Secession Expanded

The piece below was posted by commenter Jeppo in the previous thread. Though it contains sufficient scope and ideas to warrant headlining as a companion.

Anatoly Karlin points out that we went from fewer than 50 polities in 1800 to around 200 today, and speculates on the future of secessionism worldwide.

The example of Malaysia expelling Singapore is an interesting one, and there’s almost nothing I’d rather see than the Bantus in Tshwane (formerly Pretoria) expel the Whites and Coloureds of the Western Cape.

But it’s never going to happen because the stupid need the smart to provide for them, and will fight to the death to keep them politically enslaved. In fact the only reason Malaysia is fairly prosperous for a Third World country is because the Chinese and Indians still make up a hefty 32% of the population. Without them, the Bumiputra would be wallowing in Filipino or Indonesian levels of poverty.

In Catalonia the independence movement spans the political spectrum from far left to far right. A lot of alt-right writers seem to think that it’s an exclusively left-wing movement, but leader Carles Puigdemont and the bulk of his separatist coalition are actually on the centre-right.

Both sides in this dispute, Madrid and Barcelona, are acting as if they have no plan at all and are just making things up on the go. Maybe this is due to typically Latin levels of disorganization, but it’s hard to see how, a) Catalonia can actually assert its declaration of independence in the real world, and b) Spain can keep Catalonia in the fold using violent coercion and other cackhanded tactics.

In Scotland the independence movement is dominated by open-borders fanatics, old timey Marxist-Leninists, and other far left flotsam and jetsam. By comparison with the SNP, even the Labour Party looks like the BNP or UKIP. If they ever want to achieve Scottish independence, I think the SNP will have to grow into a pan-ideological coalition like the one in Catalonia.

The most advanced and serious separatist movement in the West, by far, is in Quebec. In the 1995 independence referendum, the ‘Non’ side squeaked by the ‘Oui’ by a wafer-thin 50.6% to 49.4% margin. A few thousand more votes and the separatists would have issued a UDI, which would have been immediately recognized by France and other francophone nations. And Canada, unlike Spain, would have done nothing in response.

The Quebec separatist movement has faded somewhat in recent years, with splinter groups breaking off from the once-monolithic Parti Quebecois: a hard left socialist-separatist party (the QS), and a somewhat pro-Canadian conservative nationalist party (the CAQ).

But if there’s one thing that will revive the separatists’ fortunes, it’s the federal government’s fanatical commitment to mass immigration and multiculturalism, particularly under Trudeau. The epicentre of this resistance to replacement is Quebec City, which has come out of nowhere to become undeniably the most conservative city in Canada, and possibly even North America as a whole. Maybe not in an economic or social sense, but definitely in an identitarian one.

In the US the South remains a distinctive sub-nation, but I think that any serious neo-Confederate revival is, alas, a pipedream. Karlin speculates that the US could break up along ethnocultural and economic lines, like those proposed by Joel Garreau (9 nations) or Colin Woodard (11 nations). Michael H Hart proposed dividing the US into two nations along county lines, to be determined by voting patterns. Basically a red ocean full of blue islands.

I don’t think those scenarios are realistic either. But a return to the Articles of Confederation period (1781-1788) just might be. Before the United States became a unitary nation it was an alliance of sovereign states. The modern template for how this would work is the European Union. Yes, the EU has a terrible reputation in our circles, but the EU is a toothless tiger compared to the all-powerful federal government in the US, and the much-maligned Brussels bureaucracy is positively microscopic compared to the behemoth in DC.

This way the 50 states would become fully sovereign nations, with all the powers that Germany or France or any other countries in the EU enjoy, while still keeping an attachment to the United States, which would transform itself from an independent nation to a transnational organization. The globalists and multiculturalists could have their own nations (e.g. California & New York), and the nationalists and patriots could have theirs (e.g. Texas & Kentucky).

In a way it would be a great tragedy if these ancient nations (like Spain and Great Britain, or even the US and Canada) flew apart. But the hour is late and we need to do something radical to shake things up if any white-majority nations are to survive anywhere by the end of this century. Maybe Catalonia will remain white while Castile turns brown, or maybe it will be vice-versa. Either way the more sovereign nations we can create in what used to be known as the West, the better the chances that at least some of them will remain white, hopefully forever.

Advertisements

25 thoughts on “Secession Expanded

  1. In the U.S. it’s really this simple: the coming demographic change wave of Hispanic and (to a lesser extent) Asian voters will hand the Presidency to the Democrats on a permanent basis beginning in 2024 or 2028. Once that is accomplished the Democrats will simply rule by Executive Order. The Obama Administration’s Executive Orders were just a warm-up for the coming autocratic rule by the Democratic Executive branch. Due to the Supremacy Clause the U.S. will cease being a Republic and will become a Democracy.

    Evict California from the Union and the Republic survives another 50-100 years. This should be the biggest issue on the alt-right.

    The other alternative to consider is a Reconstruction-style bailout plan for bankrupt states which, not surprisingly, are overwhelmingly Blue. In exchange for loans guaranteed by the Federal Government, a bankrupt state enters a form of receivership in which they forfeit their representation in the Federal Government until said loans are repaid. This would knock out Illinois, California, and Connecticut in short order.

    • The Republican Party is alive and well and indistinguishable from the Left. The worst thing for globalists is a Democratic Trifecta as we saw in Obama’s 1st 2 years. It’s okay short-term, but if it lingers, the Libs start to wonder why their darlings aren’t pursuing the right environmental legislation, improving public transportion, etc. Just as this year has been a head scratcher for the remaining naive conservatives who are shocked that ObamaCare repeal is still elusive.
      Bush was supposed to win in 2000 and 2004 and be so horrendous that we were ready for an Obama. Ralph Nader did his part. Hillary was such a vulnerable candidate that it seems Kasich was supposed to win. (Nobody’s perfect)
      Trump’s win is the equivalent of a California succession—a miracle that it happened, and will buy a little time.

      • Trump really isn’t buying us much. We are still importing a demographic nightmare under his tenure. He hasn’t done jack shit stop that, unless talking counts.

    • “Evict California from the Union and the Republic survives another 50-100 years. This should be the biggest issue on the alt-right.”

      Sharp comment. The South is way too cucked to rise again anytime soon. I’m a Southerner, and I say this to my shame. Californian independence really would substantially turn the tide that’s been against us. I really don’t think that would spawn other independence movements here, unfortunately, but the upside to that is there wouldn’t seem to be as much of a need for that. Also, on the upside, if it did spawn any independence movements, those would most likely come from Oregon, possibly Washington state, and the Northeast.

    • The alt-right has little interest in preserving the Republic.

      I doubt CA leaving would change it by anywhere near that much; a big part of the reason the Brookings Institute predicts 2028 to be the last possible year a Rep can win is due to TX turning blue. Other states will also soon be turning blue as the demographic wave rushes onward. And its unstoppable by political means; even if all immigration was stopped & all illegals expelled it wouldn’t change much due to a vast majority of non-whites being legal.

      Even if a miracle happened & white women started birthing 4+ white babies each, it would only change the resulting color of mud the American race will be in the 22nd century.

      If you value the white race or the conservative values that only the white race supports in the majority, the only solution is to get whites to tribe up so when the time comes a critical mass will be ready to respond.

  2. In the US the South remains a distinctive sub-nation, but I think that any serious neo-Confederate revival is, alas, a pipedream.

    I think it is probably a pipe dream also. That is barring a general US crackup. The South occupies a special place at the table of unprincipled exceptions. While demeaning whites as a whole is merely acceptable, it’s positively obligatory in regard to Southerners. Thus any reanimated independence movement (or any movement whatsoever) emerging from the South attracts instantaneous and enthusiastic calumny from every worm who delights in imagining there’s at least someone lower to the ground than him.

    Also, that distinctive sub-nation has (by design) become much less distinctive just over the course of my life. Both by people and culture the South has been massively adulterated. Her cities are absolutely teeming with migrants, both foreign and domestic. And a great many of her own sons and daughters have absorbed the messaging that they and their fathers represent a particular stain on humanity that would be best if cleansed.

    I often opine that slavery was the second most destructive institution ever embraced by the South. The first, by far, was in forming a union with the North. Because slavery was survivable. The union will very likely prove not to be.

    ——

    I haven’t read the linked Karlin piece, though I have some thoughts on the proliferation of polities he cites.

    People simply yearn to live with like others. And the more they are able to do so without mortal consequences, the finer grained they make their distinctions. Historically those mortal consequences came in the form of conquest and/or subjugation by larger powers. Thus the higher prior likelihood of being conquered tended to create a gravitational force with others less like themselves, but more alike than the potential invaders. There are significant military synergies and general economies of scale that come with integration. So as long as you can bear your broad-range countrymen, large states make a great deal of sense in a higher-conflict world.

    But as the fear of foreign tanks begins to recede, it is replaced by the realization that you and these so-called countrymen have quite little in common beyond a desire for mutual defense. Increasingly it dawns that they actually dislike you intensely, oppose you in every instance politically, and represent as much a domestic threat to your posterity as any of foreign origin. So why is it precisely we are sharing a country?

    Even though US neocons do everything in their power to keep war safe, the trend of deaths associated with state conflict appears to be distinctly in retreat. That may not continue. And if it reverses, I expect the attraction of large integrated states will strengthen. But unless (until) that happens—that is to say while people believe they can separate safely—they will continue to do so. If war were impossible I imagine a huge number of new countries would blossom absent its fear. A home is simply far more pleasant and productive when it is shared by people of the same immediate family.

    • While demeaning whites as a whole is merely acceptable, it’s positively obligatory in regard to Southerners.

      Yup, Southern whites are probably the most unfairly maligned people on the planet, with the possible exception of the Afrikaners.

      But on the plus side, being constantly attacked by outsiders (and being surrounded by blacks) has bred a certain racial solidarity in both groups, certainly compared to Northerners or Anglo South Africans.

      And Canadians? Fuggetaboutit, cucks r us. Except for Quebec, where even the leftists attack multiculturalism. Probably because they have their own minoritarian, perpetual victim narrative, so they can’t be shamed as easily as the rest of us.

      BTW that Karlin article is very good, definitely worth a read. It gives me hope that this explosion of petty nationalisms may help us turn the corner on the anti-white race hatred that’s destroying our entire civilization.

      ¡Viva Catalunya libre!

      • I just read the Karlin piece and didn’t find much with which to disagree; though I think he lingers too lightly on the centripetal force of war. Or rather the prospect of war. No one is looks for independence when a large hostile neighbor comes knocking.

        I very much liked the passage below.

        When you are a technocrat ruling over 80 million people, it is easy for you to listen to your economists and invite in millions of supposed “doctors and engineers” to augment your workforce, protestations from stupid racist hillbillies in the boondocks be damned. Quite a lot harder if you’re the mayor of a small city who has to justify his decisions to a combatative citizens’ gathering in a townhall – the bulk of opposition to Merkel’s immigration decrees was at the local level.

        This is why large centralized polities are always eventually indifferent to their people. It is a feature of their very structure.

    • “So why is it precisely we are sharing a country?”

      Partly because Jews felt they wanted a place where they could fit in, so they invented “diversity”. Some of them are anti-white genocidal maniacs but many believe in diversity and equality and always will.

  3. Pingback: Secession Expanded | Reaction Times

  4. Pingback: Quote Of The Month | Western Rifle Shooters Association

  5. Thank you especially for this pearl:

    ” the stupid need the smart to provide for them, and will fight to the death to keep them politically enslaved.”

    This is the only explanation needed for Communism and its enduring popularity.

      • The useless need the useful. The useless at the top can be smart – or at least (((glib))) – and the useless at the bottom are dumb. Yet they are united in their hatred of the people who make civilization possible.

        Great post, Jeppo. And as always, thanks to Porter for the most eloquent commentary on the internet.

  6. It appears to me that Whitey will eventually have to kill hundreds of millions in order to survive. There’s no way out of this liberal cul-de-sac we are pushed into. If you doubt it then state your reasons. Thanks.

  7. we were all wondering about your silence in the wake of recent events. Looked for your blog on self denigration and denial after the French road carnage, but could not find it. Maybe time to repost.

  8. Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2017/11/05) - Social Matter

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s