Sweating the Details

Website Sections

Transhumanism News

(A companion piece to Yggdrasil's Lesson #6, "What is a Race?")

[originally posted to alt.revolution.counter]

I read Mr. X's post, below:

"Are there any useful historical precedents to look to? My impression is that when different peoples are jumbled together geographically then a breakup on ethnic lines is usually a bloody mess. I suppose I'm thinking mostly of the partition of India, the establishment of the State of Israel and subsequent events, and the last 100 years in the Balkans."

- and I realize that history does not provide many truly useful examples of how one can engage in ethnic nation-splitting when different ethnic groups are not already geographically segregated. In truth, though, there is already a great deal of racial and ethnic geographic separation in the United States, and no reason to place a premium on brutality or violence.

Secession means accepting less land than you would demand in an ethnic cleansing in the realization that people who you could not abide voting in your elections might make very good trading partners once ensconced in their own separate nation.

While it may be the task of authoritarian rightists to force such a split, the agenda for a humane administration of such a split will be a gift from our libertarian allies.

Guarded borders are obsolete.

When one thinks of a racial-state, the mind immediately conjures images of borders fortified with barbed-wire and machine guns to keep "them" out.

Purge that image!

The embryonic model for the breadkaway state is the modern gerrymander. It is a POLITICAL district that twists and turns through the countryside, taking in a house here, a neighborhood there, based on the particular voting characteristics of the household.

There is absolutely no reason why a breakaway state needs to have straight borders or to be a contiguous land mass. In this age of modern electronic communications, a breakaway state can and should be a checkerboard that extends to neighborhoods sharing cultural traits.

Nations confined within a single contiguous land mass are an anachronism. Back before the telephone and the personal computer, it may have been necessary to define a nation in such a limited geographic fashion. But with modern electronic communications, there is no need to gather your entire tribe in a single spot.

Indeed, Manhattan Island has much more in common with Los Angeles than it does with any part of Utah or Wyoming. As long as Utah and Wyoming understand that it is in their interests not cut the phone lines or interfere with airline traffic, there is no reason why Manhattan and Los Angeles should not remain in a single nation.

Those of us who strenuously object to being governed, propagandized and taxed by Manhattan and Los Angeles should be free to get a divorce. (And to watch in delight as the sophisticates and the slum dwellers learn to cope with one another without the stabilizing influence of middle America.)

There is absolutely no reason why the breakaway state should waste its time or money erecting fences or staffing border checkpoints. People of all colors in reasonable numbers should be free to come and go as they please. They should be free to engage in market based transactions. The only thing non-citizens would be denied is the vote and social welfare.

However, the breakaway state would defend itself from any unarmed or armed invasion.

All that is needed to prevent a new class of liberals from arising in the breakaway state and recreating the same integrationist mess we have now is to limit citizenship to lineal descendants of the original citizens. Reasonable numbers of non-citizens could come and live there, but no one can be granted citizenship other than the oringinal inhabitants and their offspring, spouses, etc.

In an era of international free trade, and free mobility of capital, there is no longer any legitimate economic need for mass immigration into the U.S. To the extent that the breakaway state might wish to accomodate refugees or satisfy affairs of the heart, limited immigration can be allowed, but citizenship would be granted only in very small numbers and to immigrants who can demonstrate a lack of probable animus toward the existing inhabitants.

(Come to think of it, the idea that any nation would allow the immigration of groups hostile to its current residents is rather odd, isn't it. So odd, in fact that normal people would never suspect it could occur until they experience the proof first hand!)

In any event, the purpose of the breakaway state would be to help the existing European-American population adapt successfully to economic change, rather than abandoning them and employing a flood of new immigrants. The real reason we have unlimited immigration to the United States today is that immigrants have immense political value to our liberal elites. New immigrants of color are naturally hostile to European-Americans and favorably disposed toward generous welfare and high taxes. Deny votes to immigrants, and the internal constituency for encouraging their arrival pretty much disappears.

In truth, we already have in the United States the infrastructure for these separate nations largely in place.

Under the Voting Rights Act, approximately 40 Congressional districts have been drawn up that are overwhelmingly black. These districts can be made into a separate nation. Other congressional districts populated by the liberals can also be made a part of that black nation (that they love so much) or be made independent.

Each of these states would have their own military and their own police. The European-American nation would grant the citizens and the military forces of these residual nations unrestricted rights to travel between their non-contiguous lands.

There is already a great deal of de-facto geographic and cultural segregation in the United States. The trend in that direction accellerates even as greater percentages of our population learn the socially acceptable answers to give to pollsters when asked questions about racial tolerance.

In effect, a European-American state would merely recognize, de jure, what already exists, de facto.

As foreign tourists have learned to their chagrin over the past few years, when you come to visit "America" you must be very careful about which "America" it is you intend to visit. In one very large "America" you are safer than you are in Europe. In another America you are very likely to be killed.

Natives know instantly which American they are in, and what precautions to take when they happen to be in the "wrong America." Tourists, on the other hand, are unprepared because our public discourse is based on a lie intended to avoid enraging that "other America". These rules of public discourse prevent candid public warnings to tourists. There is indeed a lot of race hatred in the United States, but it is predominantly anti-European hatred.

Like our foreign tourists, there are some unfortunates (perhaps Mr."X" is one) who may wish to live in the breakaway state, but happen to live on the "wrong" side of the new borders. Indeed, those 40 gerrymandered black congressional districts have from 20% to 40% non-black populations. Those unfortunates would have the choice of remaining where they are or moving to (and claiming citizenship in) the breakaway state.

Indeed, treatment of European-Americans living beyond the control of the breakaway state (a state that would exist for the sole purpose of protecting them) might be "messy". But then you cannot create a "secession omelette" without allowing a few eggs to be broken outside your jurisdiction. I would not imagine that every instance of white hating everywhere in the world would become a "causus belli" for this new breakaway state.

The model would be Israel's "Law of Return," but applied to European-Americans and their descendents.

But then I presume too much. It is certainly not for me to dictate the policy or exact dimensions of this new state. My task is merely to show that its creation is possible without a great deal of dislocation. - that is, absent some very ugly violence and hardening of attitutes that could be started by our ruling liberal elites in their effort to prevent the formation of such a state.

While we are sweating details, let me attempt to dispose of one more. I am certain that these discussions must be creating a great deal of anxiety among Asian-Americans.

Allow me to presume for purposes of these discussions that Asians born in the United States are "white". While this presumption is obviously false historically and genetically, it is an attempt to recognize that the motive force behind creation of the new breakaway state is to escape from a manipulative liberal elite and its constituent white-hating voting blocks. It is certainly not an attempt to insulate European-Americans from "competition" from talented and hardworking groups that are already here in the U.S. and that blend in with little friction. The same would apply to hispanics who are already here, accepting the gringo-hating "Mecha" types who wish to annex the Southwest to Mexico.

One would hope they understand that we must defend ourselves from those that hate us (including our own decadent elites) and that they trust us to accurately identify our enemies.

Since Asian-Americans generally adhere to the old fashioned notion of a color-blind state and generally show few symptoms of white hating, there is really no reason to make a distinction between them and European-Americans (unless, of course, it is their collective wish that we do so).

Website Sections

Transhumanism News

Sweating the Details

Transtopia