academiccompositionab
Empowerment Equalizer
SSaragian
Ann Sterzinger
Rodney
RJ
busterjames
cainusmaxus
Craig FitzGerald
David Heleniak
Caity & Dan Greene
keirmartland
Keith Preston
Bill the Butcher
ljp711
MRDA
Jack Donovan
Rachel Haywire
comrade hermit
Michael
Vince
robertstark2014
Noonan
S E Pearson
Rachel Haywire
Nexus X HumectressArticle by William Van Nostrand.
————————————————————————————————————————————————
In his 1981 book, The Nine Nations of North America, Joel Garreau argues that, because of the vast differences between several parts of North America, the many national borders are irrelevant, and, that indeed, the United States and Canada are not just two nations, but nine nations. In its time, the book was hailed as a classic text on the current regionalization of North America” by American intellectuals.
Garreau’s idea that borders are essentially artificial must be taken in the proper context; they are not to be used in a sentimental sense which would make them easily appropriated by people who advocate massive immigration between nations. Quite the contrary, Garreau’s idea establishes the opposite: that in defiance of the widely-accepted idea of huge superstates encompassing many different peoples, a smaller and localized nationalism, maintaining the local character of the people is needed.
The nine hypothetical nations of North America, according to Garreau
Indeed, the borders of the United States and Canada are artificial, with even less historical justification than Russia’s dominion over Siberia or China’s over its various regions. In the case of the latter, Russia permits certain areas to form autonomous republics, many of which have the limited right of nullification, or the right to enact legislation at odds with the federal constitution. China allows some autonomy in its outer regions by designating them as “autonomous regions”. The United States was formed by the westward expansion of the Federal Government, incorporating land formerly belonging to the Red Indians into the newly-formed nation. The American system also differs considerably, with a bloated federal government which maintains a “one-size-fits-all” outlook on their authority. In reality, then, the “United States” is just that: 50 sovereign states in a union and that union can dissolve just like the Soviet Union did.
Perhaps, the nature of the Americans, as noted by Francis Galton, is nearly a recipe in itself for disaster when combined with a tyrannical but incompetent government. As Galton once said:
The North American people has been bred from the most restless and combative class of Europe. Whenever…a political or religious party has suffered defeat, its prominent members, whether they were the best, or only the noisiest, have been apt to emigrate to America…Every scheming knave, and every brutal ruffian, who feared the arm of the law, also turned his eyes in the same direction. Peasants and artisans, whose spirit rebelled against the tyranny of society and the monotony of their daily life, and men of a higher position, who chafed under conventional restraints, all yearned towards America. Thus the dispositions of the parents of the American people have been exceedingly varied, and usually extreme, but in one respect they almost universally agreed…They are enterprising, defiant, and touchy; impatient of authority; furious politicians; very tolerant of fraud and violence; possessing much high and generous spirit, and some true religious feeling, but strongly addicted to cant.
One of the major possibilities for the breakup is the ever-widening political divides between Americans. A few Americans are opposed to the current Obama regime and favor limited government intervention in property rights, some Americans favor the status quo of continued wars and interventions which have gone on since the end of the Second World War, while yet others wish to use the current conditions to pass and uphold every sort of socialist legislation such as hate speech laws, gun laws, immigration laws, socialized medicine, social activism and secular humanism agendas in schools. Such people also want to expand the authority of welfare state and turn it into a Freudo-Marxist secular regime, while increasing big brother/nanny state police powers and many other laws and regulations that subvert individual freedoms given under the Constitution of the United States.
The American economy is not in good shape. In a society which is materialistic and in which people demand their bread and circuses, this translates into a decreasing trust in the American government’s abilities. Reckless deficit spending has caused our federal government to amass a fourteen trillion dollar debt. The American dollar has lost its value significantly in recent decades, fallen by 1000% since 1950. In other words, goods which cost $10 to purchase in 1950 cost $1000 today. With such crippling debt, excessive spending on wars and entitlement programs, the American economy cannot be sustained. Those who depend on the government dole for their bread will also revolt against the government.
Desolation: The Future of America?
At some point in the not too distant future I surmise that a significant segment of the population will rebel against this government. Another crack in the American dam is noted by Toynbee, the noted British historian, who noted that:
First the Dominant Minority attempts to hold by force – against all right and reason – a position of inherited privilege which it has ceased to merit; and then the Proletariat repays injustice with resentment, fear with hate, and violence with violence when it executes its acts of secession. Yet the whole movement ends in positive acts of creation – and this on the part of all the actors in the tragedy of disintegration. The Dominant Minority creates a universal state, the Internal Proletariat a universal church, and the External Proletariat a bevy of barbarian war-bands.
There exist today in America, in fact, many dominant minorities who are willingly subverting the interests of the United States for their own purposes. Certainly, America is also fracturing along racial lines. Even under the Obama regime, people of different ethnic groups are finding it difficult to co-exist, as evidenced by the rampant crime in American cities. Latinos have come to dominate the American Southwest and display more loyalty to their Hispanic brethern across the border then they do to the United States. Native Americans, perhaps the biggest victims of the Federal Government, also have a compelling case for secession, as does the former Confederacy. The Catholic Knight points out that secessionist movements have already cropped up around the country.
What would a hypothetical re-drawn map of America look like? On one extreme, it could resemble Europe during the Dark Ages: a vast continent composed of many small states and fiefdoms. As the Union collapses, and states secede, different nations might arise, citing commonalities in their regional lifestyles. For instance, the former Confederacy might form a single nation, while some West Coast states form another. Some Canadian provinces might join with former U.S. states, but Quebec will certainly become its own nation. The entire Southwest might be absorbed into Mexico, or certain Northern Mexican states may secede from Mexico and join the largely Hispanic Southwest. Indian nations might also secede. There is no telling how many nations America may be broken up into, and it is certainly possible that Garreau was rather kind in making his predictions.
Another proposal for what a Balkanized North America may look like (click to expand)
Those who are unlucky enough to witness this collapse will have to weather the initial storm of violence and social unrest before more stable and localized societies are formed. Such an event may take a few generations. Eventually, an equilibrium might be established, or these newly formed states could degenerate further into violent conflict. If future generations are fortunate, a few centuries of peace and prosperity may arise out of these smaller nations, forcing people to return to a smaller ecological niche. Unfortunately, history has been shown to be cyclical and not linear, and perhaps one day in the future, a new Union of North American states will be formed at the great expense of the people living there, thus initiating the cycle once more.
Attack the System
Categories: Uncategorized
Love this…. but (there’s always a but) I feel like there’s a lot of unnecessary focus on racial separatism and racial conflict, particularly at the level of a handful of nation states instead of one. I know a great deal of self imposed segregation occurs. But I also think that human civilization and technological and economic development lies in cities. One of the important ingredients of a functioning, developing city is diversity; not necessarily racial diversity, but diversity of thought, diversity of preferences, talents, needs, and even culture (which often lies along racial lines.)
So even though southern California has a lot of Mexicans and other Latin American immigrants, its cities are extremely diverse and therein lies their strength. So how do you get Southern California to secede from the US and join Mexico or form its own Latin American Nation when its biggest, most important urban centers are just as much white and black as they are brown?
Sometimes I feel like secessionists just get too excited about drawing fun color coded maps of the US along the lines of even more imaginary borders than we have now.
“One of the important ingredients of a functioning, developing city is diversity; not necessarily racial diversity, but diversity of thought…”
In Europe (and in a majority of the US) “racial diversity” (soft genocide of europeans) is a fifteen / twenty / thirty – years old experiment (it didn’t start at the same time everywhere). When I was a child it was so bizarre to see an african that people turned their heads out of pure surprise. They had seen blacks only in american movies and TV news and documentaries. It was the eighties. And I’m talking of a BIG european city.
Today you can’t spot the whitey in the very same neighbourhood that my grandparents built, literally, with their hands.
What I feel is pure despair. It fuels me to seek a revolution.
There are certainly better ways to handle immigrants moving into new neighborhoods and the reverse process, gentrification, on a neighborhood level. I think that one of the problems is the way home loans are handed out like candy in this country, and certainly the influence that developers have. Add to that zoning and urban renewal. Also “block busting” that occurred 50 years ago or maybe even more recent than that where unscrupulous land lords would pay a black family to move into a white neighborhood, or even pay them to walk up and down the street a few times a day in order to get residents to panic and sell at a fire sale price.
A few articles linked here have shown how a more informal system of property titling and (get this) less access to credit leads to more stable neighborhoods with residents who invest in their home and community for multiple generations. It really isn’t until the home selling industry moves in that you suddenly see people uprooting themselves and moving all over the place. Of course with that industry comes all sorts of state manufactured incentives, including the credit itself via fractional reserve banking.
But that wasn’t really my point. My point was that cities like LA, New York and Chicago, which are global economic and cultural engines, are defined by their diversity (and I really don’t just mean racial diversity here.) A number of lessor cities could be included in that category to some extent, too. So when we talk about the formation of a handful of smaller nation states in the former US based on racial lines, special consideration should be given to these cities. There are truly creatures of their own, and will continue to operate largely outside of the control of any nation that claims them. I think that also applies to the US and is evident in the fact that it doesn’t control vast swathes of the underground economy of those cities, neither can it control immigration, or a whole host of other laws that are easily pushed aside by these organisms.
” What I feel is pure despair. It fuels me to seek a revolution.”
Well said brother. You are not alone. Those of us who have had to live in cities where we were forced to experience the riches of diversity that so many talk about in glowing terms have had a belly full. The only diversity I want to see in the new Republic that I choose to live in will be slightly different shades of white.
Vince,
“I know a great deal of self imposed segregation occurs. But I also think that human civilization and technological and economic development lies in cities. One of the important ingredients of a functioning, developing city is diversity; not necessarily racial diversity, but diversity of thought, diversity of preferences, talents, needs, and even culture (which often lies along racial lines.)”
Right. That’s one of the points I was trying to make in my critique of conservatism:
http://attackthesystem.com/beyond-conservatism-reclaiming-the-radical-roots-of-libertarianism/
I originally wrote this in response to some idiotic piece by Edward Feser in the Journal of Libertarian Studies where he was basically arguing for a fusion of libertarianism with some kind of religious right-style moralism.
“So even though southern California has a lot of Mexicans and other Latin American immigrants, its cities are extremely diverse and therein lies their strength. So how do you get Southern California to secede from the US and join Mexico or form its own Latin American Nation when its biggest, most important urban centers are just as much white and black as they are brown?”
Yes, that’s another problem with racial determinism. It’s interesting how today the hard right and hard left mirror each other in thinking that race is everything. I see the same problem with neo-confederates who think they’re going to resurrect the CSA is the heart of the Black Belt and when blacks are the largest population group in most of the major southern cities.
On the other hand, I don’t agree that race is meaningless either. Clearly, many people define themselves at least in part on the basis of their racial and ethnic identity in a way that’s important to them and race is obviously one of the major fault lines in our society. Daryl Lamont Jenkins of the One Peoples Project said something really weird at the Press Club last week. After Richard Spencer, James Edwards, and Jared Taylor held their press conference outlining the “Sailer Strategy,” Jenkins suggested that American society will probably split up into multiple polities in the future, but argued this split would be along economic and cultural lines rather than racial ones. I found that to be an odd comment for a hard leftist anti-racist type like Jenkins to make, given that such people put such a primary emphasis on racial conflict as a determining factor in US society. I’m not any kind of determinist, not racial, economic, religious, or even political. I think we have to look to multifactorial explanations for social phenomena. I basically follow Pareto on this question.
“There are certainly better ways to handle immigrants moving into new neighborhoods and the reverse process, gentrification, on a neighborhood level. I think that one of the problems is the way home loans are handed out like candy in this country, and certainly the influence that developers have. Add to that zoning and urban renewal. Also “block busting” that occurred 50 years ago or maybe even more recent than that where unscrupulous land lords would pay a black family to move into a white neighborhood, or even pay them to walk up and down the street a few times a day in order to get residents to panic and sell at a fire sale price.
A few articles linked here have shown how a more informal system of property titling and (get this) less access to credit leads to more stable neighborhoods with residents who invest in their home and community for multiple generations. It really isn’t until the home selling industry moves in that you suddenly see people uprooting themselves and moving all over the place. Of course with that industry comes all sorts of state manufactured incentives, including the credit itself via fractional reserve banking.”
Yes, I think the anti-immigration as well as the pro-immigration forces adhere to a really faulty analysis of how immigration transpires in modern society. They both seem to assume it’s just a matter of enforcing or not enforcing “The Law.” So immigration restrictionists want tougher laws and immigrants rights advocates want open borders. Neither side seems to me to focus on the institutional causes of mass immigration in the way that they should. Without all of the actions by the state and capital that you mention (and many others) neighborhoods, communities, local economies, and all that would be far more stable than they are now. A stateless society would have neither “open borders” the way liberals or vulgar libertarians conceive of it, nor would there be nation-state regimes imposing a uniform immigration policy on local communities, tribes, property owners, etc.
“My point was that cities like LA, New York and Chicago, which are global economic and cultural engines, are defined by their diversity (and I really don’t just mean racial diversity here.) A number of lessor cities could be included in that category to some extent, too. So when we talk about the formation of a handful of smaller nation states in the former US based on racial lines, special consideration should be given to these cities. There are truly creatures of their own, and will continue to operate largely outside of the control of any nation that claims them. I think that also applies to the US and is evident in the fact that it doesn’t control vast swathes of the underground economy of those cities, neither can it control immigration, or a whole host of other laws that are easily pushed aside by these organisms.”
Yes, I agree. Wilmot Robertson, who originated the ethno-state idea, argued for a system of independent neighborhoods organized along racial lines in large urban centers: http://www.alor.org/Race,%20Culture%20and%20Nation/America%27s%20Decay%20&%20Seccessionism.htm According to Robertson’s vision, large metro areas would apparently be independent city-states among an agglomeration of larger ethnostates, with individual cities devolved internally along racial lines. While this is an interesting concept, I think you’re right that it’s a mistake to focus too narrowly on race. What about culture, religion, class, political ideology, lifestyle preferences, language, competing economic philosophies, etc? I like Norman Mailer’s idea of devolving cities along culturally and politically specific lines. Race and ethnicity would be a big part of all that obviously, but it wouldn’t be everything.
Regarding secession, I think a lot of different mixtures of social and political currents would come out of that. I’ve mentioned here before that an independent Texas would be very multiethnic but politically and socially very conservative with liberal enclaves like Austin. The northeast would be homogeneously white but politically closer to the Greens than the Republicans. I think some racialists also underestimate the degree to which Asians and Hispanics identify themselves less in a pan-racial way and more by their specific nationality like Mexican, Salvadoran, Cambodian, Korean, etc. Look at how much diversity there is among black nationalists in terms of ideological specifics. Even a separatist breakway political entity organized specifically as an ethno-state would likely need to accommodate differences between different groups within the same race (the way Israel does, for instance, with its mixture of ultra-orthodox Jews and secular liberals under the same political roof). In fact, at the NPI gathering last weekend, Jared Taylor suggested organizing white ethno-identitarian towns modeled after the Orthodox Jewish towns found in NY and Sam Dickson suggested that a movement for white ethno-states would need to appeal to whites all across the political spectrum, not just the hard right, and would out of practical necessity need to take libertarian positions on things like drug use and homosexuality. LOL, I was sitting next to him during lunch on Saturday, and he was asking me about my anarchist views and seemed very curious about my outlook. Taylor said something similar a while back in this piece on southern secession: http://www.vdare.com/articles/150-years-after-fort-sumter-independence-is-there-for-those-with-the-will-to-take-it
I tend to look at these questions by asking myself how I would go about organizing an independent state of Virginia or Richmond as an independent city-state.
http://richmondattackthesystem.blogspot.com/2010/10/if-virginia-told-feds-to-go-to-hell.html For instance the northern Virginia enclave outside DC is basically a haven for federal employees. I would want to sever that collection of parasites from Virginia altogether let them form their Republic of Parasites of the Former Regime or whatever it would be called. The new Virginia confederation out to be organized as a collection of sovereign localities. For instance, the towns and counties in the center-west part of the state where I originated from tend to be very religious, very conservative, and they can do their Bible-banging there in their own enclaves, The city of Richmond and the collection of cities in southeast Virginia along the coast tend to be very poor and majority black in many instances. They also tend to be infested with crime, mostly drug-related. In the metro Richmond area, the surrounding counties tend to be somewhat affluent and Republican-leaning (that Israeli-stooge/military-industrial-complex flunkie/corporate kept boy Eric Cantor represents that area in Congress while a black guy named Bobby Scott represents the majority African-American areas of Richmond and southeast Virginia) except for eastern Henrico which is also poor and often black. In the Virginia federation, I would want the rural counties, affluent suburbs, and poor urban centers to all be independent of each other. As an opponent of Christianity myself, I really don’t want the Jeezophiles in my own territory. As one who disdains the world of suburbia, I really don’t want that in my territory, either. As an urban resident, my main interests are improving economic stability and prosperity, particularly among the lower classes, and reducing both crime and police presence simultaneously. That’s where the ideas of thinkers ranging from Kevin Carson to Walter Williams come in to play. Legalize drugs, repeal gun laws, end victimless crimes, form common law courts, expel the police, form community self-protection systems. End zoning and occupational licensing, deregulate small businesses and housing markets, allow squatting and urban farming, etc. It’s funny that I always have the label “racist” thrown at me given that as a resident of a majority-minority community, it is very much in my interest for black Americans to be safe and prosper.
“Today you can’t spot the whitey in the very same neighbourhood that my grandparents built, literally, with their hands.”
One of the major disconnects of left-wing thought is the way they go crazy over the extinction of animal or even plant micro-species, but think the disappearance of distinctive nationalities or cultures is no big deal. Actually, they don’t seem to really believe that, given their endorsement of the Free Tibet movement, their frequent endorsement of a Palestinian state, Puerto Rican independence, their sometimes sympathy for indigenous peoples movements around the world, their fascination with the Zapatistas and things like that. Some of that may just be trendy left-hipster posing but many of them are probably sincere. But any expression of European ethno-cultural self-preservationism drives them nuts. I think this double standard is rooted in historical circumstances and ideological extremism and will eventually fade.
I think these are better maps of what post-America will look like as opposed to some of the other-worldly stuff secessionists have habit of drawing up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states
http://flowingdata.com/2010/12/16/mapping-demographics-of-every-block-and-city-in-america/
As for the race issues, these maps are probably the most realistic: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315078/Race-maps-America.html
http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_common_race.html
“Those of us who have had to live in cities where we were forced to experience the riches of diversity that so many talk about in glowing terms have had a belly full. The only diversity I want to see in the new Republic that I choose to live in will be slightly different shades of white.”
Just as a matter of curiosity, what would be your preferred standards for citizenship in a white ethno-state? The reason I ask is because I’ve encountered significant variation among different groups of racialists as to who properly qualifies as white. For instance, there are some who consider Jews, white Arabs (like Bashir Assad), white Mexicans (as opposed to mestizos), Argentines, and Persians to all be white. Others say hell no to the inclusion of some of these ethnicities. There are also differences of opinion as to whether Italians and Greeks or other southern Europeans are genuinely white. A big source of the divide seems to be between old-style Nordicists for whom “white” basically means northern Europeans. Some of those, at least in past times, did not consider Mediterraneans to be white. Some did not consider Russians to be white but Asians. On the other hand, the Indo-Europeanists tend to have a much more expansive view of the racial family tree. Some of them even include Indians and Pakistanis within their racial paradigm. Also, George Lincoln Rockwell’s NS international even had a Japanese division if I recall correctly.
In Europe, particularly Eastern Europe, there is still a great deal of bickering over what some have called “petty nationalism.” For instance, Tom Sunic was criticizing this heavily in his lecture at NPI, specifically citing Jobbik as a target of criticism for advocating too narrow a view of nationalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobbik Sunic favors a pan-European approach.
Also, what about people of mixed ancestry, like someone who is 3/4 white and 1/4 black? Or half white and half Chinese?
These kinds of discrepancies are part of why I’m skeptical of racial determinism and much prefer neo-tribalism to racialism.