By Max Macro
(Note: Mr. Macro sits on the Steering Committee of the Renaissance Party of North America (USA). The Committee is chaired by Erick Weigel, a former Regional Director with the American Third Position. While the RPN (Canada) is the flagship of the Renaissance Vanguard, an RPN (USA) is slated for creation in Amerika within 1-2 years. Like interest has been fielded from South Africa, Britain, and India.)
White Nationalism remains in a state of disarray, comprised of a small group hell-bent on ramming a square peg into a round whole via reactionary cries of restoring that which is already dead. Despite the frenzied squealing of the disconcerted swarm that is more concerned with saving America/Canada than anything else, being unable or unwilling to think outside the box of collapsing industrial nation-states, there are a few secession alternatives provided to the reactionary politics of restoring America to some highly idealized, yet vaguely defined gilded age. One of the most well-known alternatives is the Northwest Front, and while Harold Covington certainly deserves credit for recognizing that America is a sinking ship beyond salvation and that the survival of continental White Europeans lies within lifeboats of secession, there are several flaws with a single-state secession strategy (NWF or otherwise) when compared to pan-secession.
The first flaw of the Northwest Front is actually a part of a greater conceptual flaw: White Nationalism itself. While White Nationalism provides a convenient rallying point for racialists, it is weak in terms of a tangible identity and concrete political philosophy, functioning as a lowest common denominator point of unity, much like liberal humanism, albeit confined within a somewhat more strictly specified range of phenotypes and cultures. However, it amounts to little more than multiculturalism for white people and is far too vague for purposes related to identity and political organization, and too broad to serve as the be-all, end-all point for unification. Too broad of a unifying concept is problematic because it only allows for the creation of a very general platform targeted for a wide, varying audience, posited as the be-all, end-all solution for said audience.
In the face of growing economic calamity and eventual collapse, a general platform is too vague for one to connect to and see a solution in, and yet, due to the wide variance of traits among Whites, the construction of a more specific platform posited as a single unifying concept would be impossible, as it would appeal to too narrow of a base of Whites. Then, in the event that Whites did manage to rally behind a general platform in sufficient numbers, when it comes time to implement solutions in the Northwest Republic, *The* White Republic or whatnot, this will only ensure that conflict will inevitably break out along lines of economic and social views, religion, and ethnicity. Such squabbling will be fatal when factored in with conditions brought on by the impending Post-Peak Oil triggered collapse, all while Whites still lack a culture and understanding of whom they are beyond the term “white”. One can cry “Whites unite” to their heart’s content, however, at the end of the day, these differences do remain and do exert influences on our visions, choices, and preferred methods of action, economic systems, and organizational principles, and will likely remain irreconcilable.
Pan-secession doesn’t have this problem, as it allows Whites to relatively split up along the lines of ethnicity/regional identity, religion, social orientation, and preference for economic systems, though this last point will likely be somewhat restricted in variance due to ecological limits. The white population is roughly divided along these lines, with several regions within the North American territory already constituting implicit white ethno-states. As a confirmation of this, feel free to look over this map of ethnic distribution, as provided by the US census.
Pan-secession allows for the creation of more specific platforms relative to the culture/values of each region, while simultaneously minimizing infighting, as different white groups won’t be competing for the same land and institutions. Furthermore, considering the advent of Post-Peak Oil, the collapse and fragmentation of America and Canada into smaller entities is a given, so the hardest part of the job is already done for us. It is simply a matter of recognizing that fact and making it work within an ethno nationalist context, working to localize our economies as much as possible to brace for what is coming. We need to be creating self-sustaining entities while pursuing electoral politics on a local/state level to aid in the transition process and to market our ideas, also trying to culturally deprogram as many people as possible from the American label in favor of developing regional biocultures and their related identities.
Another problem with the Northwest Front is that it is designed to operate entirely within an American political context- one that will be going right out the window when collapse and secession-by-default occur. With the breakdown of existing globalist industrial nation-states, the border between the current United States and Canada will become meaningless, with borders being redrawn around bioregional identities, two such examples being Cascadia and Novacadia, on the west and east coasts respectively. The task at hand is secession initially through mind, culture, and economy, and later, the collapse of global industrialism, which will further force the localization of economies and break down existing governmental institutions. This is not, as Covington posits, a secession accomplished via militia force with the goal of imposing a re-invention of America with added scraps of a superficial, Hollywood-filtered interpretation of National Socialism onto a bioregion already having an identity and proto-culture of its own.
Existing regional identities may be steered to become explicitly racial, a task which will be made monumentally easier by deteriorating economic conditions. Ideas require resources to implement; implementing the lofty ideals of the Enlightenment was only made possible by the Industrial Revolution. Post-collapse societies cannot and will not be “liberal” by any stretch of the imagination, as said ideas will be unsustainable by default. The paradigm of liberal-modernist humanism, and its related dominant abstractions of “diversity”, “equality” “tolerance” and whatnot exist only as a subset of global industrialism, and with its collapse, die with it. These ideological components are only dominant because they are perceived as socially fashionable by the rootless masses, despite offering zero tangible value, with their costs being largely swept under the rug with large-scale industrial conveniences. In the face of survival, these ideas and related social posturing vehicles become meaningless.