The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
End the Hate, Separate
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

https://twitter.com/DavidOAtkins/status/1152049970570129409

Never mind the obvious permaban–and in certain countries, court summons–one would receive for replacing “Rural white Americans” with “black Americans” or “illegal immigrants” and then tweaking a few of the particulars in the post above. This even though such a message, while equally cruel and mean-spirited, would be more veracious.

Never mind that one reason for this is that red states are 26% blacker than blue states are.

Never mind that, as Andrew Gelman showed in Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State, while across the country Republicans tend to be wealthier than Democrats, the trend is more pronounced in red states than in blue states. In blue states there isn’t much difference in class and status between Democrat and Republican voters. In red states, however, Republicans tend to be of higher status and social class than Democrats. In other words, a lot of the red state subsidies are being consumed by the blue denizens of those states.

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

Never mind all that. If we accept Atkins’ perceived problem as a legitimate one, isn’t the obvious solution political separation? It’s immoral to force the blue archipelago to subsidize hidebound Trumpkins in flyover country, so let’s stop doing it.

Let blue conurbations have abortion on demand, highly progressive personal income taxation, open borders, generous welfare benefits, affirmative action, and the like. Let them never have to suffer another Brett Kavanaugh on the high court or a Donald Trump in the executive. No more family separation and children in cages. There will now be a direct, legally uninhibited path to sanctuary in the sovereign nation of California.

How could Atkins possibly object to this? Imagine, Mr. Atkins, if the 2020 Democrat nomination process selected the president instead of just a contender for the position. Your side is getting a bum deal as it stands, and there are irreconcilable differences in this marriage, anyway. Let’s end it.

The breakup is something we can negotiate. Worried racist Trumpkins will abuse minorities in the places left behind? 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.

If rustic red staters refuse to realize that diversity is their strength–to the extent that they have any strength at all–then provide big stipends for minorities to relocate to new countries more progressive than the United States as currently constituted could ever hope to be. Fund it by diverting the money currently being transferred from blue states to white proles riding around Walmart on their motorized scooters. That is welfare spending cosmopolitans will actually be able to feel good about.

And after dissolution is complete, there is no reason freedom of movement between Cascadia and Greater Montana need be any more difficult or cumbersome than movement between the US and Canada is today.

What about potential military conquest of one newly formed country by another? Nuclear-armed states do not get invaded, and there are plenty of American nukes to go around. Nukeless Canada is ripe for the taking now but no one considers American military aggression against it’s northern neighbor a threat. Rightly so, because it isn’t one. And the Greater Plains won’t threaten The Democratic States of California, either.

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

 
Hide 269 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. 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.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    @Achmed E. Newman

    "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.

    Replies: @peterAUS, @JackOH, @Achmed E. Newman

  2. 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!”

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Achmed E. Newman

    "End the hate, separate", has a nice three syllable cadence to it.

  3. 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.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @peterAUS

    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.

    Replies: @Talha

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @peterAUS

    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.

    Last year, New York Magazine did a feature length article on the idea of peaceful secession, one that could hardly be described as hostile. This isn't some fringe neo-confederate plot--it's an idea that will continue to make inroads into American intellectual life.

    Violent insurgency against the government, on the other hand? Probably not even going to crack the 1% mark. It'll poll worse than Eric Swalwell.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  4. 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?

    • Replies: @JR.Ewing.78
    @silviosilver


    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.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @silviosilver

    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.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Thomm

  5. Are you being serious with this?

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

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  7. 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.

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @Talha

    "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.

    , @HallParvey
    @Talha

    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.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Talha

    And unlike the British, the American self-conception is one of freedom and federalism, not colonialism and the crown.

    Replies: @JudgeSmails

  8. 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.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Daniel H

    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.

    , @SunBakedSuburb
    @Daniel H

    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.

    , @Logan
    @Daniel H

    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.

    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    @Daniel H

    Santa Barbara is almost 40% Hispanic.

    , @BengaliCanadianDude
    @Daniel H

    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

    Replies: @silviosilver

  9. 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.

  10. 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?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @freedom-cat


    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.

    Replies: @freedom-cat

    , @L Woods
    @freedom-cat

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

    , @KendraO
    @freedom-cat

    "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."

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

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @The Alarmist

    Why do something so abhorrent?

    Replies: @The Alarmist

  12. 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.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Sick of Orcs

    Then it won't work, because virtually no one is prepared to do something awful like that.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @L Woods, @Sick of Orcs

  13. 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.

  14. “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.

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Jeremiah

    While we see Democrat domination as inevitable, and many of them claim to as well, it's not so clear cut. It's certainly less guaranteed in the short run than many people realize. If Republicans were able to get 67% of the white vote--2 in 3 voters--they'd dominate politics at the national level through the 2030s. Two decades is a long time for blue checkmarks to wait.

    , @peterAUS
    @Jeremiah


    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.
  15. 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.

    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Jason Liu


    It's basically the mentality of middle aged women.
     
    WTF?
    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Jason Liu

    The Catalonia and the Scottish independent movements are both left wing. So is the Kurdish independence movement.

    I don't dispute the general thrust of sentiment, but there are multiple significant exceptions.

    Replies: @Jason Liu

  16. @Talha
    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.

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @HallParvey, @Audacious Epigone

    “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.

  17. 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?

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @MikeatMikedotMike


    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."

    Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike, @Anonymous, @dfordoom

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    WEIRDOs put a lot of moral emphasis on fairness. 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.

    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.

    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.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @MikeatMikedotMike, @L Woods, @iffen

  18. @Talha
    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.

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @HallParvey, @Audacious Epigone

    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.

  19. 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.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Mark G.

    Cutting out the top layer is a start.

  20. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:
    @Daniel H
    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.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @SunBakedSuburb, @Logan, @MikeatMikedotMike, @BengaliCanadianDude

    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.

  21. 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.

    • Replies: @John Gritt
    @Clemsnman

    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.

    , @L Woods
    @Clemsnman


    They hate the military anyway
     
    I can't imagine why -- it's their military now
  22. 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!

  23. @peterAUS
    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.

    Replies: @iffen, @Audacious Epigone

    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.

    • Agree: Talha
    • Replies: @Talha
    @iffen

    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.

    Replies: @iffen, @Audacious Epigone

  24. @iffen
    @peterAUS

    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.

    Replies: @Talha

    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.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Talha

    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.

    Replies: @Talha

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Talha

    If the Scottish independence referendum succeeded--and it will be tried again--does anyone really think there'd be a violent response to keep political independence from Great Britain from happening?

    Replies: @Talha

  25. @Talha
    @iffen

    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.

    Replies: @iffen, @Audacious Epigone

    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.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @iffen

    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.

    Replies: @iffen, @Audacious Epigone

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

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @BengaliCanadianDude


    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.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter, @Audacious Epigone

  27. 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.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    @JackOH


    ....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.
    , @iffen
    @JackOH


    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.

  28. @iffen
    @Talha

    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.

    Replies: @Talha

    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.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Talha

    Mennonites kill??!!

    Muslims, Mormons & Mennonites would kill the ideal.

    Replies: @Talha

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Talha

    Exactly.

    Local elites in flyover country are not the same as coastal uber elites concentrated in NYC, DC, and Silicon Valley.

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @krustykurmudgeon

    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?

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb, @John Gritt

    , @SunBakedSuburb
    @krustykurmudgeon

    "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.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @krustykurmudgeon

    I don't follow him. Belated thanks to 216 for pointing out the tweet used in the body of the post. It simply provided a nice springboard.

    That said, his logic for rejecting it is wanting. Sure, white working- and middle-class flight from California has created a single party in the state, but that's not necessarily scaleable to the entire country. Sans immigration, it's definitely not.

  31. 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.

    • LOL: Rosie
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @John Gritt

    The Republic must keep Oregon and Washington because successful countries must have warm water, deep-water ports.

    Switzerland?

    But I've always had more affinity for the shire than for Minas Tirith.

    , @L Woods
    @John Gritt


    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.
  32. @krustykurmudgeon
    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.
    https://twitter.com/DavidOAtkins/status/1062876144079269893

    Replies: @Mark G., @SunBakedSuburb, @Audacious Epigone

    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?

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    @Mark G.

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

    , @John Gritt
    @Mark G.

    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.

  33. 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?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel


    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.

    Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @Audacious Epigone, @dfordoom, @Jay Fink, @Feryl

    , @John Gritt
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    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.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    , @John Gritt
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    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.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    There are aspects of the Democrat coalition that "plunder" but there are many productive members of the coalition as well. Most of the modern capital structure, in fact, if we want to face reality head on.

    There will be demographic differences between the new countries but nothing like ethnostates. The fraction of people of any race who want that--especially explicitly--is quite small.

    Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

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

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

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

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Fourth Stage

    Just on homosexuality.

  36. 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.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    @James Bowery


    ....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.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    @James Bowery

    This is why Trump rallies continue to scare the powers that be as much as they do. If those tens of thousands of people gathered together ever became aware of the power they possess, collectively, look out.

  37. @silviosilver

    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?

    Replies: @JR.Ewing.78, @Audacious Epigone

    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.

  38. @Daniel H
    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.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @SunBakedSuburb, @Logan, @MikeatMikedotMike, @BengaliCanadianDude

    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.

  39. 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.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    @WorkingClass

    "... the U.S.A. will balkanize."

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

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @WorkingClass

    I've been arguing the same. Great minds!

    Replies: @WorkingClass

    , @dfordoom
    @WorkingClass


    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.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @The Alarmist
    @WorkingClass

    I guess you live in District 13.

  40. @krustykurmudgeon
    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.
    https://twitter.com/DavidOAtkins/status/1062876144079269893

    Replies: @Mark G., @SunBakedSuburb, @Audacious Epigone

    “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.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @SunBakedSuburb


    And remember, Woke Capital is a major if not dominant economic force.
     
    And do you think Woke Capital will be happy to allow secession?

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  41. @WorkingClass
    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.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb, @Audacious Epigone, @dfordoom, @The Alarmist

    “… the U.S.A. will balkanize.”

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

  42. @Mark G.
    @krustykurmudgeon

    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?

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb, @John Gritt

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

  43. @JackOH
    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.

    Replies: @peterAUS, @iffen

    ….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.

  44. @James Bowery
    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.

    Replies: @peterAUS, @Audacious Epigone

    ….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.

  45. 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

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    @95Theses

    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.

    Replies: @95Theses

    , @Sgt. Joe Friday
    @95Theses

    "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.

    , @James Bowery
    @95Theses

    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.

    , @Justvisiting
    @95Theses

    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...

    Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @95Theses, @Mr. Rational

  46. @MikeatMikedotMike
    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?

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Audacious Epigone

    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.”

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    @silviosilver

    "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.

    Replies: @iffen

    , @Anonymous
    @silviosilver


    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.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone, @dfordoom

    , @dfordoom
    @silviosilver


    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?
  47. @Achmed E. Newman
    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.

    Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike

    “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.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    @MikeatMikedotMike


    ...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.

    Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @Audacious Epigone

    , @JackOH
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    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?"

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    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".

    Replies: @Rosie, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Franz

  48. @Daniel H
    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.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @SunBakedSuburb, @Logan, @MikeatMikedotMike, @BengaliCanadianDude

    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.

  49. @Daniel H
    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.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @SunBakedSuburb, @Logan, @MikeatMikedotMike, @BengaliCanadianDude

    Santa Barbara is almost 40% Hispanic.

  50. 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.

  51. @silviosilver
    @MikeatMikedotMike


    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."

    Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike, @Anonymous, @dfordoom

    “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.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    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.

    Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike

  52. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @silviosilver
    @MikeatMikedotMike


    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."

    Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike, @Anonymous, @dfordoom

    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.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Anonymous

    The minimalist Millennial and Zoomer generations don't care much about acquiring a bunch of land. Why do Manhattannites care to fight to ensure they have political control over--or are politically controlled by--farmers in Nebraska?

    , @dfordoom
    @Anonymous


    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?

    Replies: @iffen

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

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @iffen

    No way it will be along racial lines.

  54. @Jason Liu
    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.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Audacious Epigone

    It’s basically the mentality of middle aged women.

    WTF?

  55. @MikeatMikedotMike
    @silviosilver

    "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.

    Replies: @iffen

    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.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    @iffen

    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.

    Replies: @silviosilver

  56. @MikeatMikedotMike
    @Achmed E. Newman

    "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.

    Replies: @peterAUS, @JackOH, @Achmed E. Newman

    …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.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    @peterAUS

    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.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @peterAUS

    There are vast tracts of totally undeveloped land in the US, especially the western half. "White flight" could conceivably go on for centuries before the country would run out of space.

  57. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    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?

    Replies: @Rosie, @John Gritt, @John Gritt, @Audacious Epigone

    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.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    @Rosie

    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.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Rosie

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

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    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.
    , @Jay Fink
    @Rosie

    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.

    , @Feryl
    @Rosie

    The Dissident Right opposes the post-1980 conservative rhetoric that the modern Democrats are "liberal" (experimental), while the modern GOP is the countering "conservative" party (traditional and stabilizing). America was not founded for the purpose of bending the national knee to any foreign country, up to and including Israel. America was not intended to be a police state and an enemy of reason and enlightenment. For 40 years, it's been plainly obvious that the GOP, far from being a force for stability, has instead allowed American politics and culture to be hi-jacked by goofball Israel first fundamentalists and war-mongers. The modern GOP has allowed ignorant fools to bankrupt us and dissolve national sovereignty. That is what the Dissident Right understands.

  58. @peterAUS
    @MikeatMikedotMike


    ...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.

    Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @Audacious Epigone

    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.

  59. @Rosie
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel


    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.

    Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @Audacious Epigone, @dfordoom, @Jay Fink, @Feryl

    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.

    • Agree: Rosie
  60. @Talha
    @iffen

    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.

    Replies: @iffen, @Audacious Epigone

    Mennonites kill??!!

    Muslims, Mormons & Mennonites would kill the ideal.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @iffen

    Ah - OK - got it.

    Peace.

  61. $250 million lawsuit from Covington student against Washington Post dismissed by judge

    Next move is yours, AE.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @iffen

    It sucks, but the family is appealing. It's not over.

  62. @95Theses
    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
     

    Replies: @peterAUS, @Sgt. Joe Friday, @James Bowery, @Justvisiting

    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.

    • Replies: @95Theses
    @peterAUS

    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.

    Replies: @peterAUS

  63. @95Theses
    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
     

    Replies: @peterAUS, @Sgt. Joe Friday, @James Bowery, @Justvisiting

    “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.

  64. @peterAUS
    @95Theses

    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.

    Replies: @95Theses

    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.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    @95Theses


    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.

    Replies: @peterAUS

  65. @95Theses
    @peterAUS

    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.

    Replies: @peterAUS

    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.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    @peterAUS

    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.

  66. 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.

    • Agree: MikeatMikedotMike
  67. @peterAUS
    @95Theses


    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.

    Replies: @peterAUS

    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.

  68. @iffen
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    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.

    Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike

    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.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @MikeatMikedotMike


    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.
  69. @Mark G.
    @krustykurmudgeon

    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?

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb, @John Gritt

    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.

  70. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    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?

    Replies: @Rosie, @John Gritt, @John Gritt, @Audacious Epigone

    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.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @John Gritt

    Audacious prediction: It will happen before 2045. Rumblings will happen long before then.

  71. @Clemsnman
    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.

    Replies: @John Gritt, @L Woods

    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.

  72. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    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?

    Replies: @Rosie, @John Gritt, @John Gritt, @Audacious Epigone

    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.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @John Gritt

    Since they've so thoroughly kicked our asses even without the numbers or resources to do so, we should probably try to get them to see where our interests align and get them on side since we obviously cannot beat them!

    , @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    @John Gritt

    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.

    Replies: @L Woods, @Audacious Epigone

  73. 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.”

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @MikeatMikedotMike


    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!
    , @Dissident
    @MikeatMikedotMike


    “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.”
     
    William Jay died here maintaining his right-of-way. He was right, dead right, as he sped along. But now he's just as dead as if he were wrong.

    Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike

  74. @MikeatMikedotMike
    @iffen

    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.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    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.

  75. @MikeatMikedotMike
    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."

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Dissident

    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!

  76. @MikeatMikedotMike
    @Achmed E. Newman

    "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.

    Replies: @peterAUS, @JackOH, @Achmed E. Newman

    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?”

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  77. L Woods says:

    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.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  78. @MikeatMikedotMike
    @Achmed E. Newman

    "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.

    Replies: @peterAUS, @JackOH, @Achmed E. Newman

    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”.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Achmed E. Newman


    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.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    @Achmed E. Newman

    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.

    , @Franz
    @Achmed E. Newman


    That’s why that war could rightly be called “The War between the States”, rather than “The Civil War”.
     
    Right but it's both too long and a bit pointless now that the entire white race is having its past retro-fitted and erased.

    Many long years ago, a friendly Brit asked if the tag is a point of contention, why not just "Go European" and call it the "War of 1861"?

    As with the Hundred Years War, the Thirty Years War, and so on, it's the old White Man's Way of explaining sometimes enormously complex wars by referencing the time instead of anything else. Using dates saves time.
  79. @Clemsnman
    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.

    Replies: @John Gritt, @L Woods

    They hate the military anyway

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

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

    • Replies: @Thomm
    @Truth


    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.
  81. @Achmed E. Newman
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    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".

    Replies: @Rosie, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Franz

    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.

  82. @Achmed E. Newman
    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!"

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    “End the hate, separate”, has a nice three syllable cadence to it.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  83. @peterAUS
    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.

    Replies: @iffen, @Audacious Epigone

    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.

    Last year, New York Magazine did a feature length article on the idea of peaceful secession, one that could hardly be described as hostile. This isn’t some fringe neo-confederate plot–it’s an idea that will continue to make inroads into American intellectual life.

    Violent insurgency against the government, on the other hand? Probably not even going to crack the 1% mark. It’ll poll worse than Eric Swalwell.

    • Agree: 95Theses
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Audacious Epigone


    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.

    Replies: @iffen

  84. @silviosilver

    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?

    Replies: @JR.Ewing.78, @Audacious Epigone

    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.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Audacious Epigone


    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
    , @Thomm
    @Audacious Epigone


    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.

    Replies: @L Woods, @Malla

  85. @Talha
    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.

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @HallParvey, @Audacious Epigone

    And unlike the British, the American self-conception is one of freedom and federalism, not colonialism and the crown.

    • Replies: @JudgeSmails
    @Audacious Epigone


    And unlike the British, the American self-conception is one of freedom and federalism, not colonialism and the crown.
     
    Well, it was freedom and federalism. Now, not so much for so many.
  86. @Audacious Epigone
    @silviosilver

    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.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Thomm

    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

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

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Why do something so abhorrent?

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    @Audacious Epigone

    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.

  88. @Sick of Orcs
    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.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Then it won’t work, because virtually no one is prepared to do something awful like that.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @Audacious Epigone


    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.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    , @L Woods
    @Audacious Epigone

    Behold, natural selection at work.

    , @Sick of Orcs
    @Audacious Epigone

    When did protecting one's citizens and punishing evildoers become "afwul?"

    Replies: @brandybranch

  89. @Jeremiah
    "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.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone, @peterAUS

    While we see Democrat domination as inevitable, and many of them claim to as well, it’s not so clear cut. It’s certainly less guaranteed in the short run than many people realize. If Republicans were able to get 67% of the white vote–2 in 3 voters–they’d dominate politics at the national level through the 2030s. Two decades is a long time for blue checkmarks to wait.

  90. @Jason Liu
    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.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Audacious Epigone

    The Catalonia and the Scottish independent movements are both left wing. So is the Kurdish independence movement.

    I don’t dispute the general thrust of sentiment, but there are multiple significant exceptions.

    • Replies: @Jason Liu
    @Audacious Epigone

    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.

  91. 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.)

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    @SafeNow


    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.
  92. @MikeatMikedotMike
    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?

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Audacious Epigone

    WEIRDOs put a lot of moral emphasis on fairness. 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.

    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.

    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.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @Audacious Epigone


    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.)

    Replies: @Rosie, @Audacious Epigone

    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    @Audacious Epigone

    "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.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    , @L Woods
    @Audacious Epigone


    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.
    , @iffen
    @Audacious Epigone

    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.

  93. @Mark G.
    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.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Cutting out the top layer is a start.

  94. @Talha
    @iffen

    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.

    Replies: @iffen, @Audacious Epigone

    If the Scottish independence referendum succeeded–and it will be tried again–does anyone really think there’d be a violent response to keep political independence from Great Britain from happening?

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Audacious Epigone

    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.

  95. @Talha
    @iffen

    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.

    Replies: @iffen, @Audacious Epigone

    Exactly.

    Local elites in flyover country are not the same as coastal uber elites concentrated in NYC, DC, and Silicon Valley.

    • Agree: Talha
  96. @krustykurmudgeon
    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.
    https://twitter.com/DavidOAtkins/status/1062876144079269893

    Replies: @Mark G., @SunBakedSuburb, @Audacious Epigone

    I don’t follow him. Belated thanks to 216 for pointing out the tweet used in the body of the post. It simply provided a nice springboard.

    That said, his logic for rejecting it is wanting. Sure, white working- and middle-class flight from California has created a single party in the state, but that’s not necessarily scaleable to the entire country. Sans immigration, it’s definitely not.

  97. @John Gritt
    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.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone, @L Woods

    The Republic must keep Oregon and Washington because successful countries must have warm water, deep-water ports.

    Switzerland?

    But I’ve always had more affinity for the shire than for Minas Tirith.

  98. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    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?

    Replies: @Rosie, @John Gritt, @John Gritt, @Audacious Epigone

    There are aspects of the Democrat coalition that “plunder” but there are many productive members of the coalition as well. Most of the modern capital structure, in fact, if we want to face reality head on.

    There will be demographic differences between the new countries but nothing like ethnostates. The fraction of people of any race who want that–especially explicitly–is quite small.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    @Audacious Epigone

    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.

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

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  100. @James Bowery
    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.

    Replies: @peterAUS, @Audacious Epigone

    This is why Trump rallies continue to scare the powers that be as much as they do. If those tens of thousands of people gathered together ever became aware of the power they possess, collectively, look out.

  101. @WorkingClass
    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.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb, @Audacious Epigone, @dfordoom, @The Alarmist

    I’ve been arguing the same. Great minds!

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    @Audacious Epigone

    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".

  102. @95Theses
    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
     

    Replies: @peterAUS, @Sgt. Joe Friday, @James Bowery, @Justvisiting

    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.

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

    Replies: @Thomm

    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.

  104. @Anonymous
    @silviosilver


    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.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone, @dfordoom

    The minimalist Millennial and Zoomer generations don’t care much about acquiring a bunch of land. Why do Manhattannites care to fight to ensure they have political control over–or are politically controlled by–farmers in Nebraska?

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

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    No way it will be along racial lines.

  106. @Audacious Epigone
    @silviosilver

    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.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Thomm

    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.

    • Agree: BengaliCanadianDude
    • Replies: @L Woods
    @Thomm

    “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.’

    , @Malla
    @Thomm


    WN comprises largely of the bottom quintile of white men. Their female counterparts are the fat bluehaired feminists.
     
    You seem to be describing Leftards and anti-fa.
  107. @peterAUS
    @MikeatMikedotMike


    ...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.

    Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @Audacious Epigone

    There are vast tracts of totally undeveloped land in the US, especially the western half. “White flight” could conceivably go on for centuries before the country would run out of space.

  108. @Rosie
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel


    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.

    Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @Audacious Epigone, @dfordoom, @Jay Fink, @Feryl

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

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Audacious Epigone


    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.
  109. @iffen
    $250 million lawsuit from Covington student against Washington Post dismissed by judge

    Next move is yours, AE.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    It sucks, but the family is appealing. It’s not over.

  110. @John Gritt
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    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.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Audacious prediction: It will happen before 2045. Rumblings will happen long before then.

  111. @Audacious Epigone
    @Rosie

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

    Replies: @Rosie

    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.

  112. @John Gritt
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    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.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    Since they’ve so thoroughly kicked our asses even without the numbers or resources to do so, we should probably try to get them to see where our interests align and get them on side since we obviously cannot beat them!

  113. @Jeremiah
    "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.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone, @peterAUS

    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.

  114. @SafeNow
    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.)

    Replies: @peterAUS

    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.

  115. 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?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @peterAUS

    The Reuters Poll found that a staggering 47% of military personnel favored secession.

    If dissolution is democratically enacted, there will be no military effort to stop it.

    Replies: @L Woods

  116. 3356267

    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.

  117. @iffen
    @Talha

    Mennonites kill??!!

    Muslims, Mormons & Mennonites would kill the ideal.

    Replies: @Talha

    Ah – OK – got it.

    Peace.

  118. @Daniel H
    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.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @SunBakedSuburb, @Logan, @MikeatMikedotMike, @BengaliCanadianDude

    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

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @BengaliCanadianDude

    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.

    Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude

  119. @Audacious Epigone
    @Jason Liu

    The Catalonia and the Scottish independent movements are both left wing. So is the Kurdish independence movement.

    I don't dispute the general thrust of sentiment, but there are multiple significant exceptions.

    Replies: @Jason Liu

    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.

  120. @BengaliCanadianDude
    @Daniel H

    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

    Replies: @silviosilver

    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.

    • Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude
    @silviosilver

    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.

  121. @Audacious Epigone
    @Talha

    If the Scottish independence referendum succeeded--and it will be tried again--does anyone really think there'd be a violent response to keep political independence from Great Britain from happening?

    Replies: @Talha

    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.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  122. @BengaliCanadianDude
    David is not wrong, however. And is this secession movement truly being considered? Golly..

    Replies: @dfordoom

    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.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    @dfordoom

    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.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    There was a Reuters-Ipsos poll commissioned five years ago that found 25% support for "your state peacefully seceding from the federal government". New York Magazine has written about it recently. When the impending currency crisis hits, the floodgates will open and everyone will be forced to think about it.

    Replies: @jeppo

  123. @dfordoom
    @BengaliCanadianDude


    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.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter, @Audacious Epigone

    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.

  124. @WorkingClass
    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.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb, @Audacious Epigone, @dfordoom, @The Alarmist

    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.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    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.

    Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom

  125. @SunBakedSuburb
    @krustykurmudgeon

    "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.

    Replies: @dfordoom

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

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

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    They'll manage it just like they manage everything else. More labor law options to take advantage of, etc.

  126. @silviosilver
    @MikeatMikedotMike


    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."

    Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike, @Anonymous, @dfordoom

    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?

  127. @Anonymous
    @silviosilver


    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.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone, @dfordoom

    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?

    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom

    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.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  128. @Rosie
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel


    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.

    Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @Audacious Epigone, @dfordoom, @Jay Fink, @Feryl

    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.

    • Agree: iffen
  129. @Audacious Epigone
    @peterAUS

    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.

    Last year, New York Magazine did a feature length article on the idea of peaceful secession, one that could hardly be described as hostile. This isn't some fringe neo-confederate plot--it's an idea that will continue to make inroads into American intellectual life.

    Violent insurgency against the government, on the other hand? Probably not even going to crack the 1% mark. It'll poll worse than Eric Swalwell.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    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.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom

    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.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  130. @Audacious Epigone
    @The Alarmist

    Why do something so abhorrent?

    Replies: @The Alarmist

    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.

  131. @Audacious Epigone
    @WorkingClass

    I've been arguing the same. Great minds!

    Replies: @WorkingClass

    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”.

  132. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:

    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?

  133. @dfordoom
    @WorkingClass


    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.

    Replies: @Rosie

    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.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Rosie


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

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    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.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Mr. Rational, @Feryl

  134. @Audacious Epigone
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    WEIRDOs put a lot of moral emphasis on fairness. 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.

    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.

    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.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @MikeatMikedotMike, @L Woods, @iffen

    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.)

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Mr. Rational


    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
    @Mr. Rational

    Comments are disabled for every news video about the attack, of course.

    Replies: @95Theses, @Mr. Rational

  135. @dfordoom
    @Anonymous


    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?

    Replies: @iffen

    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.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @iffen



    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.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  136. @Mr. Rational
    @Audacious Epigone


    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.)

    Replies: @Rosie, @Audacious Epigone

    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.

  137. @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    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.

    Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom

    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.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @iffen


    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.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone, @iffen

  138. @JackOH
    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.

    Replies: @peterAUS, @iffen

    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.

  139. @dfordoom
    @Audacious Epigone


    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.

    Replies: @iffen

    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.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @iffen



    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.

    Replies: @iffen

  140. @iffen
    @Rosie


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

    Replies: @Rosie

    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.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Rosie

    That's a false dichotomy and you know it!

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @iffen
    @Rosie

    uniting against the Matriarchy?

    I thought that you were an animal lover. Why are you slamming elephants?

  141. @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    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.

    Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom

    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.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    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.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Mr. Rational
    @dfordoom


    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.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Feryl
    @dfordoom


    And wealthy whites like having non-whites as nannies, gardeners, etc. If immigration were to be stopped servants would become ridiculously expensive.
     
    Adam Carolla has a good rant about virtue signalling elites using immigrants as a feel-good prop. "You see, Jose and Maria would be eating dirt in Mexico if we didn't bring them to America to work as our servants". They don't understand, or don't care, that it's bankrupting America and hammering wages for mid-low class workers.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  142. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    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.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    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.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    Trump has access to the red button now and that is hardly the most pressing issue in the minds of those afflicted with TDS.

    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.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  143. @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    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.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Mr. Rational, @Feryl

    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.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    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.
  144. @Achmed E. Newman
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    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".

    Replies: @Rosie, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Franz

    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.

  145. @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    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.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Mr. Rational, @Feryl

    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.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Mr. Rational


    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.
  146. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    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.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    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.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom

    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. :)

  147. @Audacious Epigone
    @Sick of Orcs

    Then it won't work, because virtually no one is prepared to do something awful like that.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @L Woods, @Sick of Orcs

    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.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Mr. Rational

    It's also a good way to have civic unrest against the government that literally shut the country down. Doing something like that would require martial law. That takes us well into the world of fantasy.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

  148. @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    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.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    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.

  149. @Mr. Rational
    @dfordoom


    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.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    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.

  150. @Audacious Epigone
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    WEIRDOs put a lot of moral emphasis on fairness. 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.

    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.

    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.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @MikeatMikedotMike, @L Woods, @iffen

    “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.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    WEIRDO = Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic, outbred. It's a phrase popularized by Jonathan Haidt--the WEIRD part, that is, I added the O.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Replies: @L Woods, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Mr. Rational

  151. @WorkingClass
    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.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb, @Audacious Epigone, @dfordoom, @The Alarmist

    I guess you live in District 13.

  152. 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.

  153. @Audacious Epigone
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    There are aspects of the Democrat coalition that "plunder" but there are many productive members of the coalition as well. Most of the modern capital structure, in fact, if we want to face reality head on.

    There will be demographic differences between the new countries but nothing like ethnostates. The fraction of people of any race who want that--especially explicitly--is quite small.

    Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    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.

  154. @Audacious Epigone
    @Sick of Orcs

    Then it won't work, because virtually no one is prepared to do something awful like that.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @L Woods, @Sick of Orcs

    Behold, natural selection at work.

  155. L Woods says:
    @Audacious Epigone
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    WEIRDOs put a lot of moral emphasis on fairness. 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.

    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.

    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.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @MikeatMikedotMike, @L Woods, @iffen

    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.

  156. @John Gritt
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    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.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    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.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel


    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.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    Those living in the US could just become American nationalists with well wishes for their cousins across the sea, kind of like my relationship--as an American of English descent--with Britons today.

    I'm a quixotic dreamer, I know, I know.

    Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

  157. @Audacious Epigone
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    WEIRDOs put a lot of moral emphasis on fairness. 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.

    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.

    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.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @MikeatMikedotMike, @L Woods, @iffen

    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.

  158. L Woods says:
    @John Gritt
    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.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone, @L Woods

    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.

  159. @dfordoom
    @iffen



    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.

    Replies: @iffen

    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. 🙂

  160. L Woods says:

    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.

  161. L Woods says:
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    @John Gritt

    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.

    Replies: @L Woods, @Audacious Epigone

    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.

  162. @peterAUS
    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?

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    The Reuters Poll found that a staggering 47% of military personnel favored secession.

    If dissolution is democratically enacted, there will be no military effort to stop it.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    @Audacious Epigone

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

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  163. @dfordoom
    @BengaliCanadianDude


    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.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter, @Audacious Epigone

    There was a Reuters-Ipsos poll commissioned five years ago that found 25% support for “your state peacefully seceding from the federal government”. New York Magazine has written about it recently. When the impending currency crisis hits, the floodgates will open and everyone will be forced to think about it.

    • Replies: @jeppo
    @Audacious Epigone

    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

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  164. @dfordoom
    @SunBakedSuburb


    And remember, Woke Capital is a major if not dominant economic force.
     
    And do you think Woke Capital will be happy to allow secession?

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    They’ll manage it just like they manage everything else. More labor law options to take advantage of, etc.

  165. @Mr. Rational
    @Audacious Epigone


    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.)

    Replies: @Rosie, @Audacious Epigone

    Comments are disabled for every news video about the attack, of course.

    • Replies: @95Theses
    @Audacious Epigone

    That's just a coincidence.

    , @Mr. Rational
    @Audacious Epigone

    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.

  166. @Rosie
    @iffen


    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.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone, @iffen

    That’s a false dichotomy and you know it!

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Audacious Epigone


    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.
  167. @dfordoom
    @iffen



    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.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Trump has access to the red button now and that is hardly the most pressing issue in the minds of those afflicted with TDS.

    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.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Audacious Epigone


    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.

    Replies: @L Woods, @Audacious Epigone

  168. @Mr. Rational
    @Audacious Epigone


    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.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    It’s also a good way to have civic unrest against the government that literally shut the country down. Doing something like that would require martial law. That takes us well into the world of fantasy.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @Audacious Epigone


    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.
  169. @MikeatMikedotMike
    @Audacious Epigone

    "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.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    WEIRDO = Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic, outbred. It’s a phrase popularized by Jonathan Haidt–the WEIRD part, that is, I added the O.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    @Audacious Epigone

    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.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    @Audacious Epigone

    "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.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Mr. Rational
    @Audacious Epigone


    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.
  170. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    @John Gritt

    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.

    Replies: @L Woods, @Audacious Epigone

    Those living in the US could just become American nationalists with well wishes for their cousins across the sea, kind of like my relationship–as an American of English descent–with Britons today.

    I’m a quixotic dreamer, I know, I know.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    @Audacious Epigone

    That would definitely be the ideal.

  171. @95Theses
    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
     

    Replies: @peterAUS, @Sgt. Joe Friday, @James Bowery, @Justvisiting

    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…

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    @Justvisiting

    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.

    , @95Theses
    @Justvisiting

    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.

    Replies: @peterAUS, @dfordoom

    , @Mr. Rational
    @Justvisiting


    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.
  172. 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.

    • Agree: Talha, Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    @iffen

    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. :-(

  173. @Audacious Epigone
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    Those living in the US could just become American nationalists with well wishes for their cousins across the sea, kind of like my relationship--as an American of English descent--with Britons today.

    I'm a quixotic dreamer, I know, I know.

    Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    That would definitely be the ideal.

  174. 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.

  175. @Justvisiting
    @95Theses

    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...

    Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @95Theses, @Mr. Rational

    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.

  176. @Audacious Epigone
    @peterAUS

    The Reuters Poll found that a staggering 47% of military personnel favored secession.

    If dissolution is democratically enacted, there will be no military effort to stop it.

    Replies: @L Woods

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

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @L Woods

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

    Replies: @dfordoom

  177. @Audacious Epigone
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    WEIRDO = Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic, outbred. It's a phrase popularized by Jonathan Haidt--the WEIRD part, that is, I added the O.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Replies: @L Woods, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Mr. Rational

    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.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @L Woods


    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.
  178. @iffen
    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.

    Replies: @Justvisiting

    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. 🙁

  179. @freedom-cat
    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?

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @L Woods, @KendraO

    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.

    • Replies: @freedom-cat
    @Achmed E. Newman

    200 years of experience with what? At least the last 100 years have been controlled by a foreign interest. What was "arguably" so great? The only thing nice about USA is you can still blather on about anything you want without a prison term attached.

  180. @freedom-cat
    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?

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @L Woods, @KendraO

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

  181. @silviosilver
    @BengaliCanadianDude

    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.

    Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude

    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.

  182. @Audacious Epigone
    @Rosie

    That's a false dichotomy and you know it!

    Replies: @Rosie

    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.

  183. @L Woods
    @Audacious Epigone

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

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

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

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Audacious Epigone


    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.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  184. @Audacious Epigone
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    WEIRDO = Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic, outbred. It's a phrase popularized by Jonathan Haidt--the WEIRD part, that is, I added the O.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Replies: @L Woods, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Mr. Rational

    “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.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @MikeatMikedotMike


    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.

    And then when the media really gets going explaining to people that separation is a fascist plot that support will drop even further.

    Then tell people that their newly separated state is certain to be hit with savage economic sanctions and see how much support is left.
  185. @Thomm
    @Audacious Epigone


    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.

    Replies: @L Woods, @Malla

    “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.’

  186. 3357424

    “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.

    • Replies: @Thomm
    @L Woods

    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.

    Replies: @95Theses, @Rosie, @L Woods, @Anon

  187. @Justvisiting
    @95Theses

    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...

    Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @95Theses, @Mr. Rational

    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.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    @95Theses


    ...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?

    Replies: @L Woods, @dfordoom, @peterAUS

    , @dfordoom
    @95Theses


    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.
     
    It might be worth pointing out that most of those who will comprise the Red regions have shown zero signs of having the character and stamina to engage in battle even when it's a purely political battle with no chance of getting shot at.

    In political fights they've proved themselves to be a helpless rabble. You think they're going to do better in a shooting war?

    Replies: @iffen, @L Woods, @Audacious Epigone, @Feryl

  188. @Audacious Epigone
    @Mr. Rational

    Comments are disabled for every news video about the attack, of course.

    Replies: @95Theses, @Mr. Rational

    That’s just a coincidence.

  189. @95Theses
    @Justvisiting

    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.

    Replies: @peterAUS, @dfordoom

    …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?

    • Replies: @L Woods
    @peterAUS

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

    , @dfordoom
    @peterAUS


    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.
     
    Yep.

    Decapitating any leadership that emerges for any movement that the government decides is a threat is easier than ever before. And there's no need for the government to worry about public opinion because the media controls public opinion and secondly because how could anyone object to the arrest of dangerous Nazi traitors?

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    , @peterAUS
    @peterAUS


    ....If it does, well, any thoughts/ideas?
     
    Two guys chimmed in with....interesting....angle(s).

    Nobody mentioned, tentatively/carefully at least, a couple of possible options/scenarios.

    Oh my.

    Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike

  190. @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    There was a Reuters-Ipsos poll commissioned five years ago that found 25% support for "your state peacefully seceding from the federal government". New York Magazine has written about it recently. When the impending currency crisis hits, the floodgates will open and everyone will be forced to think about it.

    Replies: @jeppo

    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

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @jeppo

    Your comments should all auto-approve immediately now.

    Replies: @jeppo

  191. @Rosie
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel


    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.

    Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @Audacious Epigone, @dfordoom, @Jay Fink, @Feryl

    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.

  192. @Audacious Epigone
    @Sick of Orcs

    Then it won't work, because virtually no one is prepared to do something awful like that.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @L Woods, @Sick of Orcs

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

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @brandybranch
    @Sick of Orcs

    exactly. i have no problem with "awful" in that context.

  193. @jeppo
    @Audacious Epigone

    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

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Your comments should all auto-approve immediately now.

    • Replies: @jeppo
    @Audacious Epigone

    Thanks.

  194. @Audacious Epigone
    @jeppo

    Your comments should all auto-approve immediately now.

    Replies: @jeppo

    Thanks.

  195. @peterAUS
    @95Theses


    ...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?

    Replies: @L Woods, @dfordoom, @peterAUS

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

  196. 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.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Bliss

    Most farmers are rural whites but most rural whites are not farmers.

  197. @Audacious Epigone
    @Mr. Rational

    It's also a good way to have civic unrest against the government that literally shut the country down. Doing something like that would require martial law. That takes us well into the world of fantasy.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    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.

  198. @Audacious Epigone
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    WEIRDO = Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic, outbred. It's a phrase popularized by Jonathan Haidt--the WEIRD part, that is, I added the O.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Replies: @L Woods, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Mr. Rational

    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.

  199. @Justvisiting
    @95Theses

    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...

    Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @95Theses, @Mr. Rational

    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.

  200. @Audacious Epigone
    @Mr. Rational

    Comments are disabled for every news video about the attack, of course.

    Replies: @95Theses, @Mr. Rational

    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.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  201. @L Woods
    “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.

    Replies: @Thomm

    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.

    • Replies: @95Theses
    @Thomm

    What is WN? That's new to me.

    Replies: @Thomm

    , @Rosie
    @Thomm


    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."

    Replies: @Thomm

    , @L Woods
    @Thomm

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

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @Anon
    @Thomm

    You are irretrievably stupid (and thus wrong) to the point that you are a waste of time and energy arguing with. You can't even correctly articulate political definitions. That you don't know it enough to shut up and not remind the world of it every time that you type makes that painful for the wider community with which you are attempting to communicate.

    Stop trying to ape intelligence and stop making a fool of yourself, monkey. Just be gone.

  202. @Thomm
    @L Woods

    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.

    Replies: @95Theses, @Rosie, @L Woods, @Anon

    What is WN? That’s new to me.

    • Replies: @Thomm
    @95Theses

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

    Colloquially, the portmanteau 'White Trashionalism' is widely used.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  203. @95Theses
    @Thomm

    What is WN? That's new to me.

    Replies: @Thomm

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

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

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Thomm

    Facebook can pretend white nationalism and neo-nazism are synonymous, but let's aim the discussion a little higher here.

    Replies: @Thomm

  204. @Thomm
    @L Woods

    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.

    Replies: @95Theses, @Rosie, @L Woods, @Anon

    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.”

    • Replies: @Thomm
    @Rosie

    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

  205. @Thomm
    @L Woods

    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.

    Replies: @95Theses, @Rosie, @L Woods, @Anon

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

    • Agree: Thomm
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @L Woods


    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.

  206. @L Woods
    @Thomm

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

    Replies: @Rosie

    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.

  207. @Rosie
    @Thomm


    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."

    Replies: @Thomm

    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

  208. @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    Trump has access to the red button now and that is hardly the most pressing issue in the minds of those afflicted with TDS.

    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.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    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.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    @dfordoom

    And this will be all it takes to get the military on board with crushing it, as well.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    Everything the Republican party attempts to do is increasingly referred to as white supremacy/nazism, though.

  209. @L Woods
    @Audacious Epigone

    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.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    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.

  210. @Audacious Epigone
    @L Woods

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

    Replies: @dfordoom

    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.

    • Agree: L Woods
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    If majorities in several states vote to peacefully secede, it'll be hard to convince American soldiers that all Texans and Sooners are nazis who need to be killed.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  211. @MikeatMikedotMike
    @Audacious Epigone

    "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.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    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.

    And then when the media really gets going explaining to people that separation is a fascist plot that support will drop even further.

    Then tell people that their newly separated state is certain to be hit with savage economic sanctions and see how much support is left.

  212. @95Theses
    @Justvisiting

    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.

    Replies: @peterAUS, @dfordoom

    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.

    It might be worth pointing out that most of those who will comprise the Red regions have shown zero signs of having the character and stamina to engage in battle even when it’s a purely political battle with no chance of getting shot at.

    In political fights they’ve proved themselves to be a helpless rabble. You think they’re going to do better in a shooting war?

    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom

    You certainly live up to the doom part.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @L Woods
    @dfordoom

    Sadly all too true. Worse than a "helpless rabble," they've proven themselves to be simple moral cowards, too addicted to the warm glow of social approval to rock the boat.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    There's also little appetite for engaging in actual violence on the left now with all the rhetoric flying around. Yes, there are some street larpers, but it's very small number, much smaller than in the 60s and 70s. And with dissolution, the attitude of a sizable number will be "good riddance!"

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Feryl, @Feryl

    , @Feryl
    @dfordoom

    Hey man, don't you dare point out that the Reaganite Right allowed American to culturally and socially dissolve via their decision to create a New Gilded Age (the 1990's were the point at which this became clear, but the Reagan loving frauds claim they "rescued" America from stagflation and Jimmy Carter, even though the Reaganites began to aggressively debauch our economic and foreign policy in the 80's) after 1980. First it was the "conservatives" debauching economic policy in the 80's, then it was onto liberals openly beginning to undermine every single piece of cultural tradition in the 90's. Much like how the neo-lib Left never really tried to bring back the New Deal's econ. policies, neither has the neo-lib Right ever fought all that hard to protect cultural tradition and stability, save for token action on abortion.

    The key trait of the neo-lib era is that both sides aggressively promote that which they are the worst at (conservatives and their economic Darwinism, liberals and their goofball cultural experiments) while forgetting what they once did well (liberal economic fairness, conservative cultural stability).

    It can't be said enough times that the New Deal era was economically liberal, and culturally conservative. The cuck/neo-lib Right has been aggressively in denial about their failure to protect the culture during the post-Reagan era, generally preferring to blame it on a Left-wing boogeyman which is supposed to be implacable (meanwhile, middle-aged Americans were very disapproving of drugs and homosexuality in the 70's and 80's, the very time that the "libertarians" and their Boomer acolytes were gradually "prepping"America to enter a New Age of economic (and eventually, behavioral) freedom even as our intellectual freedom would be gradually undermined by the rising force of Stalinist thought policers in business, government, media, and academia.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  213. @peterAUS
    @95Theses


    ...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?

    Replies: @L Woods, @dfordoom, @peterAUS

    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.

    Yep.

    Decapitating any leadership that emerges for any movement that the government decides is a threat is easier than ever before. And there’s no need for the government to worry about public opinion because the media controls public opinion and secondly because how could anyone object to the arrest of dangerous Nazi traitors?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    They can't even figure out a way to get rid of Trump. You're giving the 'deep state' way too much credit. It's comprised of mediocrities.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  214. @dfordoom
    @Audacious Epigone


    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.

    Replies: @L Woods, @Audacious Epigone

    And this will be all it takes to get the military on board with crushing it, as well.

  215. @Achmed E. Newman
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    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".

    Replies: @Rosie, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Franz

    That’s why that war could rightly be called “The War between the States”, rather than “The Civil War”.

    Right but it’s both too long and a bit pointless now that the entire white race is having its past retro-fitted and erased.

    Many long years ago, a friendly Brit asked if the tag is a point of contention, why not just “Go European” and call it the “War of 1861”?

    As with the Hundred Years War, the Thirty Years War, and so on, it’s the old White Man’s Way of explaining sometimes enormously complex wars by referencing the time instead of anything else. Using dates saves time.

  216. @Rosie
    @iffen


    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.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone, @iffen

    uniting against the Matriarchy?

    I thought that you were an animal lover. Why are you slamming elephants?

    • LOL: Rosie
  217. @dfordoom
    @95Theses


    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.
     
    It might be worth pointing out that most of those who will comprise the Red regions have shown zero signs of having the character and stamina to engage in battle even when it's a purely political battle with no chance of getting shot at.

    In political fights they've proved themselves to be a helpless rabble. You think they're going to do better in a shooting war?

    Replies: @iffen, @L Woods, @Audacious Epigone, @Feryl

    You certainly live up to the doom part.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @iffen


    You certainly live up to the doom part.
     
    Looking at reality will do that for you. That's why most people cling tenaciously to fantasy.

    The trouble with clinging to fantasy is that fantasising doesn't change anything.

    If Unz Review had existed in the 1770s the would-be American revolutionaries would not have bothered organising an actual revolution. They would have posted lengthy articles that would have started, "Let's assume that the British just give up their North American colonies. Now we can talk about all the awesome things we're gonna do now that the British have gone."

    In 1910 Lenin would have been posting articles starting, "Let's assume that the Tsarist regime has disappeared. Now we can talk about what we'll do next."

    In the 1930s Mao's articles here would have started, "Let's assume that the Chinese Communist Party controls the whole country. Now we can plan our next steps."

    Luckily for those would-be revolutionaries there was no internet then, so instead they settled down to the awesomely difficult task of actually gaining power.

    Replies: @L Woods, @Audacious Epigone

  218. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    You certainly live up to the doom part.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    You certainly live up to the doom part.

    Looking at reality will do that for you. That’s why most people cling tenaciously to fantasy.

    The trouble with clinging to fantasy is that fantasising doesn’t change anything.

    If Unz Review had existed in the 1770s the would-be American revolutionaries would not have bothered organising an actual revolution. They would have posted lengthy articles that would have started, “Let’s assume that the British just give up their North American colonies. Now we can talk about all the awesome things we’re gonna do now that the British have gone.”

    In 1910 Lenin would have been posting articles starting, “Let’s assume that the Tsarist regime has disappeared. Now we can talk about what we’ll do next.”

    In the 1930s Mao’s articles here would have started, “Let’s assume that the Chinese Communist Party controls the whole country. Now we can plan our next steps.”

    Luckily for those would-be revolutionaries there was no internet then, so instead they settled down to the awesomely difficult task of actually gaining power.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    @dfordoom

    Yes, I've very often been criticized over the course of my life for my "negativity." But, as you suggest, "negativity" serves an important purpose. Mandatory optimism is the credo of dumb, helpless cattle.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    Because writing--like Marx and Schmitt did--had no influence on anything!

  219. the awesomely difficult task of actually gaining power.

    I have begun to question this objective. Certainly the seizure of power by Lenin and Mao degenerated into mass murder and coercion. Now “our democracy” seems to be on its last legs. As you pointed out, should we be able to defeat the Borg and place the power of the state in service for the benefit of working people and the majority, it would merely be a reset with the seeds of degeneracy contained within and the clock would start ticking. I don’t think people have the capability of sustaining it. The hyper-individualist that connects to the empire power is not a good model. In fact, it is little different from the commie and fascist model whereby the individual’s purpose and being is to serve the state.

    I’m coming around to the little platoon and local group power model as the way to sustain a complex modern society.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @iffen


    As you pointed out, should we be able to defeat the Borg and place the power of the state in service for the benefit of working people and the majority, it would merely be a reset with the seeds of degeneracy contained within and the clock would start ticking.
     
    It's a problem. I'm not sure how you can stop the descent into degeneracy. Or the descent into some kind of tyranny. I have a feeling that capitalism and the prosperity it brings, combined with urbanisation, inevitably leads to consumerism and hedonism which leads inevitably to nihilism and decadence and degeneracy.

    How to avoid this? Hitler's idea was that after conquering the east Germany would turn its back on industrialisation and urbanisation and Germans would live simple frugal virtuous lives in an idyllic rural world of small family farms. Like most of Hitler's ideas it could only have been brought about by coercion (and of course by the mass murder and/or enslavement of the existing populations of the east). The only way Germans would have been persuaded to embrace such a future was at the point of a gun. And it would have required the forcible destruction of cities, which Hitler hated.

    I guess Pol Pot's idea was rather similar - Year Zero would be achieved by killing everybody likely to be an obstacle. Environmentalists are prone to similar daydreams but they tend not to mention that their eco-friendly sustainable utopias could only be achieved by first liquidating most of the population.

    Utopias are a bit like that.

    Maybe the Chinese can pull it off by keeping capitalism under strict control and by avoiding democracy. Good luck to them if they can do it.

    I’m coming around to the little platoon and local group power model as the way to sustain a complex modern society.
     
    A fine idea, if there was a chance of being allowed to do it.

    I'm sceptical as to whether any long-term functional society can be achieved without a measure of authoritarianism. Maybe there's a way of decentralising that authoritarianism. Authoritarianism tends to be nasty on a large scale, not so bad on a small local scale.

    Or (just throwing wild ideas around here) maybe some kind of neo-feudalism, if a way could be found to achieve a kind of benevolent paternalistic neo-feudalism. Feudalism sounds quite attractive in theory, but then everything sounds quite attractive in theory.

    Replies: @iffen, @iffen, @Feryl

  220. @iffen
    the awesomely difficult task of actually gaining power.

    I have begun to question this objective. Certainly the seizure of power by Lenin and Mao degenerated into mass murder and coercion. Now "our democracy" seems to be on its last legs. As you pointed out, should we be able to defeat the Borg and place the power of the state in service for the benefit of working people and the majority, it would merely be a reset with the seeds of degeneracy contained within and the clock would start ticking. I don't think people have the capability of sustaining it. The hyper-individualist that connects to the empire power is not a good model. In fact, it is little different from the commie and fascist model whereby the individual's purpose and being is to serve the state.

    I'm coming around to the little platoon and local group power model as the way to sustain a complex modern society.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    As you pointed out, should we be able to defeat the Borg and place the power of the state in service for the benefit of working people and the majority, it would merely be a reset with the seeds of degeneracy contained within and the clock would start ticking.

    It’s a problem. I’m not sure how you can stop the descent into degeneracy. Or the descent into some kind of tyranny. I have a feeling that capitalism and the prosperity it brings, combined with urbanisation, inevitably leads to consumerism and hedonism which leads inevitably to nihilism and decadence and degeneracy.

    How to avoid this? Hitler’s idea was that after conquering the east Germany would turn its back on industrialisation and urbanisation and Germans would live simple frugal virtuous lives in an idyllic rural world of small family farms. Like most of Hitler’s ideas it could only have been brought about by coercion (and of course by the mass murder and/or enslavement of the existing populations of the east). The only way Germans would have been persuaded to embrace such a future was at the point of a gun. And it would have required the forcible destruction of cities, which Hitler hated.

    I guess Pol Pot’s idea was rather similar – Year Zero would be achieved by killing everybody likely to be an obstacle. Environmentalists are prone to similar daydreams but they tend not to mention that their eco-friendly sustainable utopias could only be achieved by first liquidating most of the population.

    Utopias are a bit like that.

    Maybe the Chinese can pull it off by keeping capitalism under strict control and by avoiding democracy. Good luck to them if they can do it.

    I’m coming around to the little platoon and local group power model as the way to sustain a complex modern society.

    A fine idea, if there was a chance of being allowed to do it.

    I’m sceptical as to whether any long-term functional society can be achieved without a measure of authoritarianism. Maybe there’s a way of decentralising that authoritarianism. Authoritarianism tends to be nasty on a large scale, not so bad on a small local scale.

    Or (just throwing wild ideas around here) maybe some kind of neo-feudalism, if a way could be found to achieve a kind of benevolent paternalistic neo-feudalism. Feudalism sounds quite attractive in theory, but then everything sounds quite attractive in theory.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom

    Hitler’s idea was that after conquering the east Germany would turn its back on industrialisation and urbanisation and Germans would live simple frugal virtuous lives in an idyllic rural world of small family farms.

    Thomas J. reincarnated.

    , @iffen
    @dfordoom

    Maybe there’s a way of decentralising that authoritarianism. Authoritarianism tends to be nasty on a large scale, not so bad on a small local scale.

    All power has been swallowed up by the Borg. The individual stands alone against the elite. This is not hierarchy anymore. There are no layers in between the individual and the elite clique. All alternative power centers have atrophied or been gutted, whether family, community, religion, fraternal organizations, local government, state government, academia, "free" press (ha), etc. All of our eggs are in one basket. If the basket makes a wrong move, we will all go down. Another way to look at it is to view the country as an organism. Organisms need variation as insurance for long-term survival.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Feryl

    , @Feryl
    @dfordoom


    It’s a problem. I’m not sure how you can stop the descent into degeneracy. Or the descent into some kind of tyranny. I have a feeling that capitalism and the prosperity it brings, combined with urbanisation, inevitably leads to consumerism and hedonism which leads inevitably to nihilism and decadence and degeneracy.
     
    One could argue that the sheer size, and resounding (to this day) power and influence of the Boomer generation, is heavily responsible for the rapid speed at which Western society was flayed apart since circa 1970. The Boomers had no first-hand memories of a time in which electricity and sanitation weren't necessarily a sure thing, banks often robbed people, famines occured, striking workers were gunned down, and the world being beset by not one, but two "world wars". Thus the Boomers were fated to take the (relative) prosperity, peace, and technical achievements created by older generations for granted, thereby making them likely to undermine and eventually throw away so many admirable things. And this evidenced by how often Boomers fall for, and promote, the most rancid BS in all realms, whether religious, scientific, political, or economic.

    Westerners widely understood many key concepts of science, politics, and economics, and respected them, in the early to mid 20th century. That's changed big time since then, largely due to the ideological derangement (and frankly, questionable sanity) of many Boomers, who have done so much to spread wrong-headed and toxic ideas.
  221. @dfordoom
    @iffen


    You certainly live up to the doom part.
     
    Looking at reality will do that for you. That's why most people cling tenaciously to fantasy.

    The trouble with clinging to fantasy is that fantasising doesn't change anything.

    If Unz Review had existed in the 1770s the would-be American revolutionaries would not have bothered organising an actual revolution. They would have posted lengthy articles that would have started, "Let's assume that the British just give up their North American colonies. Now we can talk about all the awesome things we're gonna do now that the British have gone."

    In 1910 Lenin would have been posting articles starting, "Let's assume that the Tsarist regime has disappeared. Now we can talk about what we'll do next."

    In the 1930s Mao's articles here would have started, "Let's assume that the Chinese Communist Party controls the whole country. Now we can plan our next steps."

    Luckily for those would-be revolutionaries there was no internet then, so instead they settled down to the awesomely difficult task of actually gaining power.

    Replies: @L Woods, @Audacious Epigone

    Yes, I’ve very often been criticized over the course of my life for my “negativity.” But, as you suggest, “negativity” serves an important purpose. Mandatory optimism is the credo of dumb, helpless cattle.

  222. @dfordoom
    @95Theses


    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.
     
    It might be worth pointing out that most of those who will comprise the Red regions have shown zero signs of having the character and stamina to engage in battle even when it's a purely political battle with no chance of getting shot at.

    In political fights they've proved themselves to be a helpless rabble. You think they're going to do better in a shooting war?

    Replies: @iffen, @L Woods, @Audacious Epigone, @Feryl

    Sadly all too true. Worse than a “helpless rabble,” they’ve proven themselves to be simple moral cowards, too addicted to the warm glow of social approval to rock the boat.

  223. @dfordoom
    @iffen


    As you pointed out, should we be able to defeat the Borg and place the power of the state in service for the benefit of working people and the majority, it would merely be a reset with the seeds of degeneracy contained within and the clock would start ticking.
     
    It's a problem. I'm not sure how you can stop the descent into degeneracy. Or the descent into some kind of tyranny. I have a feeling that capitalism and the prosperity it brings, combined with urbanisation, inevitably leads to consumerism and hedonism which leads inevitably to nihilism and decadence and degeneracy.

    How to avoid this? Hitler's idea was that after conquering the east Germany would turn its back on industrialisation and urbanisation and Germans would live simple frugal virtuous lives in an idyllic rural world of small family farms. Like most of Hitler's ideas it could only have been brought about by coercion (and of course by the mass murder and/or enslavement of the existing populations of the east). The only way Germans would have been persuaded to embrace such a future was at the point of a gun. And it would have required the forcible destruction of cities, which Hitler hated.

    I guess Pol Pot's idea was rather similar - Year Zero would be achieved by killing everybody likely to be an obstacle. Environmentalists are prone to similar daydreams but they tend not to mention that their eco-friendly sustainable utopias could only be achieved by first liquidating most of the population.

    Utopias are a bit like that.

    Maybe the Chinese can pull it off by keeping capitalism under strict control and by avoiding democracy. Good luck to them if they can do it.

    I’m coming around to the little platoon and local group power model as the way to sustain a complex modern society.
     
    A fine idea, if there was a chance of being allowed to do it.

    I'm sceptical as to whether any long-term functional society can be achieved without a measure of authoritarianism. Maybe there's a way of decentralising that authoritarianism. Authoritarianism tends to be nasty on a large scale, not so bad on a small local scale.

    Or (just throwing wild ideas around here) maybe some kind of neo-feudalism, if a way could be found to achieve a kind of benevolent paternalistic neo-feudalism. Feudalism sounds quite attractive in theory, but then everything sounds quite attractive in theory.

    Replies: @iffen, @iffen, @Feryl

    Hitler’s idea was that after conquering the east Germany would turn its back on industrialisation and urbanisation and Germans would live simple frugal virtuous lives in an idyllic rural world of small family farms.

    Thomas J. reincarnated.

  224. @dfordoom
    @iffen


    As you pointed out, should we be able to defeat the Borg and place the power of the state in service for the benefit of working people and the majority, it would merely be a reset with the seeds of degeneracy contained within and the clock would start ticking.
     
    It's a problem. I'm not sure how you can stop the descent into degeneracy. Or the descent into some kind of tyranny. I have a feeling that capitalism and the prosperity it brings, combined with urbanisation, inevitably leads to consumerism and hedonism which leads inevitably to nihilism and decadence and degeneracy.

    How to avoid this? Hitler's idea was that after conquering the east Germany would turn its back on industrialisation and urbanisation and Germans would live simple frugal virtuous lives in an idyllic rural world of small family farms. Like most of Hitler's ideas it could only have been brought about by coercion (and of course by the mass murder and/or enslavement of the existing populations of the east). The only way Germans would have been persuaded to embrace such a future was at the point of a gun. And it would have required the forcible destruction of cities, which Hitler hated.

    I guess Pol Pot's idea was rather similar - Year Zero would be achieved by killing everybody likely to be an obstacle. Environmentalists are prone to similar daydreams but they tend not to mention that their eco-friendly sustainable utopias could only be achieved by first liquidating most of the population.

    Utopias are a bit like that.

    Maybe the Chinese can pull it off by keeping capitalism under strict control and by avoiding democracy. Good luck to them if they can do it.

    I’m coming around to the little platoon and local group power model as the way to sustain a complex modern society.
     
    A fine idea, if there was a chance of being allowed to do it.

    I'm sceptical as to whether any long-term functional society can be achieved without a measure of authoritarianism. Maybe there's a way of decentralising that authoritarianism. Authoritarianism tends to be nasty on a large scale, not so bad on a small local scale.

    Or (just throwing wild ideas around here) maybe some kind of neo-feudalism, if a way could be found to achieve a kind of benevolent paternalistic neo-feudalism. Feudalism sounds quite attractive in theory, but then everything sounds quite attractive in theory.

    Replies: @iffen, @iffen, @Feryl

    Maybe there’s a way of decentralising that authoritarianism. Authoritarianism tends to be nasty on a large scale, not so bad on a small local scale.

    All power has been swallowed up by the Borg. The individual stands alone against the elite. This is not hierarchy anymore. There are no layers in between the individual and the elite clique. All alternative power centers have atrophied or been gutted, whether family, community, religion, fraternal organizations, local government, state government, academia, “free” press (ha), etc. All of our eggs are in one basket. If the basket makes a wrong move, we will all go down. Another way to look at it is to view the country as an organism. Organisms need variation as insurance for long-term survival.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @iffen


    All power has been swallowed up by the Borg. The individual stands alone against the elite. This is not hierarchy anymore. There are no layers in between the individual and the elite clique.
     
    Yes, good point. The demonisation of the idea of hierarchies has been very unfortunate.
    , @Feryl
    @iffen

    This largely stems from the early-mid 1970's, the "Me decade". It's just that what was remarked upon as a curious new trend at that time (narcissism, materialism, careerism) has only intensified with each subsequent decade. "Greed is good", "irrational exuberance", "free trade", etc.

  225. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    Maybe there’s a way of decentralising that authoritarianism. Authoritarianism tends to be nasty on a large scale, not so bad on a small local scale.

    All power has been swallowed up by the Borg. The individual stands alone against the elite. This is not hierarchy anymore. There are no layers in between the individual and the elite clique. All alternative power centers have atrophied or been gutted, whether family, community, religion, fraternal organizations, local government, state government, academia, "free" press (ha), etc. All of our eggs are in one basket. If the basket makes a wrong move, we will all go down. Another way to look at it is to view the country as an organism. Organisms need variation as insurance for long-term survival.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Feryl

    All power has been swallowed up by the Borg. The individual stands alone against the elite. This is not hierarchy anymore. There are no layers in between the individual and the elite clique.

    Yes, good point. The demonisation of the idea of hierarchies has been very unfortunate.

  226. @Achmed E. Newman
    @freedom-cat


    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.

    Replies: @freedom-cat

    200 years of experience with what? At least the last 100 years have been controlled by a foreign interest. What was “arguably” so great? The only thing nice about USA is you can still blather on about anything you want without a prison term attached.

  227. What, no people over 45 or history books where you’re at?

    It’d take more time than I have here to tell you how free this country is even more recently when I was young. You may be a young guy, and I’ve seen plenty that don’t have the imagination to even understand freedom. Perhaps you wouldn’t know it if it came up and bit you on the ass.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Achmed E. Newman

    That comment was in reply to freedom-cat, sorry. The unz site hung up a bit for a while, and I think that's what turned this reply just into a general undirected comment.

    Oh, and it should have been "...how free this country WAS even ..."

  228. @peterAUS
    @95Theses


    ...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?

    Replies: @L Woods, @dfordoom, @peterAUS

    ….If it does, well, any thoughts/ideas?

    Two guys chimmed in with….interesting….angle(s).

    Nobody mentioned, tentatively/carefully at least, a couple of possible options/scenarios.

    Oh my.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    @peterAUS

    Most of this is throwing hypotheticals back and forth. My problem with the succession theory is that it completely throws the concept of "demographics is destiny" right out the window, clings to the politically obsolete notion of left/right, and avoids discussing the very likely possibility that the land locked theoretical Red State would be under constant political, economic, invasive, and violent aggression from its Blue State neighbors.

    Further, the left might love to see a Red State populace consolidated into a single area, making it that much easier to wipe out. These are reasons, of course, why I continued to ask "Who gets what?" and received no answer. To really think about the idea of a Blue State/Red State secession would require thinking about some icky things about the nature of conflicting tribes. Anyone who thinks the Blue state left would just become content living next to what they'd see as Naziland post secession is fooling themselves.

    The reality is more along the lines of this country will just stagger along, continuing to descend into something reminiscent of Brazil, but much worse... and that's the best case scenario. Spurred by a catastrophic financial or infrastructural collapse, meaning the loss of a dependable supply chain, water, electricity, and medicine, the fallout from that will be unimaginable.

    Replies: @peterAUS, @Feryl

  229. @peterAUS
    @peterAUS


    ....If it does, well, any thoughts/ideas?
     
    Two guys chimmed in with....interesting....angle(s).

    Nobody mentioned, tentatively/carefully at least, a couple of possible options/scenarios.

    Oh my.

    Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike

    Most of this is throwing hypotheticals back and forth. My problem with the succession theory is that it completely throws the concept of “demographics is destiny” right out the window, clings to the politically obsolete notion of left/right, and avoids discussing the very likely possibility that the land locked theoretical Red State would be under constant political, economic, invasive, and violent aggression from its Blue State neighbors.

    Further, the left might love to see a Red State populace consolidated into a single area, making it that much easier to wipe out. These are reasons, of course, why I continued to ask “Who gets what?” and received no answer. To really think about the idea of a Blue State/Red State secession would require thinking about some icky things about the nature of conflicting tribes. Anyone who thinks the Blue state left would just become content living next to what they’d see as Naziland post secession is fooling themselves.

    The reality is more along the lines of this country will just stagger along, continuing to descend into something reminiscent of Brazil, but much worse… and that’s the best case scenario. Spurred by a catastrophic financial or infrastructural collapse, meaning the loss of a dependable supply chain, water, electricity, and medicine, the fallout from that will be unimaginable.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    @MikeatMikedotMike


    Most of this is throwing hypotheticals back and forth.
     
    Most.

    My problem with the succession theory is that it completely throws the concept of “demographics is destiny” right out the window...
     
    You lost me there.
    As for

    …. avoids discussing the very likely possibility that the land locked theoretical Red State would be under constant political, economic, invasive, and violent aggression from its Blue State neighbors.
     
    That’s what the PROPER work on the topic should be all about. You know….smart people, think tank….time/effort. Not all this blathering about here.
    Haven’t personally, seen any SERIOUS study about the topic, let alone those objections of yours.

    Further, the left might love to see a Red State populace consolidated into a single area, making it that much easier to wipe out.
     
    Never occurred to you the concept of “wiping out” could work the other way around or both ways? It’s O.K.

    These are reasons, of course, why I continued to ask “Who gets what?” and received no answer. To really think about the idea of a Blue State/Red State secession would require thinking about some icky things about the nature of conflicting tribes. Anyone who thinks the Blue state left would just become content living next to what they’d see as Naziland post secession is fooling themselves.
     
    You want to receive an answer to those question here? In the current social climate? Icky things in particular?
    Hahahaha……oh man.

    The reality is more along the lines of this country will just stagger along, continuing to descend into something reminiscent of Brazil, but much worse… and that’s the best case scenario. Spurred by a catastrophic financial or infrastructural collapse, meaning the loss of a dependable supply chain, water, electricity, and medicine, the fallout from that will be unimaginable.
     
    More likely, yes.
    The thing is…nobody knows.
    Did you see that chant “Send her back” coming before that rally?

    So…..there could be other chants. And consequent actions.
    Keeping options open is, in my book, the smart thing to do.

    Granted, nobody says “we” are smart enough.

    I guess, in time, accelerating, more and more of smart people will get on “our” side.

    See….there are a couple of threads going on here about secession/whatever as we speak.
    Unthinkable just five years ago.

    Three years from now…hehe……
    , @Feryl
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    Prior to the growth in public works efforts of the Progressive and New Deal era (roughly 1900-1970), few blacks lived in New England or the Midwest. The winters were just way too punishing; you had to be quite hardy to live in these regions before the improvements in housing, heating, food distribution etc. began around 1900.

    One thing that will never let America become Brazil is that the mid-upper portion of the US is really damn cold for 5-6 months of the year. That just reinforces why we should've let the South secede; it's climate is a big reason why it's culturally and ethnically different than the North. We should've made peace with that, and let the South go.

  230. @MikeatMikedotMike
    @peterAUS

    Most of this is throwing hypotheticals back and forth. My problem with the succession theory is that it completely throws the concept of "demographics is destiny" right out the window, clings to the politically obsolete notion of left/right, and avoids discussing the very likely possibility that the land locked theoretical Red State would be under constant political, economic, invasive, and violent aggression from its Blue State neighbors.

    Further, the left might love to see a Red State populace consolidated into a single area, making it that much easier to wipe out. These are reasons, of course, why I continued to ask "Who gets what?" and received no answer. To really think about the idea of a Blue State/Red State secession would require thinking about some icky things about the nature of conflicting tribes. Anyone who thinks the Blue state left would just become content living next to what they'd see as Naziland post secession is fooling themselves.

    The reality is more along the lines of this country will just stagger along, continuing to descend into something reminiscent of Brazil, but much worse... and that's the best case scenario. Spurred by a catastrophic financial or infrastructural collapse, meaning the loss of a dependable supply chain, water, electricity, and medicine, the fallout from that will be unimaginable.

    Replies: @peterAUS, @Feryl

    Most of this is throwing hypotheticals back and forth.

    Most.

    My problem with the succession theory is that it completely throws the concept of “demographics is destiny” right out the window…

    You lost me there.
    As for

    …. avoids discussing the very likely possibility that the land locked theoretical Red State would be under constant political, economic, invasive, and violent aggression from its Blue State neighbors.

    That’s what the PROPER work on the topic should be all about. You know….smart people, think tank….time/effort. Not all this blathering about here.
    Haven’t personally, seen any SERIOUS study about the topic, let alone those objections of yours.

    Further, the left might love to see a Red State populace consolidated into a single area, making it that much easier to wipe out.

    Never occurred to you the concept of “wiping out” could work the other way around or both ways? It’s O.K.

    These are reasons, of course, why I continued to ask “Who gets what?” and received no answer. To really think about the idea of a Blue State/Red State secession would require thinking about some icky things about the nature of conflicting tribes. Anyone who thinks the Blue state left would just become content living next to what they’d see as Naziland post secession is fooling themselves.

    You want to receive an answer to those question here? In the current social climate? Icky things in particular?
    Hahahaha……oh man.

    The reality is more along the lines of this country will just stagger along, continuing to descend into something reminiscent of Brazil, but much worse… and that’s the best case scenario. Spurred by a catastrophic financial or infrastructural collapse, meaning the loss of a dependable supply chain, water, electricity, and medicine, the fallout from that will be unimaginable.

    More likely, yes.
    The thing is…nobody knows.
    Did you see that chant “Send her back” coming before that rally?

    So…..there could be other chants. And consequent actions.
    Keeping options open is, in my book, the smart thing to do.

    Granted, nobody says “we” are smart enough.

    I guess, in time, accelerating, more and more of smart people will get on “our” side.

    See….there are a couple of threads going on here about secession/whatever as we speak.
    Unthinkable just five years ago.

    Three years from now…hehe……

  231. Re serious study, perhaps even (initial) planning for it, well, I am sure several “teams” are working on it as we speak. Majority of them, how to put it, unfriendly.
    Not in public, of course; definitely not those couple on “our” side.

    What could be interesting, and coming soon I feel, is somebody asking, as:” you know…we do zillions of studies about some things which are just dumb….so…why don’t we do one about secession?”.
    Some naive soul believing in free speech, intellectual freedom and other ….dumb things…in this paradigm.
    The guy will, of course, get “Holocaust TM” treatment, but, as with that other taboo, it will open the gate.
    Get the ball rolling. A small snowball along the slope; those tend to grow big fast, sometimes.

  232. @Achmed E. Newman
    What, no people over 45 or history books where you're at?

    It'd take more time than I have here to tell you how free this country is even more recently when I was young. You may be a young guy, and I've seen plenty that don't have the imagination to even understand freedom. Perhaps you wouldn't know it if it came up and bit you on the ass.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    That comment was in reply to freedom-cat, sorry. The unz site hung up a bit for a while, and I think that’s what turned this reply just into a general undirected comment.

    Oh, and it should have been “…how free this country WAS even …”

  233. @Audacious Epigone
    @Talha

    And unlike the British, the American self-conception is one of freedom and federalism, not colonialism and the crown.

    Replies: @JudgeSmails

    And unlike the British, the American self-conception is one of freedom and federalism, not colonialism and the crown.

    Well, it was freedom and federalism. Now, not so much for so many.

  234. @Bliss
    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.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Most farmers are rural whites but most rural whites are not farmers.

  235. @Thomm
    @95Theses

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

    Colloquially, the portmanteau 'White Trashionalism' is widely used.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Facebook can pretend white nationalism and neo-nazism are synonymous, but let’s aim the discussion a little higher here.

    • Replies: @Thomm
    @Audacious Epigone


    Facebook can pretend white nationalism and neo-nazism are synonymous, but let’s aim the discussion a little higher here.
     
    In theory, they are different, but in practice, almost every vocal advocate of WN has Neo-Nazi views. The extreme Jew-hate on this site alone is proof.

    How many 'feminists' are really about equality, vs. ruthless female advantage via government fiat?

    How many BLM members are really about 'equality', vs. just blind anti-white hate?

    Remember that Jared Taylor is just as rare in his movement as Thomas Sowell is among blacks. Each resides in the top 0.001% of their group.
  236. @dfordoom
    @Audacious Epigone


    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.

    Replies: @L Woods, @Audacious Epigone

    Everything the Republican party attempts to do is increasingly referred to as white supremacy/nazism, though.

  237. @dfordoom
    @Audacious Epigone


    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.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    If majorities in several states vote to peacefully secede, it’ll be hard to convince American soldiers that all Texans and Sooners are nazis who need to be killed.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Audacious Epigone


    If majorities in several states vote to peacefully secede, it’ll be hard to convince American soldiers that all Texans and Sooners are nazis who need to be killed.
     
    Has there ever been a case of a civil war in which there was any problem persuading soldiers to shoot their fellow citizens?

    And has there ever been a case of a war of any kind in which there was any problem persuading soldiers to slaughter civilians?

    You're overlooking the fact that if you control the media and the schools then demonising opposition groups is ridiculously easy.

    You're also overlooking the fact that once you put someone in a uniform they change. They develop an Us vs Them mentality. They become capable of acts of violence they wold never have contemplated before. Look at cops.

    Replies: @Feryl, @Audacious Epigone

  238. @dfordoom
    @95Theses


    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.
     
    It might be worth pointing out that most of those who will comprise the Red regions have shown zero signs of having the character and stamina to engage in battle even when it's a purely political battle with no chance of getting shot at.

    In political fights they've proved themselves to be a helpless rabble. You think they're going to do better in a shooting war?

    Replies: @iffen, @L Woods, @Audacious Epigone, @Feryl

    There’s also little appetite for engaging in actual violence on the left now with all the rhetoric flying around. Yes, there are some street larpers, but it’s very small number, much smaller than in the 60s and 70s. And with dissolution, the attitude of a sizable number will be “good riddance!”

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Audacious Epigone


    There’s also little appetite for engaging in actual violence on the left now with all the rhetoric flying around.
     
    They don't need to engage in violence. They control the police and the military. They pay people to do violence on their behalf.

    Replies: @Anounder

    , @Feryl
    @Audacious Epigone

    America has a much older population than it did in the 60's and 70's (no more young Baby Boomers causing the average American to be like 45 years old, as was the case 50 years ago).

    We've seen w/stuff like the 1999 WTO fiasco, BLM, Occupy WS etc., that many ordinary Americans have little patience with heavy civil disruption. Much of this can be attributed to the fact that the average American is far more likely to be 50, or 60, or 70 years in 1999 or 2019 than he would've been in 1969.

    Also, since the 70's America has been increasingly focused on older people, and less and less willing to give "youth culture" any credibility. So Millennials came of age with Boomers constantly dissing Gen X, and eventually Boomers and Gen X decided to gang up on Millennials. This has had the effect of alienating many Millennials (and Gen Z) from any sort of collective mission that involves any sort of risk or dissent (Boomers came of age when older generations encouraged intellectual risk taking and youthful ego, subsequent generations came of age when America was descending into an intellectual dark age w/growing levels of Stalinist repression).

    , @Feryl
    @Audacious Epigone

    Excessive individualism?

    Mass murders commited by lone individuals have become a major problem in the US over the past 30 years, largely coinciding with the fall of the Soviet Union*. In the New Deal era, lots of restless Boomers had frequent meetings to hash out plans designed to take on the system; and note that Boomers in the 60's targeted hated authorities for the most part, rather than random average strangers (during the Great Compression of 1930-1980, Americans generally respected each other and did not feel so alienated and depressed that it seemed ok to go on a mass murder spree).

    In the New Gilded Age, we see that all generations have a much weaker ability to galvanize together for the sake of some collective goal, while also, despair is much more common now that it was during the Great Compression.

    *Peter Turchin says that the US was already declining in the 70's and 80's, and the fall of the Soviet Union only slightly sped up the disintegration of America's culture and psyche; the 1990's was the decade when both the Dems and Republicans mostly gave up on many important safeguards. Paradoxically, the mass movements of the 60's can actually be thought of as a sign of cultural health; better to have protests and riots performed by people with a common goal than to have medicated video game addict nihilists picking up a gun and shooting a dozen people to death.

  239. @dfordoom
    @peterAUS


    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.
     
    Yep.

    Decapitating any leadership that emerges for any movement that the government decides is a threat is easier than ever before. And there's no need for the government to worry about public opinion because the media controls public opinion and secondly because how could anyone object to the arrest of dangerous Nazi traitors?

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    They can’t even figure out a way to get rid of Trump. You’re giving the ‘deep state’ way too much credit. It’s comprised of mediocrities.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Audacious Epigone


    They can’t even figure out a way to get rid of Trump. You’re giving the ‘deep state’ way too much credit. It’s comprised of mediocrities.
     
    I'm sceptical of Deep State conspiracy theories. There is some validity to the Deep State idea but the tinfoil hat brigade on the Right tends to go overboard about it.

    I'm not sure they're trying to get rid of him. All they need to do is to damage him enough to ensure he doesn't get re-elected.

    Replies: @Anounder

  240. @dfordoom
    @iffen


    You certainly live up to the doom part.
     
    Looking at reality will do that for you. That's why most people cling tenaciously to fantasy.

    The trouble with clinging to fantasy is that fantasising doesn't change anything.

    If Unz Review had existed in the 1770s the would-be American revolutionaries would not have bothered organising an actual revolution. They would have posted lengthy articles that would have started, "Let's assume that the British just give up their North American colonies. Now we can talk about all the awesome things we're gonna do now that the British have gone."

    In 1910 Lenin would have been posting articles starting, "Let's assume that the Tsarist regime has disappeared. Now we can talk about what we'll do next."

    In the 1930s Mao's articles here would have started, "Let's assume that the Chinese Communist Party controls the whole country. Now we can plan our next steps."

    Luckily for those would-be revolutionaries there was no internet then, so instead they settled down to the awesomely difficult task of actually gaining power.

    Replies: @L Woods, @Audacious Epigone

    Because writing–like Marx and Schmitt did–had no influence on anything!

  241. @Audacious Epigone
    @Thomm

    Facebook can pretend white nationalism and neo-nazism are synonymous, but let's aim the discussion a little higher here.

    Replies: @Thomm

    Facebook can pretend white nationalism and neo-nazism are synonymous, but let’s aim the discussion a little higher here.

    In theory, they are different, but in practice, almost every vocal advocate of WN has Neo-Nazi views. The extreme Jew-hate on this site alone is proof.

    How many ‘feminists’ are really about equality, vs. ruthless female advantage via government fiat?

    How many BLM members are really about ‘equality’, vs. just blind anti-white hate?

    Remember that Jared Taylor is just as rare in his movement as Thomas Sowell is among blacks. Each resides in the top 0.001% of their group.

    • Troll: Mr. Rational
  242. @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    If majorities in several states vote to peacefully secede, it'll be hard to convince American soldiers that all Texans and Sooners are nazis who need to be killed.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    If majorities in several states vote to peacefully secede, it’ll be hard to convince American soldiers that all Texans and Sooners are nazis who need to be killed.

    Has there ever been a case of a civil war in which there was any problem persuading soldiers to shoot their fellow citizens?

    And has there ever been a case of a war of any kind in which there was any problem persuading soldiers to slaughter civilians?

    You’re overlooking the fact that if you control the media and the schools then demonising opposition groups is ridiculously easy.

    You’re also overlooking the fact that once you put someone in a uniform they change. They develop an Us vs Them mentality. They become capable of acts of violence they wold never have contemplated before. Look at cops.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    @dfordoom

    The military selects for conformity, any way*. Even if we had compulsory service, the least conforming people would act up and be drummed out, or else would just bide their time until the minimum time had been served, and would then high-tail it out of there. But the really conformist types are much more likely to stick around and make a career in the military.

    *Self-IDing conservatives are much more likely to respect authority then their liberal counterparts, and most longer serving military people ID as conservative. In other words, don't count on soldiers defying the commands of leaders who tell them to do heinous things.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    But you have to get to that civil war first, and there will be no popular support for it.

    In the case of the US, there is also the national guard, state police, etc to contend with. Military action against a state or group of states peacefully voting to withdraw from the federal government, something that would be wildly unpopular both in the seceding states and the remaining states, would be a PR disaster. If the withdrawing states are blue, it would also require going Andrew Jackson on the judiciary because there would be all kinds of injunctions against it on posse comitatus grounds.

  243. @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    There's also little appetite for engaging in actual violence on the left now with all the rhetoric flying around. Yes, there are some street larpers, but it's very small number, much smaller than in the 60s and 70s. And with dissolution, the attitude of a sizable number will be "good riddance!"

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Feryl, @Feryl

    There’s also little appetite for engaging in actual violence on the left now with all the rhetoric flying around.

    They don’t need to engage in violence. They control the police and the military. They pay people to do violence on their behalf.

    • Replies: @Anounder
    @dfordoom

    Silly LARPers like Audacious think The Patriot is actual history. In actuality, they wouldn't be the Murican Revolutionaries they'd be the Redskins.

    The "Blue States" control the military, law enforcement, and would certainly have support from other countries if needed. They'd also control media and could certainly ensure that the LARPers have no real PR, cast them all as freaks ala Tim McVeigh or Ted K. or just Nazis/Crusaders.

  244. @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    They can't even figure out a way to get rid of Trump. You're giving the 'deep state' way too much credit. It's comprised of mediocrities.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    They can’t even figure out a way to get rid of Trump. You’re giving the ‘deep state’ way too much credit. It’s comprised of mediocrities.

    I’m sceptical of Deep State conspiracy theories. There is some validity to the Deep State idea but the tinfoil hat brigade on the Right tends to go overboard about it.

    I’m not sure they’re trying to get rid of him. All they need to do is to damage him enough to ensure he doesn’t get re-elected.

    • Replies: @Anounder
    @dfordoom

    The Deep State is indeed around. Denying it is foolish.

    That said, the claim that Trump is a threat to them rather than at worst a speedbump who can easily be subverted is just Trump Cuck Cope. Trump has continued Murica foreign policy, has actively rejected White Nationalism, has a Jew son-in-law, openly associates with Neocons, makes a big deal of how he supports Israel, has already said that he's not against immigration but just illegal immigration. He's either knowingly in line with their will or is too much of a cuck to threaten them.

  245. @MikeatMikedotMike
    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."

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Dissident

    “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.”

    William Jay died here maintaining his right-of-way. He was right, dead right, as he sped along. But now he’s just as dead as if he were wrong.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    @Dissident

    To that I say
    Then run away!
    You too will die one day anyway.

  246. @dfordoom
    @Audacious Epigone


    They can’t even figure out a way to get rid of Trump. You’re giving the ‘deep state’ way too much credit. It’s comprised of mediocrities.
     
    I'm sceptical of Deep State conspiracy theories. There is some validity to the Deep State idea but the tinfoil hat brigade on the Right tends to go overboard about it.

    I'm not sure they're trying to get rid of him. All they need to do is to damage him enough to ensure he doesn't get re-elected.

    Replies: @Anounder

    The Deep State is indeed around. Denying it is foolish.

    That said, the claim that Trump is a threat to them rather than at worst a speedbump who can easily be subverted is just Trump Cuck Cope. Trump has continued Murica foreign policy, has actively rejected White Nationalism, has a Jew son-in-law, openly associates with Neocons, makes a big deal of how he supports Israel, has already said that he’s not against immigration but just illegal immigration. He’s either knowingly in line with their will or is too much of a cuck to threaten them.

  247. @dfordoom
    @Audacious Epigone


    There’s also little appetite for engaging in actual violence on the left now with all the rhetoric flying around.
     
    They don't need to engage in violence. They control the police and the military. They pay people to do violence on their behalf.

    Replies: @Anounder

    Silly LARPers like Audacious think The Patriot is actual history. In actuality, they wouldn’t be the Murican Revolutionaries they’d be the Redskins.

    The “Blue States” control the military, law enforcement, and would certainly have support from other countries if needed. They’d also control media and could certainly ensure that the LARPers have no real PR, cast them all as freaks ala Tim McVeigh or Ted K. or just Nazis/Crusaders.

  248. @freedom-cat
    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?

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @L Woods, @KendraO

    “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.”

  249. @Rosie
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel


    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.

    Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @Audacious Epigone, @dfordoom, @Jay Fink, @Feryl

    The Dissident Right opposes the post-1980 conservative rhetoric that the modern Democrats are “liberal” (experimental), while the modern GOP is the countering “conservative” party (traditional and stabilizing). America was not founded for the purpose of bending the national knee to any foreign country, up to and including Israel. America was not intended to be a police state and an enemy of reason and enlightenment. For 40 years, it’s been plainly obvious that the GOP, far from being a force for stability, has instead allowed American politics and culture to be hi-jacked by goofball Israel first fundamentalists and war-mongers. The modern GOP has allowed ignorant fools to bankrupt us and dissolve national sovereignty. That is what the Dissident Right understands.

  250. @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    There's also little appetite for engaging in actual violence on the left now with all the rhetoric flying around. Yes, there are some street larpers, but it's very small number, much smaller than in the 60s and 70s. And with dissolution, the attitude of a sizable number will be "good riddance!"

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Feryl, @Feryl

    America has a much older population than it did in the 60’s and 70’s (no more young Baby Boomers causing the average American to be like 45 years old, as was the case 50 years ago).

    We’ve seen w/stuff like the 1999 WTO fiasco, BLM, Occupy WS etc., that many ordinary Americans have little patience with heavy civil disruption. Much of this can be attributed to the fact that the average American is far more likely to be 50, or 60, or 70 years in 1999 or 2019 than he would’ve been in 1969.

    Also, since the 70’s America has been increasingly focused on older people, and less and less willing to give “youth culture” any credibility. So Millennials came of age with Boomers constantly dissing Gen X, and eventually Boomers and Gen X decided to gang up on Millennials. This has had the effect of alienating many Millennials (and Gen Z) from any sort of collective mission that involves any sort of risk or dissent (Boomers came of age when older generations encouraged intellectual risk taking and youthful ego, subsequent generations came of age when America was descending into an intellectual dark age w/growing levels of Stalinist repression).

  251. @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    There's also little appetite for engaging in actual violence on the left now with all the rhetoric flying around. Yes, there are some street larpers, but it's very small number, much smaller than in the 60s and 70s. And with dissolution, the attitude of a sizable number will be "good riddance!"

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Feryl, @Feryl

    Excessive individualism?

    Mass murders commited by lone individuals have become a major problem in the US over the past 30 years, largely coinciding with the fall of the Soviet Union*. In the New Deal era, lots of restless Boomers had frequent meetings to hash out plans designed to take on the system; and note that Boomers in the 60’s targeted hated authorities for the most part, rather than random average strangers (during the Great Compression of 1930-1980, Americans generally respected each other and did not feel so alienated and depressed that it seemed ok to go on a mass murder spree).

    In the New Gilded Age, we see that all generations have a much weaker ability to galvanize together for the sake of some collective goal, while also, despair is much more common now that it was during the Great Compression.

    *Peter Turchin says that the US was already declining in the 70’s and 80’s, and the fall of the Soviet Union only slightly sped up the disintegration of America’s culture and psyche; the 1990’s was the decade when both the Dems and Republicans mostly gave up on many important safeguards. Paradoxically, the mass movements of the 60’s can actually be thought of as a sign of cultural health; better to have protests and riots performed by people with a common goal than to have medicated video game addict nihilists picking up a gun and shooting a dozen people to death.

  252. @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    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.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Mr. Rational, @Feryl

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

    Adam Carolla has a good rant about virtue signalling elites using immigrants as a feel-good prop. “You see, Jose and Maria would be eating dirt in Mexico if we didn’t bring them to America to work as our servants”. They don’t understand, or don’t care, that it’s bankrupting America and hammering wages for mid-low class workers.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Feryl


    Adam Carolla has a good rant about virtue signalling elites using immigrants as a feel-good prop. “You see, Jose and Maria would be eating dirt in Mexico if we didn’t bring them to America to work as our servants”. They don’t understand, or don’t care, that it’s bankrupting America and hammering wages for mid-low class workers.
     
    Yep.
  253. @dfordoom
    @95Theses


    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.
     
    It might be worth pointing out that most of those who will comprise the Red regions have shown zero signs of having the character and stamina to engage in battle even when it's a purely political battle with no chance of getting shot at.

    In political fights they've proved themselves to be a helpless rabble. You think they're going to do better in a shooting war?

    Replies: @iffen, @L Woods, @Audacious Epigone, @Feryl

    Hey man, don’t you dare point out that the Reaganite Right allowed American to culturally and socially dissolve via their decision to create a New Gilded Age (the 1990’s were the point at which this became clear, but the Reagan loving frauds claim they “rescued” America from stagflation and Jimmy Carter, even though the Reaganites began to aggressively debauch our economic and foreign policy in the 80’s) after 1980. First it was the “conservatives” debauching economic policy in the 80’s, then it was onto liberals openly beginning to undermine every single piece of cultural tradition in the 90’s. Much like how the neo-lib Left never really tried to bring back the New Deal’s econ. policies, neither has the neo-lib Right ever fought all that hard to protect cultural tradition and stability, save for token action on abortion.

    The key trait of the neo-lib era is that both sides aggressively promote that which they are the worst at (conservatives and their economic Darwinism, liberals and their goofball cultural experiments) while forgetting what they once did well (liberal economic fairness, conservative cultural stability).

    It can’t be said enough times that the New Deal era was economically liberal, and culturally conservative. The cuck/neo-lib Right has been aggressively in denial about their failure to protect the culture during the post-Reagan era, generally preferring to blame it on a Left-wing boogeyman which is supposed to be implacable (meanwhile, middle-aged Americans were very disapproving of drugs and homosexuality in the 70’s and 80’s, the very time that the “libertarians” and their Boomer acolytes were gradually “prepping”America to enter a New Age of economic (and eventually, behavioral) freedom even as our intellectual freedom would be gradually undermined by the rising force of Stalinist thought policers in business, government, media, and academia.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Feryl


    It can’t be said enough times that the New Deal era was economically liberal, and culturally conservative.
     
    It's worth pointing out that the situation was similar in other Anglosphere nations. The Attlee Labour Government in Britain (1945-51) was economically quite left but socially conservative. The Curtin-Chifley Labor Governments in Australia in the 40s were also economically quite left but socially conservative.
  254. @dfordoom
    @iffen


    As you pointed out, should we be able to defeat the Borg and place the power of the state in service for the benefit of working people and the majority, it would merely be a reset with the seeds of degeneracy contained within and the clock would start ticking.
     
    It's a problem. I'm not sure how you can stop the descent into degeneracy. Or the descent into some kind of tyranny. I have a feeling that capitalism and the prosperity it brings, combined with urbanisation, inevitably leads to consumerism and hedonism which leads inevitably to nihilism and decadence and degeneracy.

    How to avoid this? Hitler's idea was that after conquering the east Germany would turn its back on industrialisation and urbanisation and Germans would live simple frugal virtuous lives in an idyllic rural world of small family farms. Like most of Hitler's ideas it could only have been brought about by coercion (and of course by the mass murder and/or enslavement of the existing populations of the east). The only way Germans would have been persuaded to embrace such a future was at the point of a gun. And it would have required the forcible destruction of cities, which Hitler hated.

    I guess Pol Pot's idea was rather similar - Year Zero would be achieved by killing everybody likely to be an obstacle. Environmentalists are prone to similar daydreams but they tend not to mention that their eco-friendly sustainable utopias could only be achieved by first liquidating most of the population.

    Utopias are a bit like that.

    Maybe the Chinese can pull it off by keeping capitalism under strict control and by avoiding democracy. Good luck to them if they can do it.

    I’m coming around to the little platoon and local group power model as the way to sustain a complex modern society.
     
    A fine idea, if there was a chance of being allowed to do it.

    I'm sceptical as to whether any long-term functional society can be achieved without a measure of authoritarianism. Maybe there's a way of decentralising that authoritarianism. Authoritarianism tends to be nasty on a large scale, not so bad on a small local scale.

    Or (just throwing wild ideas around here) maybe some kind of neo-feudalism, if a way could be found to achieve a kind of benevolent paternalistic neo-feudalism. Feudalism sounds quite attractive in theory, but then everything sounds quite attractive in theory.

    Replies: @iffen, @iffen, @Feryl

    It’s a problem. I’m not sure how you can stop the descent into degeneracy. Or the descent into some kind of tyranny. I have a feeling that capitalism and the prosperity it brings, combined with urbanisation, inevitably leads to consumerism and hedonism which leads inevitably to nihilism and decadence and degeneracy.

    One could argue that the sheer size, and resounding (to this day) power and influence of the Boomer generation, is heavily responsible for the rapid speed at which Western society was flayed apart since circa 1970. The Boomers had no first-hand memories of a time in which electricity and sanitation weren’t necessarily a sure thing, banks often robbed people, famines occured, striking workers were gunned down, and the world being beset by not one, but two “world wars”. Thus the Boomers were fated to take the (relative) prosperity, peace, and technical achievements created by older generations for granted, thereby making them likely to undermine and eventually throw away so many admirable things. And this evidenced by how often Boomers fall for, and promote, the most rancid BS in all realms, whether religious, scientific, political, or economic.

    Westerners widely understood many key concepts of science, politics, and economics, and respected them, in the early to mid 20th century. That’s changed big time since then, largely due to the ideological derangement (and frankly, questionable sanity) of many Boomers, who have done so much to spread wrong-headed and toxic ideas.

  255. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    Maybe there’s a way of decentralising that authoritarianism. Authoritarianism tends to be nasty on a large scale, not so bad on a small local scale.

    All power has been swallowed up by the Borg. The individual stands alone against the elite. This is not hierarchy anymore. There are no layers in between the individual and the elite clique. All alternative power centers have atrophied or been gutted, whether family, community, religion, fraternal organizations, local government, state government, academia, "free" press (ha), etc. All of our eggs are in one basket. If the basket makes a wrong move, we will all go down. Another way to look at it is to view the country as an organism. Organisms need variation as insurance for long-term survival.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Feryl

    This largely stems from the early-mid 1970’s, the “Me decade”. It’s just that what was remarked upon as a curious new trend at that time (narcissism, materialism, careerism) has only intensified with each subsequent decade. “Greed is good”, “irrational exuberance”, “free trade”, etc.

  256. @MikeatMikedotMike
    @peterAUS

    Most of this is throwing hypotheticals back and forth. My problem with the succession theory is that it completely throws the concept of "demographics is destiny" right out the window, clings to the politically obsolete notion of left/right, and avoids discussing the very likely possibility that the land locked theoretical Red State would be under constant political, economic, invasive, and violent aggression from its Blue State neighbors.

    Further, the left might love to see a Red State populace consolidated into a single area, making it that much easier to wipe out. These are reasons, of course, why I continued to ask "Who gets what?" and received no answer. To really think about the idea of a Blue State/Red State secession would require thinking about some icky things about the nature of conflicting tribes. Anyone who thinks the Blue state left would just become content living next to what they'd see as Naziland post secession is fooling themselves.

    The reality is more along the lines of this country will just stagger along, continuing to descend into something reminiscent of Brazil, but much worse... and that's the best case scenario. Spurred by a catastrophic financial or infrastructural collapse, meaning the loss of a dependable supply chain, water, electricity, and medicine, the fallout from that will be unimaginable.

    Replies: @peterAUS, @Feryl

    Prior to the growth in public works efforts of the Progressive and New Deal era (roughly 1900-1970), few blacks lived in New England or the Midwest. The winters were just way too punishing; you had to be quite hardy to live in these regions before the improvements in housing, heating, food distribution etc. began around 1900.

    One thing that will never let America become Brazil is that the mid-upper portion of the US is really damn cold for 5-6 months of the year. That just reinforces why we should’ve let the South secede; it’s climate is a big reason why it’s culturally and ethnically different than the North. We should’ve made peace with that, and let the South go.

  257. @dfordoom
    @Audacious Epigone


    If majorities in several states vote to peacefully secede, it’ll be hard to convince American soldiers that all Texans and Sooners are nazis who need to be killed.
     
    Has there ever been a case of a civil war in which there was any problem persuading soldiers to shoot their fellow citizens?

    And has there ever been a case of a war of any kind in which there was any problem persuading soldiers to slaughter civilians?

    You're overlooking the fact that if you control the media and the schools then demonising opposition groups is ridiculously easy.

    You're also overlooking the fact that once you put someone in a uniform they change. They develop an Us vs Them mentality. They become capable of acts of violence they wold never have contemplated before. Look at cops.

    Replies: @Feryl, @Audacious Epigone

    The military selects for conformity, any way*. Even if we had compulsory service, the least conforming people would act up and be drummed out, or else would just bide their time until the minimum time had been served, and would then high-tail it out of there. But the really conformist types are much more likely to stick around and make a career in the military.

    *Self-IDing conservatives are much more likely to respect authority then their liberal counterparts, and most longer serving military people ID as conservative. In other words, don’t count on soldiers defying the commands of leaders who tell them to do heinous things.

  258. @Feryl
    @dfordoom


    And wealthy whites like having non-whites as nannies, gardeners, etc. If immigration were to be stopped servants would become ridiculously expensive.
     
    Adam Carolla has a good rant about virtue signalling elites using immigrants as a feel-good prop. "You see, Jose and Maria would be eating dirt in Mexico if we didn't bring them to America to work as our servants". They don't understand, or don't care, that it's bankrupting America and hammering wages for mid-low class workers.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Adam Carolla has a good rant about virtue signalling elites using immigrants as a feel-good prop. “You see, Jose and Maria would be eating dirt in Mexico if we didn’t bring them to America to work as our servants”. They don’t understand, or don’t care, that it’s bankrupting America and hammering wages for mid-low class workers.

    Yep.

  259. @Feryl
    @dfordoom

    Hey man, don't you dare point out that the Reaganite Right allowed American to culturally and socially dissolve via their decision to create a New Gilded Age (the 1990's were the point at which this became clear, but the Reagan loving frauds claim they "rescued" America from stagflation and Jimmy Carter, even though the Reaganites began to aggressively debauch our economic and foreign policy in the 80's) after 1980. First it was the "conservatives" debauching economic policy in the 80's, then it was onto liberals openly beginning to undermine every single piece of cultural tradition in the 90's. Much like how the neo-lib Left never really tried to bring back the New Deal's econ. policies, neither has the neo-lib Right ever fought all that hard to protect cultural tradition and stability, save for token action on abortion.

    The key trait of the neo-lib era is that both sides aggressively promote that which they are the worst at (conservatives and their economic Darwinism, liberals and their goofball cultural experiments) while forgetting what they once did well (liberal economic fairness, conservative cultural stability).

    It can't be said enough times that the New Deal era was economically liberal, and culturally conservative. The cuck/neo-lib Right has been aggressively in denial about their failure to protect the culture during the post-Reagan era, generally preferring to blame it on a Left-wing boogeyman which is supposed to be implacable (meanwhile, middle-aged Americans were very disapproving of drugs and homosexuality in the 70's and 80's, the very time that the "libertarians" and their Boomer acolytes were gradually "prepping"America to enter a New Age of economic (and eventually, behavioral) freedom even as our intellectual freedom would be gradually undermined by the rising force of Stalinist thought policers in business, government, media, and academia.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    It can’t be said enough times that the New Deal era was economically liberal, and culturally conservative.

    It’s worth pointing out that the situation was similar in other Anglosphere nations. The Attlee Labour Government in Britain (1945-51) was economically quite left but socially conservative. The Curtin-Chifley Labor Governments in Australia in the 40s were also economically quite left but socially conservative.

  260. anon[108] • Disclaimer says:

    Dissolution is the only viable course at this point.

    1. After 2024 (at the latest), there will never again be a single republican federal judge appointed. Donald Trump will be the last republican president due to immigration-caused demographic change, so all future judges will be activist democrats. With checks and balances removed, things are going to get very bad for conservative white freedoms. Gun rights, speech rights, assembly rights, and many other traditional American liberties are going to be removed in the future. I’m sure they’ll censor the internet, too.

    The constitution won’t protect you or your rights because it is up to the judiciary to interpret the laws, and leftist judges have shown in the past they are willing to base a ruling on their politics first and then concoct an argument to justify it later. All judges will be members of the democrat party, the same party that has agitated for removing or curtaining those rights for years. There is certainly the precedent for this when you consider Silicon Valley’s repeated deplatforming (read: banning) of political opponents. Amazon now bans books, something straight out of Orwell. In the recent past, several democrats have openly suggested that Fox News be banned along with “hate speech”, as they define it. Obama didn’t want to give Fox a press pass because they reported things he didn’t like. He almost got away with it then. In the future, one of them probably will.

    2. There is no place for whites in the democrat party, so that’s not a viable refuge. White candidates are being voted out in democrat primaries en masse. That’s why we got AOC; her white male opponent was stupid enough to show up to a debate and reveal to his racist constituents that he’s white. He lost the race, of course. Policy doesn’t explain this as several other white candidates have gone down to non-whites of more conventional, establishment orientation. Even within the party’s non-elected ranks there is a purge of whites underway. From the Daily Caller:

    “A top Democratic fundraising executive resigned Monday from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) due to a lack of diversity. Allison Jaslow, who served as the executive director of the DCCC, announced her resignation at an all-staff meeting, according to Politico. The move reportedly comes after two Hispanic lawmakers, Democratic Texas Reps. Vicente González and Filemon Vela, called for Jaslow’s resignation Sunday, saying the committee needs to be run by a “person of color.”

    3. Politics in the future will be explicitly race-based and revolve around endless appeals to fringe groups at your expense. Soon, all American presidents will be decided by the racist antics we see in the current democrat primary: racist dog whistling and appeals to fringe groups through otherizing you. Consider the second democrat debate. There were over 90 references to racist buzzwords like “diversity”, “discrimination”, “race”, “police shooting”, “white supremacy” etc.; nearly every candidate supported decriminalizing illegal immigration and giving them healthcare (national suicide); very few references were made to explicitly white issues. Apparently, you don’t count in this future.

    4. Economic catastrophe awaits. In any significantly diverse society, there will be socioeconomic stratification. The breeds envy and resentment. In Zimbabwe and South Africa, this has led to farm seizures and racial oppression of the white minority; one-million whites have fled South Africa since the end of the Apartheid regime. A similar future awaits the United States. So far, the government has been able to placate minorities with fanciful tales of whites keeping them down (institutional racism, white supremacy, patriarchy).

    Obviously, this is not true. There are studies that show it is not true. For instance, studies have shown police are more likely to shoot white suspects than black suspects; there is no appreciable wage gap as a result of discrimination; women are more likely than men to receive many coveted appointments in academia due to hiring quotas and reverse discrimination; blacks are the beneficiaries of massive reverse discrimination in their favor with over half of low-scoring MCAT takers getting into medical school compared with just 8% of whites with similar scores. But these lies will only last as long as the audience for them believes the perceived racial gaps are closing.

    After a while, when they don’t, the majority-minority may just seize wealth from “the other” to soothe their resentments. We see this in the nascent reparations movement (no mention of the mass wealth transfers to blacks in the form of welfare and government jobs that has already taken place). With the GOP out of power permanently thanks to short-sighted immigration policy, this trend will greatly accelerate in the future. I wouldn’t be surprised if they started using eminent domain, backed up by democrat judges, to seize valuable real estate for POC in the near future. Although, I expect the upperclass will be somewhat less impacted than middle-class whites who can’t afford to lose their homes.

    Just as the Housing Crisis of 2008 was caused by a foolhardy plan to put more poor minorities into homes, you can expect similar crises to visit the country in the future under progressive POC leadership. Every decade there could be a huge downturn in the economy as the result of some failed wealth-transfer scheme or social engineering experiment – reparations, racial equity programs in home and auto loans, private sector hiring requirements, corporate board representation, student loans, etc. This will be dramatically worsened as the country faces stiff competition from China, a country that is not likely to damage its competitiveness with similar measures.

    5. There is no way to reform the current system. The left has a monopoly on all the levers of power – the news media, the federal bureaucracy (including law enforcement and criminal prosecution), the military’s officer core, the financial sector, academia, the entertainment industry, high-value employers (corporate America), a large majority of the nation’s wealth (activist billionaires), and most NGOs. You can’t fight head-first against that kind of power. If you want to win, you have to flank the enemy. Dissolution/partition/secession does that. In one fell swoop, it deplatforms most of the establishment left since it is primarily based in a handful of areas, places such as NYC, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C.

    Afterwards, Red States could repopulate their institutions of power with their own people. Issues such as immigration could be addressed in the interests of the silent majority, meaning it would be restricted or abolished. Whites would then implicitly have their own homeland where they would be free from racial oppression, free to express themselves without fringe leftists attacking them. No more feminism, no more hateful rhetoric, no more limitations on our artistic and economic freedoms.

    6. All proposed alternatives are unrealistic pipe dreams. For example (one among many), I sometimes come across people who advocate reforming the system such that only net-tax payers can vote in elections. That’s never going to happen – same for all similar proposals. The reason for this is simple, albeit seemingly missed by most proponents: people won’t vote for that, so there is no way to ever enact such a proposal in the current system. Obviously, those without means aren’t going to vote their own freedoms away, so it’s a waste of time to consider this or any similarly-minded proposal. They’re all pipe dreams. Independence, on the other hand, isn’t. There are enough voters in some Red States for proposals to strengthen our system so that it never becomes divided into normal white vs anti-white left again…once those areas become independent, that is.

    7. Bad times lie ahead. The radical white left isn’t going to treat you well as a minority. They can’t if they are going to stay ahead of the brown tidal wave they created. This is why the left continually signals against whites and men: if they don’t, they will be devoured by the encroaching POC mob, just as that white democrat fundraiser recently was. Consider the following: every late night “comedian” is now a partisan hack who focuses solely on Donald Trump as a proxy for whites so that some POC doesn’t point out that all of these people are white males; California cities signal against Chick-fil-a (San Jose erected gay flags around one restaurant) because lots of poor Hispanics live near valuable real estate populated by rich liberals, and it’d be a real shame if those POC rose up to take it away; New York passed a hair texture anti-discrimination law for their black demographic for a similar reason (they can’t let blacks know they are getting rich by chasing them out of NYC, so they divert their attention to imagined slights from supposedly racist white males elsewhere in the world … even though the concept of hair discrimination is largely nonsense). It’s an effective ruse, though. As such, you can expect these kinds of diversionary antics to continue and even accelerate in the future as the demographics continue shifting. The rich will get scared and you will pay the price. Don’t think it will stop.

    8. Separation is already happening. Left-wing states and cities across the country have defied federal authority on immigration for decades. They are actively aiding and abetting a foreign invasion. The California AG once threatened companies with fines for cooperation. Nullification of central authority is basically dissolution in small bites. The left started this, why not finish it for them? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    9. Conservatives have conserved nothing. They are abject losers who use the movement to pad their resumes and future job prospects. These people have shown they have no interest in defending you, so don’t expect them to conserve anything when democrats become the permanent majority. They are already preparing for the day when they switch sides by rebranding themselves as “conservative liberals”. Conservatism is a one-way ticket to oblivion – yours. There is no future in this movement. Don’t depend on it.

    10. Real freedom will not come under the current order. Imagine that you’re an aspiring director or book author or video game developer. Do you think the current entertainment industry would allow you to make a faithful representation of your work without race and gender-swapping all the characters? Can you write honestly about race in this country? Or crime? Can you say politically incorrect things without being fired or deplatformed? Is comedy still a thing or has it largely been banned? The answers to these questions are obvious. But ask yourself with the answer in mind, “in what sense is this a free country?”

    Freedoms have largely been abolished because some truths are both obvious and problematic: whites produce more and better entertainment; whites contribute more to scientific discovery and less to crime; jokes offend stupid people and there are more of them in this country every day. Do you think these uncomfortable truths will become less problematic in the future? If not, then you can expect to hear fewer of them. That won’t change until we have a home of our own, a place where it is not a problem. Some of us value freedom of scientific inquiry and artistic expression. In the past, Red States were not the place for much of this due to a conservative disposition, but the left is getting so far out of control that I can see the day when these areas become a relative abode of such freedoms.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @anon


    Donald Trump will be the last republican president due to immigration-caused demographic change, so all future judges will be activist democrats.
     
    Some possibilities:

    1. If the Republican Party dies (which would be an excellent thing) that would allow a new party to emerge and have a real chance of winning elections. The two-party system will tend to re-assert itself since it's pretty much built into the system.

    2. What's more likely is that if the Republican Party dies the Democrats will split into two definite distinct factions. The general election will become irrelevant. The primaries will decide the presidency. And the primaries will become a genuine contest between competing ideological positions. The factional split will most likely be between the socially radical wing (the Coalition of the Fringes) and the old school economic left Democrats (the Bernie Sanders style Democrats). It's possible that you'll end up with more actual democracy. More actual choice.

    3. Those factions within the Democrat Party will eventually lead to a formal split into two parties. Again you might end up with more real choice.

    The important thing is for the Republican Party to die.

    The same argument applies to other Anglospshere countries. If the existing "conservative" parties died then the existing "left" parties would split into formal factions or even into two parties.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    , @peterAUS
    @anon

    Excellent comment.
    Saved for future reference.

    If/when enough people really get what you've said we'll be good.
    I feel it's possible, in quite the near future.
    You, rather well, articulated what more and more people are starting to think, and feel.

    Thanks.

  261. @Sick of Orcs
    @Audacious Epigone

    When did protecting one's citizens and punishing evildoers become "afwul?"

    Replies: @brandybranch

    exactly. i have no problem with “awful” in that context.

  262. @Dissident
    @MikeatMikedotMike


    “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.”
     
    William Jay died here maintaining his right-of-way. He was right, dead right, as he sped along. But now he's just as dead as if he were wrong.

    Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike

    To that I say
    Then run away!
    You too will die one day anyway.

  263. Anon[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomm
    @L Woods

    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.

    Replies: @95Theses, @Rosie, @L Woods, @Anon

    You are irretrievably stupid (and thus wrong) to the point that you are a waste of time and energy arguing with. You can’t even correctly articulate political definitions. That you don’t know it enough to shut up and not remind the world of it every time that you type makes that painful for the wider community with which you are attempting to communicate.

    Stop trying to ape intelligence and stop making a fool of yourself, monkey. Just be gone.

  264. @anon
    Dissolution is the only viable course at this point.

    1. After 2024 (at the latest), there will never again be a single republican federal judge appointed. Donald Trump will be the last republican president due to immigration-caused demographic change, so all future judges will be activist democrats. With checks and balances removed, things are going to get very bad for conservative white freedoms. Gun rights, speech rights, assembly rights, and many other traditional American liberties are going to be removed in the future. I'm sure they'll censor the internet, too.

    The constitution won't protect you or your rights because it is up to the judiciary to interpret the laws, and leftist judges have shown in the past they are willing to base a ruling on their politics first and then concoct an argument to justify it later. All judges will be members of the democrat party, the same party that has agitated for removing or curtaining those rights for years. There is certainly the precedent for this when you consider Silicon Valley's repeated deplatforming (read: banning) of political opponents. Amazon now bans books, something straight out of Orwell. In the recent past, several democrats have openly suggested that Fox News be banned along with “hate speech”, as they define it. Obama didn't want to give Fox a press pass because they reported things he didn't like. He almost got away with it then. In the future, one of them probably will.

    2. There is no place for whites in the democrat party, so that's not a viable refuge. White candidates are being voted out in democrat primaries en masse. That's why we got AOC; her white male opponent was stupid enough to show up to a debate and reveal to his racist constituents that he's white. He lost the race, of course. Policy doesn't explain this as several other white candidates have gone down to non-whites of more conventional, establishment orientation. Even within the party's non-elected ranks there is a purge of whites underway. From the Daily Caller:

    “A top Democratic fundraising executive resigned Monday from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) due to a lack of diversity. Allison Jaslow, who served as the executive director of the DCCC, announced her resignation at an all-staff meeting, according to Politico. The move reportedly comes after two Hispanic lawmakers, Democratic Texas Reps. Vicente González and Filemon Vela, called for Jaslow’s resignation Sunday, saying the committee needs to be run by a “person of color.”

    3. Politics in the future will be explicitly race-based and revolve around endless appeals to fringe groups at your expense. Soon, all American presidents will be decided by the racist antics we see in the current democrat primary: racist dog whistling and appeals to fringe groups through otherizing you. Consider the second democrat debate. There were over 90 references to racist buzzwords like “diversity”, “discrimination”, “race”, “police shooting”, “white supremacy” etc.; nearly every candidate supported decriminalizing illegal immigration and giving them healthcare (national suicide); very few references were made to explicitly white issues. Apparently, you don't count in this future.

    4. Economic catastrophe awaits. In any significantly diverse society, there will be socioeconomic stratification. The breeds envy and resentment. In Zimbabwe and South Africa, this has led to farm seizures and racial oppression of the white minority; one-million whites have fled South Africa since the end of the Apartheid regime. A similar future awaits the United States. So far, the government has been able to placate minorities with fanciful tales of whites keeping them down (institutional racism, white supremacy, patriarchy).

    Obviously, this is not true. There are studies that show it is not true. For instance, studies have shown police are more likely to shoot white suspects than black suspects; there is no appreciable wage gap as a result of discrimination; women are more likely than men to receive many coveted appointments in academia due to hiring quotas and reverse discrimination; blacks are the beneficiaries of massive reverse discrimination in their favor with over half of low-scoring MCAT takers getting into medical school compared with just 8% of whites with similar scores. But these lies will only last as long as the audience for them believes the perceived racial gaps are closing.

    After a while, when they don't, the majority-minority may just seize wealth from “the other” to soothe their resentments. We see this in the nascent reparations movement (no mention of the mass wealth transfers to blacks in the form of welfare and government jobs that has already taken place). With the GOP out of power permanently thanks to short-sighted immigration policy, this trend will greatly accelerate in the future. I wouldn't be surprised if they started using eminent domain, backed up by democrat judges, to seize valuable real estate for POC in the near future. Although, I expect the upperclass will be somewhat less impacted than middle-class whites who can't afford to lose their homes.

    Just as the Housing Crisis of 2008 was caused by a foolhardy plan to put more poor minorities into homes, you can expect similar crises to visit the country in the future under progressive POC leadership. Every decade there could be a huge downturn in the economy as the result of some failed wealth-transfer scheme or social engineering experiment – reparations, racial equity programs in home and auto loans, private sector hiring requirements, corporate board representation, student loans, etc. This will be dramatically worsened as the country faces stiff competition from China, a country that is not likely to damage its competitiveness with similar measures.

    5. There is no way to reform the current system. The left has a monopoly on all the levers of power – the news media, the federal bureaucracy (including law enforcement and criminal prosecution), the military's officer core, the financial sector, academia, the entertainment industry, high-value employers (corporate America), a large majority of the nation's wealth (activist billionaires), and most NGOs. You can't fight head-first against that kind of power. If you want to win, you have to flank the enemy. Dissolution/partition/secession does that. In one fell swoop, it deplatforms most of the establishment left since it is primarily based in a handful of areas, places such as NYC, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C.

    Afterwards, Red States could repopulate their institutions of power with their own people. Issues such as immigration could be addressed in the interests of the silent majority, meaning it would be restricted or abolished. Whites would then implicitly have their own homeland where they would be free from racial oppression, free to express themselves without fringe leftists attacking them. No more feminism, no more hateful rhetoric, no more limitations on our artistic and economic freedoms.

    6. All proposed alternatives are unrealistic pipe dreams. For example (one among many), I sometimes come across people who advocate reforming the system such that only net-tax payers can vote in elections. That's never going to happen – same for all similar proposals. The reason for this is simple, albeit seemingly missed by most proponents: people won't vote for that, so there is no way to ever enact such a proposal in the current system. Obviously, those without means aren't going to vote their own freedoms away, so it's a waste of time to consider this or any similarly-minded proposal. They're all pipe dreams. Independence, on the other hand, isn't. There are enough voters in some Red States for proposals to strengthen our system so that it never becomes divided into normal white vs anti-white left again...once those areas become independent, that is.

    7. Bad times lie ahead. The radical white left isn't going to treat you well as a minority. They can't if they are going to stay ahead of the brown tidal wave they created. This is why the left continually signals against whites and men: if they don't, they will be devoured by the encroaching POC mob, just as that white democrat fundraiser recently was. Consider the following: every late night “comedian” is now a partisan hack who focuses solely on Donald Trump as a proxy for whites so that some POC doesn't point out that all of these people are white males; California cities signal against Chick-fil-a (San Jose erected gay flags around one restaurant) because lots of poor Hispanics live near valuable real estate populated by rich liberals, and it'd be a real shame if those POC rose up to take it away; New York passed a hair texture anti-discrimination law for their black demographic for a similar reason (they can't let blacks know they are getting rich by chasing them out of NYC, so they divert their attention to imagined slights from supposedly racist white males elsewhere in the world … even though the concept of hair discrimination is largely nonsense). It's an effective ruse, though. As such, you can expect these kinds of diversionary antics to continue and even accelerate in the future as the demographics continue shifting. The rich will get scared and you will pay the price. Don't think it will stop.

    8. Separation is already happening. Left-wing states and cities across the country have defied federal authority on immigration for decades. They are actively aiding and abetting a foreign invasion. The California AG once threatened companies with fines for cooperation. Nullification of central authority is basically dissolution in small bites. The left started this, why not finish it for them? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    9. Conservatives have conserved nothing. They are abject losers who use the movement to pad their resumes and future job prospects. These people have shown they have no interest in defending you, so don't expect them to conserve anything when democrats become the permanent majority. They are already preparing for the day when they switch sides by rebranding themselves as “conservative liberals”. Conservatism is a one-way ticket to oblivion – yours. There is no future in this movement. Don't depend on it.

    10. Real freedom will not come under the current order. Imagine that you're an aspiring director or book author or video game developer. Do you think the current entertainment industry would allow you to make a faithful representation of your work without race and gender-swapping all the characters? Can you write honestly about race in this country? Or crime? Can you say politically incorrect things without being fired or deplatformed? Is comedy still a thing or has it largely been banned? The answers to these questions are obvious. But ask yourself with the answer in mind, “in what sense is this a free country?”

    Freedoms have largely been abolished because some truths are both obvious and problematic: whites produce more and better entertainment; whites contribute more to scientific discovery and less to crime; jokes offend stupid people and there are more of them in this country every day. Do you think these uncomfortable truths will become less problematic in the future? If not, then you can expect to hear fewer of them. That won't change until we have a home of our own, a place where it is not a problem. Some of us value freedom of scientific inquiry and artistic expression. In the past, Red States were not the place for much of this due to a conservative disposition, but the left is getting so far out of control that I can see the day when these areas become a relative abode of such freedoms.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @peterAUS

    Donald Trump will be the last republican president due to immigration-caused demographic change, so all future judges will be activist democrats.

    Some possibilities:

    1. If the Republican Party dies (which would be an excellent thing) that would allow a new party to emerge and have a real chance of winning elections. The two-party system will tend to re-assert itself since it’s pretty much built into the system.

    2. What’s more likely is that if the Republican Party dies the Democrats will split into two definite distinct factions. The general election will become irrelevant. The primaries will decide the presidency. And the primaries will become a genuine contest between competing ideological positions. The factional split will most likely be between the socially radical wing (the Coalition of the Fringes) and the old school economic left Democrats (the Bernie Sanders style Democrats). It’s possible that you’ll end up with more actual democracy. More actual choice.

    3. Those factions within the Democrat Party will eventually lead to a formal split into two parties. Again you might end up with more real choice.

    The important thing is for the Republican Party to die.

    The same argument applies to other Anglospshere countries. If the existing “conservative” parties died then the existing “left” parties would split into formal factions or even into two parties.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    One obvious problem with that is that there is no moderate contingent in the Democrat party. They are virtually all on the same page wrt open borders, destroy 'white supremacy', free health care for illegal aliens. The ones who deviate, like Jim Webb in 2016 or the guy in the first Dem debate this week (whose) name escapes me, poll at 1% if they're lucky.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  265. @anon
    Dissolution is the only viable course at this point.

    1. After 2024 (at the latest), there will never again be a single republican federal judge appointed. Donald Trump will be the last republican president due to immigration-caused demographic change, so all future judges will be activist democrats. With checks and balances removed, things are going to get very bad for conservative white freedoms. Gun rights, speech rights, assembly rights, and many other traditional American liberties are going to be removed in the future. I'm sure they'll censor the internet, too.

    The constitution won't protect you or your rights because it is up to the judiciary to interpret the laws, and leftist judges have shown in the past they are willing to base a ruling on their politics first and then concoct an argument to justify it later. All judges will be members of the democrat party, the same party that has agitated for removing or curtaining those rights for years. There is certainly the precedent for this when you consider Silicon Valley's repeated deplatforming (read: banning) of political opponents. Amazon now bans books, something straight out of Orwell. In the recent past, several democrats have openly suggested that Fox News be banned along with “hate speech”, as they define it. Obama didn't want to give Fox a press pass because they reported things he didn't like. He almost got away with it then. In the future, one of them probably will.

    2. There is no place for whites in the democrat party, so that's not a viable refuge. White candidates are being voted out in democrat primaries en masse. That's why we got AOC; her white male opponent was stupid enough to show up to a debate and reveal to his racist constituents that he's white. He lost the race, of course. Policy doesn't explain this as several other white candidates have gone down to non-whites of more conventional, establishment orientation. Even within the party's non-elected ranks there is a purge of whites underway. From the Daily Caller:

    “A top Democratic fundraising executive resigned Monday from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) due to a lack of diversity. Allison Jaslow, who served as the executive director of the DCCC, announced her resignation at an all-staff meeting, according to Politico. The move reportedly comes after two Hispanic lawmakers, Democratic Texas Reps. Vicente González and Filemon Vela, called for Jaslow’s resignation Sunday, saying the committee needs to be run by a “person of color.”

    3. Politics in the future will be explicitly race-based and revolve around endless appeals to fringe groups at your expense. Soon, all American presidents will be decided by the racist antics we see in the current democrat primary: racist dog whistling and appeals to fringe groups through otherizing you. Consider the second democrat debate. There were over 90 references to racist buzzwords like “diversity”, “discrimination”, “race”, “police shooting”, “white supremacy” etc.; nearly every candidate supported decriminalizing illegal immigration and giving them healthcare (national suicide); very few references were made to explicitly white issues. Apparently, you don't count in this future.

    4. Economic catastrophe awaits. In any significantly diverse society, there will be socioeconomic stratification. The breeds envy and resentment. In Zimbabwe and South Africa, this has led to farm seizures and racial oppression of the white minority; one-million whites have fled South Africa since the end of the Apartheid regime. A similar future awaits the United States. So far, the government has been able to placate minorities with fanciful tales of whites keeping them down (institutional racism, white supremacy, patriarchy).

    Obviously, this is not true. There are studies that show it is not true. For instance, studies have shown police are more likely to shoot white suspects than black suspects; there is no appreciable wage gap as a result of discrimination; women are more likely than men to receive many coveted appointments in academia due to hiring quotas and reverse discrimination; blacks are the beneficiaries of massive reverse discrimination in their favor with over half of low-scoring MCAT takers getting into medical school compared with just 8% of whites with similar scores. But these lies will only last as long as the audience for them believes the perceived racial gaps are closing.

    After a while, when they don't, the majority-minority may just seize wealth from “the other” to soothe their resentments. We see this in the nascent reparations movement (no mention of the mass wealth transfers to blacks in the form of welfare and government jobs that has already taken place). With the GOP out of power permanently thanks to short-sighted immigration policy, this trend will greatly accelerate in the future. I wouldn't be surprised if they started using eminent domain, backed up by democrat judges, to seize valuable real estate for POC in the near future. Although, I expect the upperclass will be somewhat less impacted than middle-class whites who can't afford to lose their homes.

    Just as the Housing Crisis of 2008 was caused by a foolhardy plan to put more poor minorities into homes, you can expect similar crises to visit the country in the future under progressive POC leadership. Every decade there could be a huge downturn in the economy as the result of some failed wealth-transfer scheme or social engineering experiment – reparations, racial equity programs in home and auto loans, private sector hiring requirements, corporate board representation, student loans, etc. This will be dramatically worsened as the country faces stiff competition from China, a country that is not likely to damage its competitiveness with similar measures.

    5. There is no way to reform the current system. The left has a monopoly on all the levers of power – the news media, the federal bureaucracy (including law enforcement and criminal prosecution), the military's officer core, the financial sector, academia, the entertainment industry, high-value employers (corporate America), a large majority of the nation's wealth (activist billionaires), and most NGOs. You can't fight head-first against that kind of power. If you want to win, you have to flank the enemy. Dissolution/partition/secession does that. In one fell swoop, it deplatforms most of the establishment left since it is primarily based in a handful of areas, places such as NYC, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C.

    Afterwards, Red States could repopulate their institutions of power with their own people. Issues such as immigration could be addressed in the interests of the silent majority, meaning it would be restricted or abolished. Whites would then implicitly have their own homeland where they would be free from racial oppression, free to express themselves without fringe leftists attacking them. No more feminism, no more hateful rhetoric, no more limitations on our artistic and economic freedoms.

    6. All proposed alternatives are unrealistic pipe dreams. For example (one among many), I sometimes come across people who advocate reforming the system such that only net-tax payers can vote in elections. That's never going to happen – same for all similar proposals. The reason for this is simple, albeit seemingly missed by most proponents: people won't vote for that, so there is no way to ever enact such a proposal in the current system. Obviously, those without means aren't going to vote their own freedoms away, so it's a waste of time to consider this or any similarly-minded proposal. They're all pipe dreams. Independence, on the other hand, isn't. There are enough voters in some Red States for proposals to strengthen our system so that it never becomes divided into normal white vs anti-white left again...once those areas become independent, that is.

    7. Bad times lie ahead. The radical white left isn't going to treat you well as a minority. They can't if they are going to stay ahead of the brown tidal wave they created. This is why the left continually signals against whites and men: if they don't, they will be devoured by the encroaching POC mob, just as that white democrat fundraiser recently was. Consider the following: every late night “comedian” is now a partisan hack who focuses solely on Donald Trump as a proxy for whites so that some POC doesn't point out that all of these people are white males; California cities signal against Chick-fil-a (San Jose erected gay flags around one restaurant) because lots of poor Hispanics live near valuable real estate populated by rich liberals, and it'd be a real shame if those POC rose up to take it away; New York passed a hair texture anti-discrimination law for their black demographic for a similar reason (they can't let blacks know they are getting rich by chasing them out of NYC, so they divert their attention to imagined slights from supposedly racist white males elsewhere in the world … even though the concept of hair discrimination is largely nonsense). It's an effective ruse, though. As such, you can expect these kinds of diversionary antics to continue and even accelerate in the future as the demographics continue shifting. The rich will get scared and you will pay the price. Don't think it will stop.

    8. Separation is already happening. Left-wing states and cities across the country have defied federal authority on immigration for decades. They are actively aiding and abetting a foreign invasion. The California AG once threatened companies with fines for cooperation. Nullification of central authority is basically dissolution in small bites. The left started this, why not finish it for them? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    9. Conservatives have conserved nothing. They are abject losers who use the movement to pad their resumes and future job prospects. These people have shown they have no interest in defending you, so don't expect them to conserve anything when democrats become the permanent majority. They are already preparing for the day when they switch sides by rebranding themselves as “conservative liberals”. Conservatism is a one-way ticket to oblivion – yours. There is no future in this movement. Don't depend on it.

    10. Real freedom will not come under the current order. Imagine that you're an aspiring director or book author or video game developer. Do you think the current entertainment industry would allow you to make a faithful representation of your work without race and gender-swapping all the characters? Can you write honestly about race in this country? Or crime? Can you say politically incorrect things without being fired or deplatformed? Is comedy still a thing or has it largely been banned? The answers to these questions are obvious. But ask yourself with the answer in mind, “in what sense is this a free country?”

    Freedoms have largely been abolished because some truths are both obvious and problematic: whites produce more and better entertainment; whites contribute more to scientific discovery and less to crime; jokes offend stupid people and there are more of them in this country every day. Do you think these uncomfortable truths will become less problematic in the future? If not, then you can expect to hear fewer of them. That won't change until we have a home of our own, a place where it is not a problem. Some of us value freedom of scientific inquiry and artistic expression. In the past, Red States were not the place for much of this due to a conservative disposition, but the left is getting so far out of control that I can see the day when these areas become a relative abode of such freedoms.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @peterAUS

    Excellent comment.
    Saved for future reference.

    If/when enough people really get what you’ve said we’ll be good.
    I feel it’s possible, in quite the near future.
    You, rather well, articulated what more and more people are starting to think, and feel.

    Thanks.

  266. @Thomm
    @Audacious Epigone


    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.

    Replies: @L Woods, @Malla

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

    You seem to be describing Leftards and anti-fa.

  267. @dfordoom
    @Audacious Epigone


    If majorities in several states vote to peacefully secede, it’ll be hard to convince American soldiers that all Texans and Sooners are nazis who need to be killed.
     
    Has there ever been a case of a civil war in which there was any problem persuading soldiers to shoot their fellow citizens?

    And has there ever been a case of a war of any kind in which there was any problem persuading soldiers to slaughter civilians?

    You're overlooking the fact that if you control the media and the schools then demonising opposition groups is ridiculously easy.

    You're also overlooking the fact that once you put someone in a uniform they change. They develop an Us vs Them mentality. They become capable of acts of violence they wold never have contemplated before. Look at cops.

    Replies: @Feryl, @Audacious Epigone

    But you have to get to that civil war first, and there will be no popular support for it.

    In the case of the US, there is also the national guard, state police, etc to contend with. Military action against a state or group of states peacefully voting to withdraw from the federal government, something that would be wildly unpopular both in the seceding states and the remaining states, would be a PR disaster. If the withdrawing states are blue, it would also require going Andrew Jackson on the judiciary because there would be all kinds of injunctions against it on posse comitatus grounds.

  268. @dfordoom
    @anon


    Donald Trump will be the last republican president due to immigration-caused demographic change, so all future judges will be activist democrats.
     
    Some possibilities:

    1. If the Republican Party dies (which would be an excellent thing) that would allow a new party to emerge and have a real chance of winning elections. The two-party system will tend to re-assert itself since it's pretty much built into the system.

    2. What's more likely is that if the Republican Party dies the Democrats will split into two definite distinct factions. The general election will become irrelevant. The primaries will decide the presidency. And the primaries will become a genuine contest between competing ideological positions. The factional split will most likely be between the socially radical wing (the Coalition of the Fringes) and the old school economic left Democrats (the Bernie Sanders style Democrats). It's possible that you'll end up with more actual democracy. More actual choice.

    3. Those factions within the Democrat Party will eventually lead to a formal split into two parties. Again you might end up with more real choice.

    The important thing is for the Republican Party to die.

    The same argument applies to other Anglospshere countries. If the existing "conservative" parties died then the existing "left" parties would split into formal factions or even into two parties.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    One obvious problem with that is that there is no moderate contingent in the Democrat party. They are virtually all on the same page wrt open borders, destroy ‘white supremacy’, free health care for illegal aliens. The ones who deviate, like Jim Webb in 2016 or the guy in the first Dem debate this week (whose) name escapes me, poll at 1% if they’re lucky.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Audacious Epigone


    One obvious problem with that is that there is no moderate contingent in the Democrat party. They are virtually all on the same page wrt open borders, destroy ‘white supremacy’, free health care for illegal aliens.

     

    I'm not entirely sure about that. They have to take those positions given the current party structure and party culture. If the GOP dies and the Democrats split into formal factions there'll be more opportunities for moderate Old School Democrats.

    There are almost certainly lots of moderate rank-and-file Democrats but they get ignored by the party elites.
  269. @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    One obvious problem with that is that there is no moderate contingent in the Democrat party. They are virtually all on the same page wrt open borders, destroy 'white supremacy', free health care for illegal aliens. The ones who deviate, like Jim Webb in 2016 or the guy in the first Dem debate this week (whose) name escapes me, poll at 1% if they're lucky.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    One obvious problem with that is that there is no moderate contingent in the Democrat party. They are virtually all on the same page wrt open borders, destroy ‘white supremacy’, free health care for illegal aliens.

    I’m not entirely sure about that. They have to take those positions given the current party structure and party culture. If the GOP dies and the Democrats split into formal factions there’ll be more opportunities for moderate Old School Democrats.

    There are almost certainly lots of moderate rank-and-file Democrats but they get ignored by the party elites.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS