Who Stays and Who Goes?

Website Sections

Transhumanism News

On this newsgroup we advocate secession - the creation of a breakaway nation- as the vehicle for escaping liberalism and its assorted multicultural attacks on Americans of European ancestry.

I am willing to bet that some of us within the movement feel that they are not "European-Americans" but just plain "Americans," that this is "our country" and that we should just "take it back."

This is the "ethnic cleansing" option. The idea is that we take political control of the country and just expel the liberal multiculturalists and their racial allies.

Fair enough, let's talk about that idea! Is it a practical option?

Those of us who advocate the "secession option" have discussed the issue of how the breakaway nation defines the class of people eligible for citizenship. Who Stays and Who Goes?

Another way of phrasing the question is - "who is white?"

The only workable answer, it seems to me, is that any current citizen of the U.S. who wants to live in the breakaway nation and displays no hostility toward whites, is welcome.

To all others, including the white liberal elites, we are willing to cede the real estate they now occupy (about 15% of the U.S. land mass) to a new nation where they will be free to live with anyone else who wishes to submit to their compulsion for "social re-engineering."

Admittedly, in the act of setting the borders, we would use modern technology to gerrymander a new nation based on a functional definition of race. That is, the national boundaries ought to be drawn in such a way as to minimize the possibility of racial competition and conflict within the new nation.

But however artfully we may engineer boundaries, there will be individuals on either side of the new borders who will feel aggrieved.

After the new nation is formed, the decision on whether to remain in the breakaway nation should be voluntary with the individual. I have not heard anyone within the movement discuss the "secession option" and advocate that a democratic majority within the breakaway nation should be given the power to expel individuals based on hair, eye or skin color. The time has come to invite comment on the alternative "ethnic cleansing" model for protecting ourselves from the liberals and their assorted multiculturalist attacks.

Anyone wishing to argue that model should post in its defense. I would suggest that history provides a valuable object lesson in the dangers of placing too much faith in the power of government to shape the racial and cultural character of a nation.

Reprinted below is the text of the famous "Posan speech" delivered by Heinrich Himmler to a group of SS officers on October 4, 1943. Remember, that he is speaking to the most committed "movement" members of his time!

"I also want to talk to you, quite frankly, on a very grave matter. Among ourselves it should be mentioned quite frankly, and yet we will never speak of it publicly... I mean the clearing out of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish race. It is one of those things it is easy to talk about - "The Jewish race is being exterminated," says one party member, "that's quite clear, it's in our program - elimination of the Jews, and we're doing it, exterminating them." And then they come, 80 million worthy Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. Of course the others are vermin, but this one is an A-1 Jew.

"Not one of all those who talk this way has witnessed it, not one of them has been through it. Most of you know what it means when 100 corpses are lying side by side, or 500 or 1000. To have stuck it out and at the same time - apart from the exceptions caused by human weakness - to have remained decent fellows, that is what has made us hard. This is a page of glory in our history which has never been written and is never to be written, for we know how difficult we should have made it for ourselves if - with the bombing raids, the burdens and deprivations of war - we still had Jews today in every town as secret saboteurs, agitators and trouble-mongers. We would now probably have reached the 1916/17 stage when the Jews were still in the German national body."

Himmler is complaining to his most committed followers about the political limits and realities of implementing the policy of "ethnic cleansing" adopted by the Third Reich.

Himmler notes that while "80 million good Germans" (a number equal to their entire population) may agree with "ethnic cleansing" as an abstract or conceptual proposition, once the SS or police start rounding them up, it seems that all "80 million good Germans" have a personal relationship with at least one Jew and will complain and cry for an exemption for him.

In other words, the implementation is politically unworkable.

Himmler goes on to note that even in wartime, when the SS has to confront 500 or 1000 corpses of their fallen comrades and stand firm in their resolve, the average German sees none of that and would just as soon have a "fifth column" in their midst making the problem worse. That is the matter about which Himmler would "never speak publicly."

If Nazi Germany had that much trouble implementing ethnic cleansing during war, just imagine how difficult it would be to implement such a process in peace time in the U.S.

Ethnic cleansing is not something like "social security" that you can just dump on government and expect the government to take care of.

The fact is that in an integrated society, millions of Euro- Americans have personal relationships with people of other "races."

It may be easy for middle class European-Americans to recognize the destruction the liberal welfare state inflicts on blacks. Most European-Americans may easily agree that they too should be free from the quotas, cultural onslaughts and veiled attacks of liberal multiculturalism.

It will be easy for us to agree that we cannot leave government in the hands of liberals to serve as a tool of oppression.

But if we assign to government the task of "ethnic cleansing", this agreement will rapidly disappear. The truth is that personal relationships with minority friends are stronger than attachments to abstract ideology. The average middle class European-American may concede the concept of the racial state as a logical response to the liberal multi-cultural mess. But the bureaucracy to which you assign the task of "ethnic cleansing" simply will not be able to withstand the endless pleading for special exemptions.

The secessionist gerrymander offers a solution.

First, the very act of drawing the new borders excludes enough liberals and their racial allies that liberals will no longer be guaranteed of winning all elections simply by dividing the white vote on how generous to be to minorities and then having the minorities carry the day by voting for their own interests.

Second, we outlaw the importation of labor (the "immigration invasion").

Next we replace modern welfare that subsidizes social decay, encourages "white flight," and creates opportunities for profit from liberalism with private unemployment insurance and old age insurance that citizens must purchase for themselves. There will be no separate "welfare culture."

Next, we outlaw bilingualism and any other scheme to encourage aggrieved racial separatism for the tiny remnants within the breakaway state. Assimilation will be the law.

Once this is accomplished, liberal multi-culturalism will be permanently hobbled, and there should be no need to interfere with personal relationships that already exist. People can be free to socialize within and across the new border without hindrance. No one would be expelled.

Over time, we would envision that those who are "uncomfortable" on the wrong side of the border would move voluntarily. The key point is that this realigning immigration would be voluntary. The individual would make these decisions for himself.

No majority would be empowered to expel people.

While the new breakaway state might, at first, look like a "Seattle suburb", it is all relative. For a resident of New Jersey or Southern California, a "Seattle suburb" free of liberal multiculturalist political assaults is a fairly compelling vision.

The moral of this lengthy discourse is that things have changed since 1940. We have a much better understanding now about the limits of governmental competence. I would suggest that government has a very limited role in the salvation of a race or nation. The private actions of individuals and social organizations are far more important. (And in those private actions we are severely lacking. We need to change our folk-ways, and these necessary adaptations will be the topic of an upcoming series of posts entitled "The Culture Wars.")

Having made clear my preference for the "secession option" with its Czech -Slovak possibilities for peaceful divorce, I offer this as a prescription and not necessarily a prediction of the future.

As I have argued in many prior posts, the balkanization of the United States is now being driven by the liberals - not us. I would warn each of you that there isn't a single example anywhere in the world of a country with racial quotas and a political culture of racial grievance that has maintained racial peace.

The truth is that our breakaway nation may be forced upon us prematurely, and its creation may not be anywhere near as tidy or peaceful as we hope.

We are a tiny minority with no power to affect or change the course of events right now. Things will be different in 10 to 20 years.

In the meantime, I expect more "Wacos" and more "Vickie Weavers."

I expect more L.A. riots.

So stay in shape, go to the range regularly, keep your mouth shut, and your eyes open!

And never sell a gun to anyone!

Website Sections

Transhumanism News

Who Stays and Who Goes?

Transtopia