Is America, Too, Breaking Up? Or, Nothing Succeeds Like Secession
To say that the last few generations have been a demographic disaster for many White populations around the world is an understatement. That Whites in America are now slated to fall to a mere half of the population by 2042 is but one of the more telling signs of this sad truth.
Firebrand Pat Buchanan has been aware of this threat for a long time and even wrote a searing book on the subject, The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization.
Recently, while returning from a conference in Europe, he had the chance to reflect on trends in America, and came to a possibly pessimistic conclusion, “Is America Coming Apart?”
We seem not only to disagree with each other more than ever, but to have come almost to detest one another. Politically, culturally, racially, we seem ever ready to go for each others’ throats….
In what sense are we one nation and one people anymore? For what is a nation if not a people of a common ancestry, faith, culture and language, who worship the same God, revere the same heroes, cherish the same history, celebrate the same holidays, and share the same music, poetry, art and literature?
Tellingly — for those who didn’t already know — Buchanan is talking about what most of us think of when we say “Whites.” And this pointedly excludes Jews, as indicated by the following: “The European-Christian core of the country that once defined us is shrinking.” Trust me, he has my full agreement on that definition of Whites.
Buchanan then asks us, “If a married couple disagreed as broadly and deeply as Americans do on such basic issues, they would have divorced and gone their separate ways long ago.”
And that, in short, is what I would like to write about today: Should America break up into more homogeneous parts, in large measure to assure the survival and eventual prosperity of Whites? In other words, is secession of one or more sectors of America a viable option?
Writers for The Occidental Quarterly (print and online) as well as those here at TOO have weighed in on the issue before. For example, a year ago editor Kevin MacDonald explicitly stated his case in the editorial “Secession and implicit whiteness,” writing, “Secession is certainly an option that has occurred to whites intent on preserving the traditional people and culture of the US.”
A chief reason that secession is an option is the widespread sense that the American system is beyond repair, at least with respect to the interests of Whites. As the TOO editorial noted, “44% agreed that ‘the United States' system is broken and cannot be fixed by traditional two-party politics and elections.’" Further, in a 2006 poll released by CNN, 71% of Americans agreed that "our system of government is broken and cannot be fixed."
The present system is indeed broken and cannot be fixed. And like it or not, it will continue to get worse either at the present rate or at an increasing rate as far as Whites are concerned. What to do, then?
First, study the problem and consider options. One could do worse than turn to Michael O’Meara’s award-winning TOQ essay “Toward the White Republic” for both. He wrote that “white nationalists at present have no hope of actually mobilizing the white populace in opposition to the existing anti-white regime. Rather, their immediate goal is to prepare the way for the development of a revolutionary nationalist vanguard to lead the struggle for white liberation. They aspire thus not to recapture the rotting corpse of the US government, but to free themselves from it — in order to be themselves, in their own land, in their own way.”
Sam Dickson’s point at last year’s American Renaissance conference parallels this: “What I want is a homeland for my race, on this continent, and homelands for our people in Europe, in our lands of ancestral origin. . . . Is it extreme for us to ask for a homeland for our own people?”
Note O’Meara’s take on how the system broke:
When the post-1945 National Security State, armed with its newly acquired
“mandate of heaven,” endeavored to turn Roosevelt’s liberal-managerial state
system into a world empire, premised on the belief that it was based on an idea,
not a people, it launched what amounted to an assault on America’s historic
identity — an assault whose overarching aim has been to undermine the
population’s racial consciousness and promote ethnocidal practices facilitating
its “demographic” reconstitution. The state’s “anti-racism” came thus to serve
as an instrument of its social engineers, who sought to turn whites into herds
of “tamed sheep [who] care not in which flock [they] are driven.
O’Meara offers a growing framework for addressing this problem:
Secessionists surrender nothing but the slow death of their people. For among other things, secession is about survival — and the prospect of being able to fight another day.
To do that, one must live. But where, how?
For all practical purposes whites have lost the United States. Though still a near majority, we are surrounded by armed forces seeking our destruction; we are running out of ammunition, and the ground troops are being ordered in to clean up the remaining pockets of resistance. It looks as if we’re doomed.
Secession is a way of avoiding the deadly pincers closing in on white life.
In the last sixty years, absolutely NOTHING — not one little thing — has been accomplished to interrupt the programmed destruction of European America. . . .
But even if [reform is] feasible, what self-respecting white man would want to
take back the United States, this monstrous, bureaucratic Leviathan whose
Jewish, race-mixing, homophile, feminist, fraudulent, anti-Christian, and
degenerate practices stand as an affront to everything his ancestors stood for.
The next question is, which sections should break away? Having grown up in one of the thousands of small White towns still left in America (look at the figures for Whites in such places even now: 94.25%, 95.41%, 98.14%, 93.13%), I know there is an enormous pool of potential recruits in this struggle, since these towns are at a minimum full of “implicit Whiteness” — the often unconscious attraction of Whites to other White people and to White culture. We were and are the people Buchanan and others are writing about. We’re part of “Red State” America, the landlocked eastern sector of “flyover country,” derisively named by those who think only New York, Los Angeles and possibly San Francisco are worth their time.
Frankly, where I grew up, people didn’t think a whole lot of New York and New Yorkers, pretty much considering it and its inhabitants a foreign country — the John Rocker worldview, if you’d like.
Oh, I understand that our contempt for much of the Blue State world is returned
by those who despise us. Sadly, they are largely in control of our culture (or
what’s left of it, as they say) and we’ve had to endure their open hatred for
decades now. Take novelist Philip Roth, for example. Today the geriatric
Roth has become the paranoid and hate-filled Jew he had railed against forty
years ago. This was abundantly clear by the time he released
The Plot Against America
(2005). Never mind that white
Christian boys and men went to die for the Jews’ enemy in World War II in a very
unnecessary war. Roth is still consumed with a vision of a
Jew-hating goyish nation led by Charles Lindbergh.
Roth’s hatred has become so palpable that
The Plot Against America in
The American Conservative concluded,
“This is a repellent novel, bigoted and libelous of the dead, dripping with
hatred of rural America, of Catholics, of any Middle American who has ever dared
stand against the war machine.”
Last year we were treated to yet more goy hatred in Roth’s latest, Indignation, a book that even half-Jewish Christopher Hitchens hated. Attending a college in small-town America not unlike the ones I wrote about above, Roth’s Jewish protagonist can barely stand the locals:
More than a few times during the first weeks, I thought I heard myself being
summoned to one of the rowdier tables with the words “Hey, Jew! Over here!” But,
preferring to believe the words spoken had been simply “Hey, you! Over here!” I
persisted with my duties, determined to abide by the butcher-shop lesson learned
from my father: slit the ass open and stick your hand up and grab the viscera
and pull them out; nauseating and disgusting, but it had to be done.
Years ago, Hollywood insider Ben Stein detailed what the coastal elites thought about the rest of the country. In his essay, “Whatever happened to small-town America?” he explored television’s pronounced hostility toward rural (read Christian) America. Overwhelmingly Jewish, the television elite, like its Hollywood counterpart, imagined that small-town goyim naturally meant harm to the Jews. “As a result, when he [a Jewish TV writer] gets the chance, he attacks the small town on television or the movies.” (See here for my thoughts on this phenomenon.)
As I said, it is Jews of Stein’s and Roth’s milieu that rule America, occupying
the top ranks of academia, journalism, the legal system, Wall Street,
Washington, as well as Hollywood and TV. Doesn’t this represent the kind of
broken marriage Pat Buchanan alluded to? Might not it be past time for a
Respected military strategist
S. Lind thinks such split
— secession in political terms — has a future in America. His important article,
President Davis,” begins succinctly: ”Secession is in the
One of the many good points he makes is this: “If
America breaks up it is likely to do so along non-geographic lines. Fourth
Generation theory suggests that the new primary identities for which people are
likely to vote, work and fight will not be geographical. Rather, they will be
cultural, religious, racial or ethnic, ideological, etc. Following the sorts of
massacres, ethnic cleansings, pogroms and genocides such Fourth Generation civil
wars usually involve, new geographically defined states may emerge. But their
borders will derive from cultural divides more than geographic ones.”
Several White Nationalist thinkers such as the late National Alliance leader
William Pierce, have turned to fiction to reach an audience not likely to sit
through measured rational arguments calling for rebellion against the forces
that oppress them. Lind too turned to the novel. Called
it incorporated Lind’s ideas about Fourth Generation warfare, positing a second
American Civil War. It never found a publisher, however, which Lind blamed on
Political Correctness. Be that as it may, “the idea of an American break-up,” he
wrote, “is no longer off the charts.”
While Lind feels secession will come about along non-geographical fault lines, most other secessionists feel it will be based on contiguous territory. One of the leading writers in this camp is Harold Covington, a rather unusual individual, to say the least. Still, if we can learn from his novels, then it might be worth taking his ideas seriously. Besides, numerous pro-White bloggers have been making the case that reasoned argument will never move the masses. What is needed is style, or myth, as O’Meara argued:
All great movements . . . are driven not by rational arguments or party programs, but by their myths . . . For it is myth — and the memories and hopes animating it — that shape a nation, that turn a “motley horde” into a people with a shared sense of purpose and identity, that mobilize them against the state of things, and prepare them for self-sacrifice and self-rule.
TOQ editor Greg Johnson recently wrote a brilliant review of Covington’s secessionist novels, the so-called Northwest Quartet. Like O’Meara, he sees working within the current American system as a dead end:
Fortunately, we know that the US system is moving full steam toward catastrophes
on a number of different tracks. The political system is captive to minority and
foreign interests and cannot pursue the common good. Our Israel-first foreign
adventurism and profligate welfare spending are economically unsustainable.
Multiculturalism and non-white immigration are leading to the ever-intensified
degradation and dispossession of whites, which can only lead to increased ethnic
conflict. Affirmative action and corruption have filled the government with
incompetent employees who are parasites at best and actively throttle
productivity and sow social chaos at worst. Education and popular culture
continue their descent. The system is dependent on ever-increasing technological
sophistication to exploit diminishing natural resources, yet the demographic
trends are profoundly dysgenic. Morons are reproducing faster than geniuses, and
the political system enfranchises and caters to the morons, with their high time
preferences and ignorance of the causes of order and wealth. Furthermore, as Sam
Dickson has pointed out, the system apparently has no brakes. For example, even
before Social Security was enacted, it was known to be unsustainable, but
nothing has been done to solve the problem, only to postpone the final crash by
a few election cycles. Of course the system might be able to survive one crisis
at a time. But eventually several crises will converge, and the United States
will not be able to survive intact.
I’ve begun A Mighty Fortress, the novel Johnson recommends as a good introduction to Covington's work. One thing is for sure — Covington knows how to turn a phrase. For instance, he describes an attack on Federal troops this way: “The other major tickle out on Highway 169 was a simple Baghdad banger in a recycle bin beside the road. Humvee blown off the asphalt just out of Maplewood Heights. Three dead Fatties [Federal troops]. Pyrotechnics courtesy of Doctor Doom, some good old bathtub gelignite just like Mom used to make.”
Or this rebel’s dialogue: “We may have to do another off-Broadway production, sir, as in offing somebody on Broadway.”
Or this apt contrast between the America of old and now. Rebels are fighting so that a girl “can grow up in the world of Jane Austen again, instead of A Clockwork Orange.”
Like other White Nationalist fiction writers, Covington notes the target of the current liberal regime: White males. He writes: “In the America of the early twenty-first century, it didn’t pay for a white man to look too sharp. White males weren’t supposed to hold their heads up, especially in the Northwest, where some alert FBI agent or Fattie might wonder just what the hell a white boy was looking so chipper about.” Ain’t that the truth.
To say Covington is politically incorrect is an understatement, at least judging
by his prose. The worldview he creates in
A Mighty Fortress is one in which Whites and Jews are at war with each
other, as indicated in this dialogue about dealing with the U.S. government:
Some people might advocate that we accept some kind of half a loaf as a springboard for something better in the future, but history proves that doesn't work with ZOG. With liberal democracy, you start at a certain level of moral and decent existence and then everything decays from there, kind of like radioactive half life. The United States started at an exalted level in 1783 and it decayed from that point on. Anywhere there are Jews, things only go downhill. The only hope that our people have for any kind of continued existence is the absolute removal of the Jew and everything the Jew has created from our lives, our consciousnesses, our hearts and our souls. We're like the wolves, the buffalo, the damned spotted owls. We're an endangered species. White people have to have their own safe habitat, clean and uncontaminated, if we are to raise our young, build up our numbers and thrive once again.
(Speaking of ZOG, readers have to see former Congressman James Traficant’s first post-prison interview on Fox. Beginning at about 6:30 he says “I believe that Israel has a powerful stranglehold on the American government. They control both members of the House, the House and the Senate. They have us involved in wars in which we have little or no interest. Our children are coming back in body bags. Our nation is bankrupt over these wars. And if you open your mouth, you get targeted. And if they don't beat you at the poll, they'll put you in prison.” See full transcript here.)
From what I’ve read so far in this novel, the rebel movement is heavily composed
of working class Whites, which is not a surprise considering how hard they have
been hit by globalization. I can sympathize because small towns like mine have
been decimated by the offshoring of so much of our industry.
Still, there is a resilience that was echoed in a previous
editorial on secession:
An excellent recent example is the video A Country Boy Can Survive by Hank Williams Jr. All the people in the video are working class whites from ‘little towns all around this land’ far from the city: ‘You only get mugged if you go downtown.’ And there is the confederate flag—a remnant of traditional Southern culture. The theme is that country people can survive because of their ability to live off the land. The US political system is broken and can’t be fixed within the present political structure. But they will survive.
So too in A Mighty Fortress. The fighters are men like “Farmer Brown” who have paid a heavy price under the current regime. Meanwhile, elite Whites such as cardiologist Edward Shipman support the system because they benefit from it. I suspect, however, that as the novels progress, more and more high status Whites will join the secession movement as they realize that at a minimum the lives of the children and grandchildren will be greatly diminished under an anti-White regime.
Lest the point about the reality of the anti-White regime in North America is
not getting through, I will offer three versions of it, in increasing severity.
First, Kevin MacDonald wrote, “In the multicultural America of the near future, gulags and anti-White totalitarian controls are at least as likely as [a] multicultural utopia .... And if they can’t be ruled out, there is a compelling moral case to be made that Whites should not enter willingly into such a world. If there is one thing we should have learned by thinking about the history of the 20th century, it's that we should not believe in utopias.”
Next, as Sam Dickson said at last year’s American Renaissance conference, “We need to understand that as far as the establishment that misrules our people all over the world is concerned, the only acceptable position on the future of the white race is genocide.”
Finally, consider the words of Andrew Hamilton: “Whether white survival
ultimately takes the form of secession, reconquest, or even some
newly-evolved type of genetically-based, non-territorial “peoplehood” . . .
is less important, perhaps, than the realization of the obsessive hatred of
the System for the white race. Whites can actively or passively accept it —
and die — or they can fight it. The essential thing is to recognize with
absolute clarity the uncompromising, nonnegotiable, genocidal character of
the alien, anti-white System, and to oppose it with every fiber of one’s
being on moral grounds.”
But I wonder what could serve as a catalyst for the break-up of America, a
galvanizing event that would set spark to fuel? A commentator on O’Meara’s essay
painted this scenario:
What may be a true catalyst for Whites to find their opening to rebel
fear of looking back and seeing no one behind them, is a full economic collapse,
as simplistic as that may appear. Once some pot-bellied, PC-brainwashed,
NFL-following White fool is scrambling to find a quart of milk for his children
while seeing Uncle Sam take care of non-Whites to ensure their breeding, along
with comfortable, arrogant Jews who will not be able to abstain from rubbing it
in, all bets are off. I have been surprised over the last 18 months as to how
many “regular people”—
Whites whom I would not have thought aware of the level of Jewish responsibility
for our current situation
remark privately on things that show they do have a grasp of what’s up, and
who’s the major force behind it. People need a situation as catalyst, they need
to feel a good number of people are in it with them, and they need leaders.
Right now, it is tough for Whites to speak up, as “The Machine” goes in high
gear against them. There goes your job. There go your friends. They might agree,
but they have to feed their kids.
The time may indeed be near for that break-up. As Buchanan concluded: “E pluribus unum” — out of many, one — was the national motto the men of ‘76 settled upon. One sees the pluribus. But where is the unum? One sees the diversity. But where is the unity?”
When he asks, “Is America, too, breaking up?” one suspects the answer is “Yes.” But maybe that’s not such a bad thing. Time will tell.