters-Ipsos poll commissioned five years ago that found 25% support for “your state peacefully seceding from the federal government”.

Similar polls in Alberta find majority support for secession, considerably higher than even Quebec.

I was going to link to this article as a compliment to my earlier comment, but then I realized that it’s been sitting in moderation for 6 hours! What gives?

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/opinion-independence-if-necessary-but-not-necessarily-independence

I would prefer a guaranteed income for everyone or no welfare whatsoever (except for the physically disabled). What I don’t like is the current welfare system that picks winners and losers (the childless).

Unfortunately today’s Republicans do favor the welfare status quo and only oppose expansion. The irony is they support welfare for those who don’t vote for them (single mothers, often non-white) while opposing any type of welfare that could benefit some of their voting base.

When did protecting one’s citizens and punishing evildoers become “afwul?”

Thanks.

The media will simply smear them as “Nazis” and conservatives will thus cheer their extrajudicial demise. Easy as that.

Audacious wrote:

Never mind that this is largely due to military expenditures and handouts to agrobusiness, benefits not enjoyed by most rural whites.

Are you serious? Farmers are not rural whites?

The reality is that whites receive the disproportionate number of checks from the government. And that, methinks, is what makes your fantasies of Civil War and Separation highly unlikely.

It’s also a good way to have civic unrest against the government that literally shut the country down.

The people who matter in this country have no time for “civic unrest” on behalf of invaders.  They’re at work during the day.

Doing something like that would require martial law.

No, all it would take is the will to look the other way as the people who matter dispose of the traitors and leave them for trash pickup.

Remember the BLM clowns who blocked freeways with human chains of barrels with their hands locked inside?  One guy with a machete to separate the barrels and a pickup to push the barrels out of the way is all it would take to make sure NOBODY ever did that again.  Or somebody willing to use a bit of gasoline other than to propel their vehicle.  These protestors have no idea just how close people are to doing that.  The first time will be a reality check of epic proportions.

Proposing forcibly removing large portions of the population that have been here for centuries is going to strike the vast majority of people as horribly immoral.

We can do it as punishment for crime, though.  Particularly habitual criminality or obvious depravity that starts early on (such as the horde of “teens” who beat down the man at the Washington Hilton the other day, or the ones who nearly killed Steve Utash).  Just have a points system and for some failure score they get shipped out and don’t come back.  Encourage their families to “reunite” in Liberia or Ghana, perhaps with a lump-sum payment of 5 years worth of whatever benefits they’re getting.  Use that high time preference to move them out; we might even be able to do it at a savings.

There is one major flaw–the blue (coastal) country will be absolutely broke in no time at all–even if they defaulted on their portion of the national debt to get a fresh start.

There would be too many people riding on the cart and not enough tax donkeys pulling the cart.

Is not bug.  Is feature.  Let them give up land to the Red Staters in payment for grain, natural gas, oil etc.  When the delusional and elites are under seige by their horde of vote-farmed pets, we can refuse to lift a finger to help them and take everything else back once they’re gone.

I haven’t tried the Dissenter browser yet.  Maybe I should, and see just what happens when that comment section is re-inserted outside the censor’s control.

WN is also a left-wing ideology, since all of their economic views are left-wing. Their emphasis on the most base of identities, the tribe, indicates low-level thought. Most of what they say is just crube “Muh tribe! Muh tribe!” ooga booga chants.

A race-based ideology that is 99% male (and indeed repulses all women) is not viable.

An ideology where 40% of the participants are homosexual is also not likely to contain anyone with good genetics.

What is WN? That’s new to me.

‘WN’ stands for ‘White Nationalism’, which is just a new name for Neo-Nazis.

Colloquially, the portmanteau ‘White Trashionalism’ is widely used.

WN is also a left-wing ideology, since all of their economic views are left-wing. Their emphasis on the most base of identities, the tribe, indicates low-level thought. Most of what they say is just crube “Muh tribe! Muh tribe!” ooga booga chants.

Before he can muster the will to deport immivaders or even defend the border, the White man will have to muster the will to ban obnoxious trolls like “Thomm.”

An ideology that grants women the freedom to be “repulsed” by anything has already lost. Granted, this does describe much of WNism.

An ideology that grants women the freedom to be “repulsed” by anything has already lost.

We’re not repulsed by WN, just pondscum like you that unfortunately won’t go away.

If White people are to have a future, you will have to be shown the door.

Heh. You want to deport a white guy who was born in Middle America? No one with an IQ above 70 thinks I am an Asian.

Get a clue, dumbass. No wonder White Trashionalism is a left-wing ideology, and utterly un-American.

Heh heh heh heh

Again, when thinking about how WEIRDOs will evaluate anything, fairness has to feature prominently. In a country with over 10,000 nukes, the idea that the US breaking into a few smaller countries and that one or more of those countries won’t be allowed to have any nukes at all is silly.

But the argument will be made that Redstan is an evil white supremacist Nazi state. You don’t extend fairness to Nazis!

I’m not being facetious. That is exactly the kind of argument that will be advanced.

When has the right ever succeeded in beating the left at their own game though. There’s seems to be something inherent to rightist movements that lends itself poorly to this approach — probably a paucity of the necessary mendacity, disingenuousness, etc.

A rightist movement supported by the corporate sector is going to end up being a tool of bankers and billionaires. And bankers and billionaires want open borders and degeneracy. What will you get from such a movement? More open borders, more degeneracy, more tax cuts for the rich.

A rightist movement not supported by the corporate sector is going to end up with no money and no resources and no organisation and will be demonised by the media as Nazi.

The mistake the alt-righters made was in thinking that the Right could be used as a vehicle to oppose open borders and the Poz.

Maybe it would have been a better idea to try to infiltrate the Left and create a leftist populist nationlist movement.

Turning their guns on the civilians they are sworn to protect takes things to a new level, though.

But they won’t be told that they’re turning their guns on the civilians they are sworn to protect. They’ll be told that they are turning their guns on Nazis who are trying to destroy our great nation.

Shooting your own civilians is morally problematic. But shooting Nazis is good. It’s virtuous.

Like all of America’s other wars it will be turned into a Moral Crusade. A Moral Crusade against fascism.

25% is remarkable, but 95% of those respondents likely never gave the issue any further thought than “It sure would be nice to not have to live near people who don’t think like me.” None have a clue as to what separate nations would require just to have a small chance.

Explain a few of the potential problems to them and that support will drop dramatically.