USA: The Case for Secession – Whites-only states – My Comments

(000228.79-:E-000157.73:N-:R-SU:C-30:V)   

[I'm all for secession or any political method that allows Whites to run their own states. I don't think secession will be easy, but its definitely a step in the right direction. We have lots of work to do!!! 14/88 Jan]

“Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.”
Allen West, Chair, Texas GOP

Now that the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris regime and their Jewish entourage are measuring the curtains at the White House, it’s time to consider next steps. As bad as things are for White America today, they are about to get a lot worse. Physical, psychological, moral, and political threats hang over all our heads. We are being dispossessed in our own nation. The situation is grim but not hopeless. We have options.

In the continental US, 24 states voted majority for Trump, including some of our most populous ones: Texas, Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina, among them. The 10 largest Trump states comprise over 100 million people, and all 24 combined are pushing 150 million. This is a considerable block of people, with a considerable amount of power—political and otherwise. If these people wish to retain a modicum of self-determination—not to mention self-respect—they will have to consider the strongest possible actions. These actions include the possibility of literal secession from the United States. It’s time to examine that option with all seriousness.

Biden’s Jewish-Diversity Retinue

First, let’s be clear about the threat posed by the incoming administration. Even at this early point, it is clear that they hold an antipathy toward Whites, especially White males, and that they intend to either do as little as possible to support and represent White interests, or worse, to actively impede and harm those interests. Of course, we don’t yet know what the actual policies will be, but we can make reasonable inferences based on who Biden has appointed to his Cabinet thus far.

Of his “top 16” picks to date, we find the following: four White males (Brian Deese, Denis McDonough, Tom Vilsack, and Jake Sullivan); five Blacks, of whom four are women (Lloyd Austin, Marcia Fudge, Susan Rice, Cecilia Rouse, and Linda Thomas-Greenfield); one Indian woman (Neera Tander); one Hispanic man (Xavier Becerra)—and five Jews (Tony Blinken, Avril Haines, Ron Klain, Alejandro Mayorkas, and Janet Yellen).

Here we see a few points of interest. First, there are no White women at all—given that Jews are not White, at least not in the relevant sense of identifying as part of the traditional White population of America.[1] Second, Blacks and Jews each have more representation than Whites among the top 16, which is amazing in itself, given that Blacks (12.8%) and Jews (circa 2%) are distinct minorities in this country. Third, at least one of the White men, Jake Sullivan, has proven himself to be remarkably philo-Semitic; his appointment “drew broad praise from Jewish leaders,” and his wife, Maggie Goodlander, worked extensively with influential Jews like Joe Lieberman, Stephen Breyer, and Merrick Garland (see here). Fourth, we have an interesting “double-banger” in Mayorkas, who manages to be both Cuban and Jewish, thus checking two important boxes. Fifth, by placing Yellen in charge of the US Treasury, Biden continues a long, nearly-unbroken line of Jews in charge of the top US financial institution.[2]

Furthermore, Biden has placed yet more Jews in important positions among his second tier. These include the half-Jewish John Kerry (environmental advisor), Jared Bernstein (council of economic advisors), Rochelle Walensky (head of CDC), and Jeff Zients (Covid czar and “counsellor to the president”).

And then, of course, we have the infamous “family ties” among both Biden and Harris. Biden’s three adult children all managed to acquire Jewish spouses: Hunter married “filmmaker” Melissa Cohen in 2019, daughter Ashley married Howard Krein in 2012, and (the now-deceased) Beau married the Jewish dry-cleaning scion Hallie Olivere in 2002. For her part, Kamala Harris married the Jewish lawyer Doug Emhoff in 2014, so we can be sure where her sympathies lie—as if there was any doubt. Bottom line: Look for lots of policies favoring Jews and Israelis, and little in the way of support for the 61% of Americans who are White. Look for so-called open borders (i.e. very generous immigration and amnesty policies), for promotion of all kinds of ‘racial sensitivity’ awareness and training, and for increased attacks on “hate speech,” that is, on anything that the minority-laden Judeocracy decides that it doesn’t like.

What to do: Independence!

Given all this, it is difficult to find a path forward for concerned Whites. Their quality of life, their financial security, and their physical and mental health are all more or less guaranteed to decline over the coming four years. As more Democratic-leaning minorities enter the country or are granted amnesty, and thus acquire voting rights, liberal-left anti-White policies will become more entrenched and more extreme. This process will then accelerate over the next 25 years, as Whites become a numerical minority in the US—currently projected for around the year 2042. Jewish influence will increase proportionately, given that they are by far the leading donors, and thus the leading wire-pullers, among the Democrats.

It is clear, then, that ordinary political means—the ballot box—will no longer suffice to promote White interests. The political system is irrevocably slanted against Whites, and it will not change in our lifetimes; at least, not in the nation as it now exists. Unless we consider radical structural change, anything like a present-day America is virtually certain to increasingly pander to Jewish and non-White interests, and therefore to suffer irrecoverable decline—socially, economically, culturally, intellectually, and morally. And it will become a very dangerous place for Whites as the coalition of the aggrieved wreaks vengeance. Anything like the America that we knew in the 1950s and 1960s is done, over, finished. The three seeds of its demise were planted many years ago: in the African slave trade that made Blacks an astonishing 20% minority already in the 1770s; in the “all men are created equal” clause of the Declaration; and most of all, in the flood of Jewish immigrants circa 1900. At that point, our fate was sealed. It was only a matter of time. Our end is now clearer than ever. And it will not be a happy one for Whites.

As the South recognized long ago, the only hope for long-term salvation lies in political separation. Had the Confederacy prevailed in the 1860s, the status of Southerners (and Northerners!) would be vastly higher than it is today. It is one of the great tragedies of history that a power-mad Abraham Lincoln—a man who disliked Blacks and who actually, and correctly, sought to ship them back home to Africa[3]—decided to sacrifice thousands of his fellow countrymen simply to save “the nation.” In the end, some 650,000 American soldiers on both sides died; this is more than the death toll from WWI, WWII, and the Vietnam War combined. And this is not counting thousands of innocent civilians and slaves who also died, nor the many thousands left with crippling and debilitating injuries. Lincoln was, without doubt, the biggest war criminal in American history. We continue to pay the price to this day.

GOP-Texas leader Allen West, a Black American, was correct, then, in his recent pronouncement that the anti-Biden (I hesitate to call them pro-Trump) states ought to separate from the corrupt morass of Washington DC’s America and form a new, better union. West considers them to be the Constitution-loving states, which is perhaps correct—although he should be careful there. In the following I will depict an ideal Constitution for a new White republic — a Constitution that is, to be sure, far beyond the political sensibilities of the great majority of White Americans at the present time.

The core U.S. Constitution is a fairly useful document, but it is notably vague on who can vote and it is infinitely malleable via leftist machinations. But at that time, in the 1780s, the vast majority of voters were White male landholders—which, tragically, allowed Jewish men to vote. This problem must be fixed in the new nation that West envisions. Also at first, as we know, women and Blacks could not vote. As a new, White-friendly, anti-minority nation, this “new America” must certainly allow White women to vote, but it has no obligation to any minorities of any kind. In fact, any clear-thinking and brave-hearted new nation would deny citizenship to all non-Whites: all Blacks, all Hispanics, all Asians, and all Jews. It would end, and revoke existing, birthright citizenship. All this is essential, if we want to get down to fundamental issues and to address the root causes of our present decay. A properly-conceived and executed secession movement can address all these issues in a single stroke.

Some Open Questions

But there are many logistical problems here, obviously. One is the matter of which states, precisely, would compose this new America. As I mentioned at the outset, there were 24 Trump-voting states, comprising some 150 million people. Further, with the exception of Alaska, they happen to be geographically contiguous, meaning that, in theory, they could unify and create a connected, single nation—one that would chop the remaining US into three or four separate blocks; but that’s their problem. Additionally, we can well imagine that portions—perhaps the rural areas—of several nearby states would also like to join this newly-emergent nation. Eastern and northern California, eastern Oregon and Washington, southern Illinois, Virginia south of the DC metro area, and parts of Colorado, New Mexico, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, among others, may well choose to secede from their own state and join the “constitution-lovers.” We can easily imagine the combined numbers approaching 200 million people in all.

Then there are further issues. Given that Jews of all types will be violently opposed to this idea, we have to take into consideration the size of the Jewish population in each of these states. Among the 24, Florida is the outlier; it has a large Jewish population, comprising around 4% of the total. Of the remaining 23, only two (Ohio and Missouri) are over 1%, and of the rest, many are under 0.5%. Consequently, Florida is unlikely to go along with a new, constitution-loving, pro-White nation. Perhaps they will have to go it alone.

Along the same lines, large Hispanic populations, especially in Texas and Florida, will pose problems for a pro-White nation. But with significantly less clout than Jews, and without a Jewish lobby actively defending them, Hispanics will be out of luck. Perhaps they will find it in their own best interests to return to Mexico or Latin America—places that would welcome their relatively advanced education, skills, and comparative wealth.

There is a third problematic group, and that is Christian Zionists. If it’s true that up to 25% of American adults consider themselves “evangelical Christians” and that up to 80% of these are some version of Zionist—meaning broadly that they support Jews and Israel for Biblical reasons—then this poses a potentially large issue, especially in the southern states. But this is a regional issue, one requiring regional solutions. Secessionists will have to play up the benefits of religion, freedom, and independence, and argue that this outweighs any sanctions against local Jews.

All these issues come to a head in a larger concern: the problem of size. It has long been recognized, since ancient times, that overly-large states are in for trouble. Biologically-speaking, this makes sense. Humans evolved over 2 million years in small hunter-gatherer bands of perhaps 50 to 100 people; for millennia, this was the size of our ‘state.’ Our emotional and rational psyches evolved to deal with groups of this size, and no more. Larger groups are both unnatural and unhealthy; in larger societies, systemic corruption inevitably creeps in.

The ancient Greeks understood this intrinsically. Plato said that the maximum, ideal society would consist of 5,040 households, or around 25,000 people—for the entire city-state.[4] Hippodamus argued for an even smaller state of 10,000 citizens.[5] Aristotle broadly concurred, saying that the ideal state must be “one and self-sufficing.” In Book 7 of Politics, he elaborates:

[A] great polis is not to be confounded with a populous one. Moreover, experience shows that a very populous state can rarely, if ever, be well-governed; since all states that have a reputation for good government have a limit of population. … To the size of states there is a limit, as there is to other things, plants, animals, implements. For none of these retain their natural power when they are too large or too small, but they either wholly lose their nature, or are spoiled. … In like manner, a state when composed of too few is not, as a state ought to be, self-sufficing; when of too many, though self-sufficing in all mere necessaries, as a nation may be, it is not a state, being almost incapable of constitutional government. For who can be the general of such a vast multitude, or who the herald, unless he has the booming voice of a Stentor?

A state, then, only begins to exist when it has attained a population sufficient for a good life in the political community: it may indeed, if it somewhat exceeds this number, be a greater state. But, as I was saying, there must be a limit. What should be the limit will be easily ascertained by experience. For both governors and governed have duties to perform; the special functions of a governor to command and to judge. But if the citizens of a state are to judge and to distribute offices according to merit, then they must know each other’s characters; where they do not possess this knowledge, both the election to offices and the decision of lawsuits will go wrong. When the population is very large, they are manifestly settled at haphazard, which clearly ought not to be. Besides, in an over-populous state, foreigners and aliens will readily acquire the rights of citizens, for who will find them out? Clearly then the best limit of the population of a state is the largest number which suffices for the purposes of life, and can be taken in at a single view. (Book 7.4; italics added)

Remarkable insight, and utterly appropriate for the present day.

More recently, social theorists like Leopold Kohr, Ivan Illich, and E. F. Schumacher have also persuasively argued for smaller states. Kohr suggests that, under modern, technological conditions, the maximum size for a well-governed and rational state is perhaps 10 million people.[6] Say what you will about the small European nations today, but if nothing else, they are, for the most part, rationally governed; generally speaking, they “work”.[7] And their smallness and ethnic homogeneity play a large part in their success.

This all helps to explain, first, the insanity of trying to manage a present-day America of 330 million people. Three hundred million Gandhis would be ungovernable, let alone the present American mish-mash. Second, it suggests that Allen West’s “new America” of perhaps 150 million is likewise far too big. Texas alone is 30 million people; it really ought to become its own nation-state. Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina, all over 10 million, could easily be their own nation-states. The smaller US states might fruitfully band together. Ultimately, the 24 “Trump states” could form five or ten independent nations, which might then organize a local American confederation of some sort, to advance their collective interests—but without surrendering local sovereignty. Five or ten small, independent, pro-White nations would further allow for a fair amount of social and political experimentation, yielding successes that could be transferred to the others. And diverse states would be harder to undermine by any potentially-resurgent Jewish Lobby—just as a unified European Union is much easier to corrupt than 27 independent nations.

So This Means War!

“Yes,” says the critic, “all fine and good. But the mighty US military will come in and crush any budding secession movement. You haven’t a prayer against them.” Yes and no. A single movement by a single state might be squelched, but simultaneous movements across the nation would be much harder to address. We have to understand that our federal government is actually much weaker than it appears, at least when it comes to internal disruption. We can bomb the hell out of Afghanistan, but a “CHAZ” microstate in downtown Portland carries on for months, run by nothing more than a handful of degenerate anarchists. Black Lives Matter lunatics managed weeks of looting and burning because they were a diversified, incorrigible, lawless band, working in several locations simultaneously. “Oh, but BLM and CHAZ had the implicit support of the Democratic power elite.” Fine—but a multi-state secession effort would have the implicit support of many in the Republican power elite. For them, there is much to be gained. Lots of new states mean lots of new presidents, new governments, and new institutions (imagine: new universities not dominated by a Jewish intellectual class!). Plenty of new opportunities for business, charities, religious groups, academia—the possibilities are immense.

Still, we have to be honest. It could come down to war, at least in some form, and many in the military would doubtless support the secession. We need not worry about cruise missiles raining down on Dallas or Columbus, or tanks rolling through the Indiana plains, but we can imagine federal troops being compelled to take some sort of action. Well, then—defend yourself. Thus it has always been. As I’ve argued in the past, if a few thousand low-IQ Afghans can hold the US military at bay for 20 years, then a few million motivated Whites can do much more. After all, those unwilling to fight are those undeserving to win anything. We would do well to recall what Nietzsche said about liberalism and the struggle for freedom; I quote him at length:

My conception of freedom. The value of a thing sometimes does not lie in that which one attains by it, but in what one pays for it—what it costs us. I shall give an example. Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions. Their effects are known well enough: they undermine the will to power; they level mountain and valley, and call that morality; they make men small, cowardly, and hedonistic—every time it is the herd animal that triumphs with them. Liberalism: in other words, herd-animalization. …

For what is freedom? That one has the will to assume responsibility for oneself. That one maintains the distance which separates us. That one becomes more indifferent to difficulties, hardships, privation, even to life itself. That one is prepared to sacrifice human beings for one’s cause, not excluding oneself. Freedom means that the manly instincts that delight in war and victory dominate over other instincts, for example, over those of “pleasure.” The human being who has become free—and how much more the spirit who has become free—spits on the contemptible type of well-being, that dreamt of by shopkeepers, Christians, cows, Englishmen, and other democrats. The free man is a warrior.

How is freedom measured in individuals and peoples? According to the resistance which must be overcome, according to the exertion required, to remain on top. The highest type of free men should be sought where the highest resistance is constantly overcome: five steps from tyranny, close to the threshold of the danger of servitude. This is true psychologically if, by “tyrants,” are meant inexorable and fearful instincts that provoke the maximum of authority and discipline against themselves; the most beautiful type: Julius Caesar. This is true politically too; one need only go through history. The peoples who had some value, attained some value, never attained it under liberal institutions: it was great danger that made something of them that merits respect. Danger alone acquaints us with our own resources, our virtues, our armor and weapons, our spirit, and forces us to be strong. First principle: one must need to be strong—otherwise one will never become strong.

Those large hothouses for the strong—for the strongest kind of human being that has so far been known, the aristocratic commonwealths of the type of Rome or Venice—understood freedom exactly in the sense in which I understand it: as something one has or does not have, something one wants, something one conquers.[8]

Do we really want to be free? Do we want to be strong? Do we have the courage to be strong? I believe we do. I believe that White Americans—at least, some core segment of this group—will find it in themselves to take the reins, to fight, and consequently “to force the will of millennia upon new tracks” (to quote Nietzsche once again). Now is the time to act. We need to hit them where it hurts. And I can promise you, the American Judeocracy fears nothing more than a widespread, pro-White secession movement; it is their greatest nightmare. Let’s work to make it come true.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany. His works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the books Eternal Strangers (2020), The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020). For all his works, see his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com