Amerikaner Free State

amerikaner-wiki

Now that I’ve gotten your attention with a meme, let’s talk business. I’ve written on American balkanization, White nationalism, and Anglo-American identity before, but here I would like to bring these together and elaborate on the ideal of a North American White ethnostate and some of its practical concerns. Provisionally, I will refer to this as the Amerikaner Free State, because I am a fan of the Amerikaner neo-ethnonym and in retrospect think Anglo-American sounds too academic and less organic. Regardless of what sticks, what matters most is getting away from the anti-identity we are told to pencil in by the US Census, i.e. “non-Hispanic White.” No self-respecting ethnic group identifies itself primarily as non-x. We have to take control of our identity and consciousness before we can control anything in the material world, and we cannot do that if we are denied a positive identity, which every other group is encouraged to possess.

For Ourselves and Posterity

Why do we need a new state? Our original state on this continent was founded in 1776 on the basis of protecting “the rights of Englishmen,” who were unable to secure these rights living as divided colonial subjects of the king of Britain. For better or worse, the colonists banded together and opted to sever their political ties with the European metropolis. But what they did not do was renounce their identity as a European people, nor did their new state seek to undo this. Among our earliest laws passed within a generation of independence were statutes limiting citizenship and immigration to “free White persons of good character.” And so the Amerikaner was born, melding the liberty of the English, the strength of the Scots, the homesteading of the Germans, the luck of the Irish, the labor of the Italian, and so forth. A free White nation was brought forth into the world.

For generations, the Americans at home and abroad were understood to be a European people speaking a common English language. This identity formed the foundation of our Anglo-American culture until 1965, when the infamous (((Hart-Celler Act))) was passed by Congress. An act of racial treason against the historical American nation, the native-born English-speaking White majority. It opened the floodgates and continues to threaten us and our posterity with the loss of our homeland and culture. We were of course told this would not happen, that immigration was not going to change the ethnic composition of the United States. It was a lie, and like all lies it must perish.

Over the last few decades, the US government has facilitated White minoritization—there are less of us as a share of the population each year as a result of mass non-White immigration. The United States may have a population of over 300 million people, but Whites only number about 200 million, and most population growth since 1965 has come from immigration, an overwhelmingly non-white process. If nothing changes, this will result in our political dispossession and not long thereafter the end of Amerikaners as a people. We are projected to lose majority status by the 2040s. But we need not wait that long to experience the deleterious effects of demographic change, as we are already living with the consequences—nearly all electoral politics now revolves around appealing to ethnic voter blocs. The left projects it will have a permanent majority in a few more presidential cycles, on the backs of immigrants and people of color.

A transformation of this nature without provoking any sort of conflict would be unprecedented in all of human history. Would any non-Western society ever stand for this? Not even a century ago we wouldn’t have either. We must shatter the false consciousness that has been impressed upon our people since the triumph of hostile anti-white forces in 1945. From Germany to Britain, from France to the United States, the story is the same—White people are collectively evil for “racism” and can atone by supporting the colonization of their homelands by designated victim ethnic groups. It’s less about pathological altruism and more about a hostile elite gaslighting us to serve their interests.

The American Empire is a third-worldist country that puts us last; at best it doesn’t care if we are destroyed and at worst it is actively pursuing our destruction. Just how much malevolence, as opposed to ignorance, has played a role in the demographic transition taking place is debatable, but the social contract is undeniably broken and the colorblind consensus shattered. We live under an anarcho-tyranny in which wrong is right and the law is anti-White. Pocket editions of the Constitution are waved in our faces by disingenuous abusers of our iconography and legal system, who seek to advance their tribal interests at the blatant expense of ours. Numerous departments of our government are staffed and run by people who hate us and want us replaced, such as Housing and Urban Development. This cannot continue, and the only way to put a stop to it is for our people to become independent of the Empire. We owe nothing to a system that wants to take everything from us. Those who look upon you with genocidal intent for political gains are not friends, no matter their color.

The White Ethnostate as Liberation from the United States

I hesitate to call it inevitable, but taking a historical perspective it seems that our multi-ethnic country is destined to fall, and probable that it will break along lines of tribal identity. The United States—as a transcontinental and contiguous state encompassing multitudes of people, having sizable and distinct ethnic and/or racial groups, possessing a large and powerful military, being governed by a strong centralized bureaucracy and maintaining a hegemonic position over other states—is an Empire, And as an Empire, it will fall. The United States has become the Austria-Hungary of the 21st century, a polyglot Empire of diverse populations that do not see eye to eye politically, socially, culturally, etc. Or maybe it is more akin to the Ottoman Empire, with our elite following a hostile creed and being completely alien to us in culture and manners, even if they share some of our genes from years of co-habitation. And are we not rewarded for serving them and betraying our own ethnic interests, like janissaries of the post-modern world?

I believe that partition of the United States is a likely outcome, and moreover a beneficial outcome. Much of the political gridlock and culture war in this country is derived from ethnic or racial differences and divergent ideologies. Whether it’s social policies, media representation, interactions with the police, ideas about government size, or any number of contemporary issues, they are all rooted in identities in some way, shape or form. And that’s only the cold aspects of this conflict—a haphazard post-1970s resegregation has prevented larger-scale interracial violence.

The division—or collapse—of the United States into several successor states along nationalist principles would help solve this issue. If we are lucky, we will get a nice conference with lawyers and politicians. If we are not so lucky, will will get frontlines.

Ethno-nationalism would end racial identity politics and allow us to move left or right as we please without having to deal with kingmaker ethnic blocs, e.g. Republicans and Democrats desperately trying to win “the Latino vote,” by advocating for mass immigration and amnesty for violating our border. Or consider how one party openly wants to hamstring our police so that its precious black voters aren’t turned off. This is insanity, and as civilized people, we must not be ruled by insane directives. It is brutally obvious that the different ethnic and racial identity groups of this country wish for different realities. So why not go our separate ways?

Enter the Amerikaner Free State, a homeland for the English-speaking European people of North America, of whom there are enough to populate three Britains (or thirty Irelands). Let California go do their thing; we don’t need bastions of multiracial managerial liberalism inside our homeland. Partition or balkanization ideally entails division of the United States into nation states and multicultural/multi-ethnic states depending on what groups are concentrated where. Diverse parts of the the United States would simply become diverse countries—little Weimerica Shopping Centers—as opposed to following the current trajectory of making the entire country resemble New York City.

This is the most peaceful method of carving up the Empire, and would require the least amount of force and deportation. It would also prevent a future civil war, the casualties of which would be completely atrocious and rival any of the great man-made disasters of the 20th century or of Chinese history.

An ethno-nationalist successor state like the Amerikaner Free State would have a large ethnic majority a foundational mission to guide and preserve the nation. Nativism and pro-natalist policies will be enacted, the border will be enforced, and there may be a tendency toward autarky. This would be economically inefficient, but the modus operandi of nationalism is neither profit maximization nor a monomaniacal focus on quarterly growth, but national liberation, survival, and regeneration. The hostile doctrines of marxism and neoliberalism must be abolished. Without a majoritarian state that rejects the current paradigms of third-worldism and GDP-before-goyim, we will be destroyed.

An End to Strangers in a Strange Land

Some argue that creating a White ethnostate in the United States is a non-starter because there are so many non-whites. But a White ethnostate is not the same thing as creating an all-White United States. It’s also worth remembering that no sufficiently large and complex society has ever been 100% any single group, though critics would do well to remember that the most ethnically fractured societies have been some of the most oppressive. For instance, the leftist- and Jewish-lauded Umayyad and Ottoman Muslim empires were built explicitly upon a concept of second-class citizenship for infidels. Vedic India and Colonial Mexico had racial caste hierarchies. Ultimately our goal is far more moral and humane than many currently realize—to put an end to the out-of-control expansion of an inevitably oppressive society that people across the political spectrum despise. No people desire a foreign yoke, and in a country without a majority, everyone is a foreigner.

In the Amerikaner Free State, it would be government policy to promote the majoritization of the Amerikaner population through White immigration and natalism, not to promote our colonization by the third world. We shall end the politics of suicide and reverse the top-down imposed program of turning our people into strangers in a strange land, where by legal fiction everyone belongs but no one feels at home.

This will not happen overnight. A small percentage of ethnic minorities will inevitably exist in an ethno-nationalist country, but this does not mean the society will be multicultural or promote disintegration. It will do the opposite. If history and our lived experiences in this lifetime are anything to go by, demographics can be changed from the top through state policy. In the Amerikaner Free State, foreigners could not expect the same rights, privileges, guarantees, or preferences they would have under their own nation states, or a xenophile multiculturalist state. Just as foreigners in China, Japan, India, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and most other countries are not treated like precious lordlings, the Amerikaner Free State will value its citizens first and the “citizens of the world” last. I imagine many recent arrivals to our lands will not be particularly keen on staying if their privileges are cut off. They have their own homelands which can receive them. Moreover, we will not be receiving any newcomers from those places in any substantial numbers, possibly no numbers.

And are they happy here? Do they enjoy hunkering down in ethnic ghettos to avoid those racist gringos and the gweilo? Are they happy when their sons and daughters come home with White (or black!) boyfriends and girlfriends, when they swear like truck drivers, when they dress like tramps and whores, when they eat like slobs, when they are embarrassed to speak their mother tongue, when they abandon their religion, etc.? When we say we want to exclude these foreigners from our collective, which has its own issues of degeneracy to overcome, we are equally advocating that these people return to their ancestral ways of life that were in harmony with centuries of their own development as peoples. The United States as it exists now is a cultural nightmare for everyone involved, and has been for some time.

Self-deportation and repatriation would be encouraged through financial incentives—perhaps covered by a fund set up as one of the last acts of the unitary United States government—or through economic pressure. In fact, using both would work fine. As I said before, a small amount of non-whites would undoubtedly remain in our largest cities and ports. Cities and ports are by their nature as centers of trade diverse, but today we see a perversion of that. In the medieval and ancient worlds, outsiders had their own “quarter” in a city (often not literally 25% of the city but much less)—now it is the natives who have a quarter of the city while the rest is in the hands of outsiders. And those outsiders frequently have more political and economic power than the natives. Asians have the highest median household income of any racial group. Jews are the wealthiest “religious” group. When we praise immigrants for creating new companies and start-ups, to an outside observer we must sound insane (or like easy marks for a predatory tribe). Could you imagine the Powhatan tribe praising the tobacco production of the English planters of colonial Virginia? This is no way for a nation to allow its cities to be run.

Foreign resident minorities—as non-whites would be considered in the Amerikaner Free State—would be completely ineligible for any kind of social or governmental programs, severely limited in their ability to own land or businesses, required to be self-sufficient, and politically debarred from participation in government. And of course, there would be no birthright citizenship or further mass immigration allowed.

This is the model of decolonization that essentially already exists around the world. Could you or I clandestinely enter Japan and then petition to be made into a Japanese national with full rights as a citizen? What about Israel?

The Amerikaner Free State would mitigate population and labor losses from non-white emigration or repatriation through the immigration of our kinsmen from beyond our borders, with the long-term goal of total Europeanization of our demographics. There will be tremendous potential to accomplish this task, as millions of our people would be left outside the borders of any hypothetical White ethnostate. For instance, more Whites live as a minority in California than as a majority in West Virginia. While some of them would choose to stay “abroad” for whatever reasons they may have in what is becoming a de facto Mexican province, many would ultimately move. White flight already exists internally and if the contemporary behavior is any indicator of privately-held racial attitudes of Whites, they probably would immigrate with the right mix of push and pull factors. We have a foundational tradition of receiving European immigrants and assimilating them into our national and regional cultures, so Europe is another potential source for outside growth (though unnecessary, given how poorly Europe is doing right now).

The creation of an Amerikaner homeland would be the greatest fulfillment of our Founders’ call to govern for ourselves and our posterity. And it would put our political purpose back on the track that was first laid at Jamestown and which was derailed in 1965—to make a European society in the New World. That is the true American value we ought to honor, that of our blood and soil. We cannot do this in a society which forbids our freedom of association with one another under the penalty of forced diversification, repressive taxation, and cultural poisoning. It can only be done through the creation of a national safe space, as millions of former subjects of Empire have done around the world. As a nation of settlers, we have built states before. We must do so once more.

A White Proposition

The United States was founded as a White country. The Founding Fathers were as much aristocratic republicans or paleolibertarians as they were settler-colonial nationalists. They revolted against the Crown specifically because “their rights as Englishmen” had  been violated—not their inalienable and universal UN-proclaimed “human rights.” Identity mattered to them as much as liberty. If the press could interview the Founding Fathers or any pre-1960s national leaders on their racial views today, they would deem them Evil Nazi White Supremacists.

Proposition nationalism is an anachronistic graft onto what was an overtly racialist society. And until 1965, there was a general trend of the United States becoming whiter each decade from European immigration. In 1790, we made up 80.7% of the population; by 1950 we peaked at 87.5%. This was a result of state policy.

In 1790, Congress passed a naturalization act that could only be described as White nationalist:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States… And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.  And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:  Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (1790).

A 1795 law made these rules even longer and stricter. In 1862, when the country had become much larger and was experiencing non-European immigration on its west coast, the California legislature passed an “Anti-Coolie Act.” But that’s kind of vague isn’t it? The full title was “An Act to Protect Free White Labor Against Competition With Chinese Coolie Labor, and To Discourage the Immigration of the Chinese into the State of California.”
The same people who wanted the territories to be “free” and not “slave” did not want the plantation system extended into the western United States, which was envisioned as a preserve for the White race, a place for the White laborer to achieve prosperity and spread American civilization. That meant, rightfully, keeping out unpaid black slaves as well as wage-undercutting Chinese migrants. In 1882 there was a federal Chinese Exclusion Act passed which did exactly what it sounds like, though had to be renewed every ten years. So in 1892, the federal Geary Act was passed, written by California Congressman Thomas J. Geary, and in addition to renewing the 1882 law, required the Chinese population to essentially register with the government.

But being a people of laws, the Americans decided they needed to exclude the Chinese again:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the following classes of aliens shall be excluded from emission into the United States, in accordance with the existing acts regulating immigration, other than those concerning Chinese laborers: all idiots, insane persons, paupers or persons likely to become a public charge, persons suffering from a loathsome or a dangerous contagious disease, persons who have been convicted of a felony or other infamous crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, polygamists, and also any person whose ticket or passage is paid with the money of another or who is assisted by others to come, unless it is affirmatively and satisfactorily shown on special inquiry that such person does not belong to one of the foregoing excluded classes.

United States Congress, “Immigration Act of 1891” (1891).

Asian Americans are now considered the highest median household income earners in the United States according to the census. Were our forebears on to something? T. Lothrop Stoddard certainly felt that way, writing in The Rising Tide of Color (1921) that “when removed to the easier environment of other lands, the Chinaman brings with him a working capacity which simply appals [sic] his competitors.”

More laws were passed. The Immigration Act of 1917, in addition to creating an “Asiatic barred zone” that banned immigration from a swath of the globe encompassing everything between Turkey and the Philippines, also banned illiterates, invalids, “idiots,” and insane, disabled, or diseased people, echoing much of 1891’s law. The Immigration Act of 1921 set up a national origins quota system based on the 1910 census that favored Northern Europe over Southern and Eastern Europe (which was intended to protect the homogeneity of the population and keep out Italian criminals and Jewish socialists). More immigration slots would thus be available for people from Britain, Ireland, and Germany than say Italy or the Soviet Union (Russia). The rest of the world was also de facto banned since Chinese immigration was already illegal as was Japanese, and 1910s America contained virtually no non-native blacks or non-European immigrant groups that could be counted in quotas. But lawmakers decided that wasn’t strict enough and so the Immigration Act of 1924 rolled back to the 1890 census, when there were even fewer foreign-born persons from outside Northern Europe, and thus their nations of origin would receive even fewer slots. History showed that throttling Italian migration allowed them to assimilate into the greater White population (along with Slavs and other newer immigrants from Europe), while the Jews remained a nation inside a nation (as they have been for over 2000 years). Pick your immigrants carefully.

To summarize, every few decades—if not more frequently—American legislatures declared that theirs was a White nation and that they would not accept the mass migration of Orientals or other non-whites, poor or poorly behaved Mediterranean and Slavic Europeans, or Jews. Well until Senator (((Jacob Javits))), Rep. (((Emanuel Celler))), and their shabbos goyim had their way in 1965 with the Hart-Celler Act. We were told that ending the national origins quotas wouldn’t radically change our society. But it did. Now we are being told to deal with it. And we should deal with it by creating a new state.

The Case of Zionism and Surrogate Nationalism

We are not alone in being a nation founded through settler colonialism. Zionism, or Jewish nationalism in Palestine, has given rise to the modern state of Israel. The Jewish state is much respected by Americans, despite little acknowledgement of any similarities beyond “democracy,” and no acknowledgement of the crucial distinction that Israel is nationalist while the United States is globalist. Israel is a Jewish ethnostate—you have to be Jewish to immigrate there and the state actively encourages Jewish migration to metropolitan Israel as well as Jewish colonization of the West Bank. In fact, prior to massive backlash from the rest of the world, Israel once had settlers in the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula, the latter having since been returned to Egypt decades ago.

During our own period of mass settlement, from the 1790s until the 1880s, the vast interior of this country and the West Coast were colonized by Germans, Irishmen, Appalachians, New Englanders, Scandinavians, Poles, and others, who came to adopt the national identity of English-speaking White Americans. Similarly, Israel is amalgamation of the world’s Jews: Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Mizrahim, etc., who came from places as distant as Algeria and Russia to colonize Palestine and make it into their own country and adopt a new nationality, Israeli (and resurrected language, Hebrew). The Israeli is a settler colonist and a nationalist, and so too is the Amerikaner.

Many of our people claim to support or “stand with” Israel, while having no simultaneous feelings for their own ethnic nation. Israel is thus a surrogate nation for such people. The Israeli struggle to hold the Levant is ongoing (and their own problem). Yet it is viewed as totally legitimate by the American Empire, which sends Israel billions of our tax dollars annually. We need our people to understand their own heritage and history, and to embrace their own nation over that of foreigners. Why care more about the survival of Israel than the survival of your own kind? We more or less had fully pacified this country by the 1880s, and had made it 85.6,% White before the Civil War. There is no question that we have a claim to this land, because we have certainly held it continuously longer than Jews have formed a majority in and governed “Israel.” Yet the claim to a “Jewish state” is seen as sacrosanct.

The United States was a European settler-colonial nation, a White nation. The “frontier thesis” is essentially correct—America was created by (White) people expanding into the frontier, and not just through political theories and propositions. Ours was a European nation in a new land, not some purely civic proposition. It is only since 1965 that we’ve had our nation-state completely undone. If the Israelis have a right to create one and defend it, we certainly have the right and moral imperative to take ours back, or barring that create a new one on this continent. Those who admire Israel for its muscular nationalism and take-no-shit attitude should adopt said attitude themselves instead of projecting their emotions onto a surrogate nation and conducting wars on its behalf.

The lyrics of the Israeli national anthem, the Hatikvah, are as follows:

As long as in the heart, within,

A Jewish soul still yearns,

And onward, towards the ends of the east,

an eye still gazes toward Zion;

Our hope is not yet lost,

The hope two thousand years old,

To be a free nation in our land,

The land of Zion and Jerusalem.

Do you not have an American soul and an eye gazing towards our great Manifest Destiny? Have you the hope to be a free nation in our land? This is what nationalism sounds like. Not (((give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore))).

Independence or Losing Ground?

amerikaner-free-state

The Amerikaner Free State, as you have probably noticed, does not exist, and its proposed territory is a truncated form of the United States. This poses two immediate issues depending on one’s frame of reference, becoming independent from the United States versus ceding territory of the United States. I am of the opinion that we will be doing the former. The United States is no longer ours. Our culture has become decoupled from its culture. Its territory is not ours to give or take. Its major cities are populated with foreigners. Its coasts are colonized by non-Whites. A minority of births in the Empire are to our people. In a couple of decades, it will be demographically impossible for a hypothetical Amerikaner identitarian/nationalist party to be voted into the federal government and initiate an ethno-nationalist partition program, to say nothing of a more milquetoast alt-right platform. If even every one of us voted for an ethno-nationalist candidate he would not win.

map-white-births-v1

We don’t have this authority now, and it will be impossible to obtain it in the future conventionally. The catastrophe of diversity plus proximity will be the catalyst for imperial collapse, and we will need to have rekindled our racial consciousness by then to take advantage of it, lest we perish into the black night of history. We won’t be granting independence to the multiracial lands of the Northeast Megalopolis, California, and Dindustan; we will be declaring our independence from them.

Conversely, the “ceding territory” perspective comes from the notion that the entire United States is our racial patrimony. From a historical perspective, it truly was our Manifest Destiny. But undeniably, great swathes of this country have shifted from being Amerikaner to being pales of settlement of the nations of Africa, Latin America, Asia, and Judaea.

Can anyone truly say the ideal situation is to keep these regions inside an Amerikaner ethnostate? Would they have us implement a caste system? Such a configuration literally never lasts and history is ripe with examples of the collapse of these systems and the submersion of the ruling racial caste into the lower levels of the pyramid. To our south we see the legacy of such a prospect, from the Rio Grande to Tierra del Fuego. What made the Anglo settler colonies successful in the first place was their high degree of racial unity.

So no, we cannot “keep” places where every other person or more isn’t White. It is completely foolish to think we can or should retain lands where we are a minority, implement some kind of neo-Jim Crow, and call it a day. We know where that leads to. There will certainly be places where a small number minorities are present, such as port cities or major metro areas, but we cannot have entire regions annexed to the ethnostate which are nearly devoid of Amerikaners. We don’t have the birthrates to take these places back and are barely maintaining the White interior. If anything, the Amerikaner Free State will need White migration from the “lost territories” to strengthen its internal demographics, as I have suggested earlier. Administering foreign-majority territories outright would have the opposite effect, mongrelizing the Amerikaner Free State’s demographics.

Even if President Trump were to establish a nationalist deep state, it would only buy us time and allies in the government, not Make America White Again. We have to think on a much larger timescale to succeed than four-year intervals.

We need a state where Amerikaners are the unquestionable majority and the undisputed governing elite. We need to regroup, we need to revitalize, and we need to reconstruct a tribal identity in a society where we aren’t plagued with a rising tide of color. We need a state where the entire national habitat is ours and we aren’t being encroached upon. Ultimately the exact borders are not important; what is important is that borders exist between the Amerikaners and the outlanders. This should be done in the most peaceful way possible, because our goal is to ameliorate racial conflict. And so we cannot under any circumstances recreate the conditions that led to our current predicament.

The Eternal Struggle in Context

The American Empire is being overtaken by outgroups and we no longer have the will to maintain our authority over it along ethnocentric lines or even to maintain ourselves as the majority. Our elites hire foreign mercenaries to staff even the most basic jobs in our society while our own fertility and cultural expression is suppressed. Our children are a minority.

Within this context, for some it is dishonorable and rage-inducing to think we may have to lose swathes of this country to other tribes when it has been ours for centuries. Additionally insulting is that we haven’t even lost it through war; did the rest of the world invade the United States and impose settlement in our cities? No, they were let in. But much like the sprinkling of Muslim populations across the Balkans is a legacy of the Ottoman Empire, it would seem as if a ((((foreign conqueror)))) had ruled and colonized the American Empire at some point. How else did all these foreign enclaves get here?

Globalization has been a demographic disaster. (((1965))) was a disaster. There is thus a bitter taste to the very idea of secession from what was once almost entirely ours, a gut reaction that it is injustice. Many White nationalists feel this way, but they are outnumbered by some 100 million non-whites living in what we call the United States and their liberal White allies.

We shouldn’t see the perceived territorial loss that would come with independence as the end. First of all, that is an imperial perspective, and the Empire is not ours. Moreover, if one thing is certain in the historical time that peoples and empires occur in, it is the eternal struggle. Triumphs are grand, but grandeur ends up in a museum if it is not fought for. Temporary victories can be declared periodically as contests for mastery are won, but the idea of a total Victory, the end of struggle and the creation of a utopian order, is pure nonsense. Our difficulties do not end with the establishment of an ethnostate, and our grandeur does not end with the United States. They will never end, because life itself is the struggle for existence. No people or system can insulate themselves from this reality, for so long as life exists, the living must fight for it.

The loss of White mastery over the North American continent is not a permanent reversal of fortunes. Like victories, defeats are too periodical, though of course there can be a final Defeat of one’s identity group—being reduced from biology to history. In fact, that is the only way to end the eternal struggle, to cease struggling for survival altogether. The end of the United States, as with the end of any Empire, is the culmination of defeats into one grand Defeat. We are not obligated to go down with the ship. We must take on an active and collective role during its demise if we want to be masters of our own domain the day after tomorrow. The future belongs to men against time.

In my writings on partition and secession I try to balance my LARPy visions with what I honestly find to be the most plausible. And I think our multi-ethnic empire cannot survive and that identity-based secessionism will be what succeeds it in the event of  a government collapse, either from a loss of will, ability to project power and enforce authority, etc. It would be short-sighted to imagine that a White ethnostate will be the perpetual end product of such collapse, however. For those who believe in an White right to North America as imperium there is perhaps a silver lining. Similar things have happened in the past. In particular, I look to the Spanish Reconquista for inspiration as to how the distant future may unfold.

the_reconquista__ad_722___1492__by_undevicesimus-d630pf7

In the early eighth century, Visigothic Spain—which had succeeded Rome as the indigenous European power in Iberia—was conquered by the invading “Moors,” an amalgamation of Muslim Arabs and Berbers from North Africa. Well, most of it. Beyond the mountains of northern Spain, a small European principality—the Kingdom of Asturias—emerged under the banner of Pelagius, whose army defeated the Umayyads in a skirmish. The Visigoths and Hispano-Romans had lost control of their country and retrenched into a toehold of Iberia, a White enclave surrounded by hostile occupiers. That was the only notable holdout against the foreign hordes and their (((coincidental collaborators))).

But it wasn’t Asturias that reconquered Iberia, and Asturias wasn’t the end of White Europeans in Iberia. The Whites who retook the peninsula came not as Visigoths or Hispano-Romans. They were Castilians, Catalans, Leonese, Galicians, Portuguese—finally amalgamated into Spaniards.

The Reconquista was a seven hundred year process. Similarly, I think our race will survive on this continent through the existence of an Amerikaner ethnostate, even if it would be a vestigial remnant of the United States. This ethnostate would incubate the future of our race and produce a much more tribalistic, ethnocentric, and biologically fit people.

Should our successors wage their own Reconquista, they will likely not go as we are now. Their customs, manners and languages can and will shift in ways we cannot control. History has vindicated many such transformations—it wasn’t the Visigoths with their Roman serfs that mustered enough strength to destroy Islam in Iberia and drive it back into Africa and to expel the traitorous Hebrews, it was Spain. As Whites currently stand in the United States, I see no immediate evidence that we have the culture and customs needed to revitalize at a high enough level. We will have to stop being Romans and start being Spaniards.

So to those looking at secession as surrender, I don’t think it’s that clear cut. The loss of territory also allows for a much needed retrenchment and rebuilding of national and racial solidarity. That in turn enables a Reconquista, something we are unable to mobilize for in our current state of decline and decadence. It’s something that may even be lifetimes away. There is a process to go through here. Hard times will create strong men.

And don’t get too caught up in wondering about the borders of this future state. We can’t settle these questions yet. Just get used to the idea that it will be smaller than the United States. I don’t know how much of the South is going to be triracialized, or how much of New York will spill over into the surrounding states, or how degenerate the Pacific Northwest will become. But the ethnostate will be superior to Weimerica, because we will have our own legend cycles to fulfill. We will have a national project to fulfill. We will have abolished the politics of passive suicide and embraced higher-order values.

An Amerikaner ethnostate could be our Asturias, though perhaps this is a dire case scenario. The White ethnostate that succeeds the American Empire could just as well be more analogous to the independence of Turkey from the Ottoman Empire—a regional power rather than a total rump state. We have the numbers and enough contiguous territory to pull that off and our descendants would still be in a position to launch a hypothetical reconquest if they desired such. Ultimately two things are certain: that we cannot know the future with certainty and that it will not happen overnight. And of course, the struggle for survival continues whether we want it to or not.

And so the ethnostate will come, regardless of whether we live to witness it. Let us work towards it.

Addendum.

This entry was posted in America, Ideology, Meta, Politics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to Amerikaner Free State

  1. lingane says:

    It’s sadly funny than US Census put jews into “non-hispanic whites”.

    Last night, I was watching a map of NYC, and surprisingly, discovering than DJT got good results in… Williamsburg (!!). So, I searched an ethnic map of NYC neighboroods. And discover than…THERE WAS NO ETHNIC MAP OF NYC INCLUDING JEWS.
    Seems so absurd.
    And scary.

    Like

    • There are federal-level maps people have done showing for example that NY, NJ, FL, and CA are more Jewish than the rest but the breakdown you are looking for would be too specific.

      Like

  2. lingane says:

    Just finish reading your entire text.
    It’s a wonderful masterpiece.

    Thank you

    Like

  3. Edmund says:

    “Non-hispanic white” has to be one of the most degrading, insulting, contemptuous labels for a group of people that has ever been devised. “Barbarian” and the like are practically compliments by comparison.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Max says:

    “If history and our lived experiences in this lifetime are anything to go by, demographics can be changed from the through state policy.”

    Typo alert!

    Like

  5. Miha M says:

    Scholars of 19th and 20th century have already expected much of whats going on today on and its outcome as well. Their text were based on observing and understanding humans and nature. They make sense. Looking at developments unfold today and observing trends its even easier to see where we are going. Amerikaner state has next to zero chance of coming to fruition and this is a fantasy novel.

    Like

    • It’s an idea. Perhaps not the most practical in our current circumstances though, I agree.

      Like

    • Edmund says:

      So what is the most likely outcome? Extinction of whites followed by the collapse of technological society, massive population loss among the brown folk, and a permanent return among them to 11th century levels of population, technology, etc.?

      Like

      • Miha M says:

        I think Darwin got it right in The Descent of Man: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.”

        For long time I thought this was a weird statement, but after seeing recent developments I am starting to see how and after reading Garrett Hardin’s work, I am understanding why this may happen. I believe that white privilege theory, affirmative action, system oppression theory and lets not forget “you will soon loose your countries” is being deliberately pushed in our face to create whitelash.

        Under the line problem is that planet can not sustain 7 billion people without completely desolating it and transforming it into prosthetic environment that keeps us alive. So they want to thin the [human] herd. Now whether that will be through starvation or government sanctioned executions or a total race war I don’t know. I think “white genocide” ideology is being put in place to condition whites, to make it acceptable to exterminate the savage races.

        Like

    • Edmund says:

      Well, I don’t know if it’ll go that extreme — but I suppose I can see some pretty vigorous ethnic cleansing. On the scale of probability, I’d put the cleansing quite a bit higher than a partition, though. There are no easy ways to geographically divide the country; the Canadian border only works because there are peaceful white folk there (or were until recently).

      On the side of your scenario, though, is the fact that the fossil record, IIRC, shows the larger-brained mammals in every order inexorably replacing the smaller-brained ones. Man is still a cynodont…

      Like

  6. The Bagman says:

    We must wrest from Fate the time to grow our racial awareness. Heaven be with us in the strife!

    Like

  7. forbesmag says:

    More United States break-up garbage.

    It is short-sighted, defeatist, and worse of all NAIVE.

    The amount of political power you would need for such a radical disruptive change in the face of what would be great opposition, including among our own people is about the same amount of political power you would need to expel non-Whites from our existing borders.

    So you might as well just aim for getting control of the existing state with its existing borders.

    The childish idea that surrendering territory is going to lessen resistance in any significant way is just stupid.

    Like

    • The power to remove 100M people and the power to redraw borders are not the same.

      Like

      • Thor Son says:

        But this is where I get stuck reading this article. No where does it describe the process used to convince everyone that re-drawing borders is the right thing to do. Seems to me that a war would be necessary to claim the authority to re-draw borders.

        Like

    • Zorost says:

      I’m sure some variant of that was said just before every Empire broke up.

      If things got bad enough, all concerned would be for the agreement. Imagine last election cycle but 100x as bad.

      Personally I’m hoping Trump can bring us back from the abyss, and I can see ways to do so fairly peacefully. But if not, a break-up will look increasingly good to all concerned.

      Like

  8. King George III (Bar Tar) says:

    You are charging the matador and goring the cape.

    The primary problem is not the dusky nonwhite hordes—they are only a symptom. The primary problem is really shitty government. If we had good government, would the dusky nonwhite hordes even be here? Of course not! They are not here by their own power; they are here under the aegis of our government, else why is their primary source of income monthly checks in the mail from Uncle Sam The Big Pimp?

    “If we adjusted the borders, which is what the Ethno-Nationalists want, and ensured that the ruling elite was ethnically homogeneous, the fundamental causes that got us into this problem would still be acting. The government would still suck in pretty much the way it sucks now.”
    http://blog.jim.com/culture/what-unites-neoreaction

    The American Empire spans the entire world, except Russia and China. There is no plausible scenario in which even a greatly weakened, diminished USG loses control of its own borders. If your plan doesn’t involve dealing with USG and making absolutely sure your new government doesn’t become USG 2.0, you are jerking off into a damp rag.

    Like

  9. Large parts of Canada should be included here. I could also imagine Quebec being one of our allies.

    Like

    • Yeah that’s a good point. Whatever happens here will surely impact the north.

      Like

      • Fredericus says:

        Have you heard of the Free State Project? “The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 participants to move to NH for “Liberty in Our Lifetime.” When are YOU moving?” https://freestateproject. org/ It’s amazing that there’s already a movement to get thousands of people from across the country to move into a single state —New Hampshire. What can we learn from this movement? What say we replicate it. Maybe we could even arrive in NH and meme our fashy counter-culture to be the dominant culture in the state.

        Like

      • So if this didn’t work for libertarians… why is it going to work for White nationalists. What is there even in NH in terms of employment?

        Like

    • superoven says:

      Why would Quebec want anything to do with you? We have enough problems tolerating 28 million anglos as is, we don’t want 150 million more.

      If the US ever balkanizes then we’ll probably go the same way, but I don’t see any great love story happening. All we’ve ever wanted is to be left alone.

      Like

  10. An intriguing essay.

    It’s interesting to contemplate the potential catalyzing effects of the inevitable 9.5 magnitude earthquake in the Pacific Northwest. It won’t recognize the Washington/BC border. Also, we should consider that California (and its agribusiness) is dependent on the heartland for water, just as the heartland is relies on California agribusiness to fed us. What would California look like without access to Amerikaner water, and what would Amerikanerland look like without access to California produced food? I’ll stake my long term bets on Amerikanerland, but that shift won’t be pretty.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. BroncoColorado says:

    One of the unintended consequences of Apartheid in South Africa, and French colonial administration of North Africa was a Black and Brown population explosion in those territories. Similarly, the present technical and agricultural strengths of North America aid the population growth of non-Whites more than Whites. The farmers of Iowa and Kansas don’t know it but their abundant surpluses are the fuel of demographic displacement.
    This didn’t happen by accident. A deliberate consequence of the Great Depression was the ‘collectivization’ of many formerly family owned farms west of the Mississippi. These holdings were mortgaged and easily repossessed when money flow was artificially constricted. Of course the Soviets performed collectivization with much less finesse.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Quintus says:

    I did so enjoy and appreciate “Behold, I Teach You the Amerikaner” and, as usual, you take an idea and flesh it out. I think this may become a Meme, and then again something more.
    Think of us as Boers who are TRULY awake. The Boers were TOUGH, as tough as any Aryan has ever been. They were talked out of their land by the same (((Group))) that did in America . They didn’t have any resistance to the Televitz and neither did our people, here in the U.S. However there were ENOUGH of us, and thank God for the internet which is why the (((Group))) is trying to SILENCE the Truth.
    Well the future has yet to be written…
    “Is not our role to stand for the one thing which means our own salvation here but with which it will also be possible to save the world, and with which Europe will be able to save itself, namely the preservation of the white man and his state?”
    Hendrik Verwoerd

    Liked by 1 person

  13. John Chard says:

    You know, I actually really, really like the term “Anglo-American” and I wish it had caught on. I feel that “white” is such a colloquial and a pedestrian term—a description of skin pigmentation rather than identity—for our people. Yet “European” or “European-American” lacks a connection to our uniquely American identity. The lack of such a respectfully descriptive term for American whites has been a hugely underrated liability in the meme wars, IMO.

    Like

  14. I agree, this needs to happen soon. But the map as drawn is not practical for a few reasons.

    (1) The midwest needs the Mississippi, all the way down to the Gulf.
    (2) The white liberals in the northwest and northeast will not go willingly. I agree they should be co-opted, but it would require force. There’s no way for it to happen cleanly.
    (3) What is the intent for Chicago and Detroit? Surely that’s not practical to leave them as city-states, is it? Will they be walled off? There are other worrisome cities such as St Louis and Denver.
    (4) And most importantly we would have to consider falling white birth rates, or we’ll have a bunch of empty Anglo-American territory. But that’s for another discussion I’m sure.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Someone says:

    You draw an analogy with a 700-year war fought in Spain. I guess I don’t see benefits here sufficient to justify so much bloodshed. Whatever you want to achieve here, it seems virtually certain that there’s an easier and less destructive way to achieve it.

    Like

    • That’s to convince the “rahowa now!” crowd that their plan probably won’t happen.

      Like

      • King George III says:

        Was my comment eaten by the spambot? It’s under the name: King George III (Bar Tar)

        The Moslems were fighters. They still are. And back in the Middle Ages, Moslems were militarily still in the same league as Whites. Admittedly inferior, but not that much. They had horses and swords and whatnot, same as Europeans did, and their incredibly virile religion made up much of the difference. Now it isn’t even close. We have planes, tanks, cars, C-130 lasers, nukes, etc. They have…goats, shitty rundown cars leftover from technological civilization, and AK-47s…leftover from Soviet Russia.

        And let me tell you: the Mexicans don’t compare very favorably to the Moslems.

        It all comes down to one very simple proposition: if the Mexican government is incapable of militarily invading the United States (lol), the only reason—the only reason—that Mexicans are here is because the Cathedral wants them here.

        Like

      • I agree that all non-whites here who date aftet 1965 are here because the hostile elite want them here.

        Like

  16. King George III says:

    That wasn’t the comment, by the way. The missing comment is still missing.

    Here’s an excellent passage I just came across, from Revilo P. Oliver…

    THE CONSUMPTION OF CULTURE

    We must understand that the grim question thus posed was at that time, and remains even today, entirely a question of internal decay – of a sickness or debility of the Western mind and will. It was not then, and has not yet become, a question of strength relative to the rest of the world. The power of the nations of the West was, and is, simply overwhelming.

    In 1914, men debated whether or not Russia was part of the Western world. Assuming that it was not, it was obvious that there were only two non-Western nations on earth that possessed the military and industrial capacity to offer serious resistance to even a medium-sized nation of the West. And neither Russia nor Japan could have hoped to defeat a major Western power except by forming an alliance with another major power of Europe or America. And despite all the efforts of the West to destroy itself in fratricidal wars and by exporting its technology and its wealth to other peoples, that remains in large part true today.

    The retreat of the West has been self-imposed, and we must not permit the screeching of “liberals” to distract our attention from that obvious and fundamental fact. Great Britain, for example, was in no sense compelled to relinquish India as a colony. During the great Indian Mutiny of 1857, fifty thousand British troops cut their way through the whole of the Indian sub-continent, and in little more than a year reduced to complete submission its population of more than one hundred million. And this, nota bene, was done at a time when the only basic weapon of warfare was the rifle, so that a man with a rifle on one side was the match of a man with a rifle on the other side, except insofar as discipline and individual intelligence might make some difference in the use of the common and universally obtainable weapon. In 1946, Great Britain, with all the weapons of modern warfare at her disposal, including tanks, airplanes, high-explosive and incendiary bombs, poison gas, and other weapons that are by their very nature a monopoly of great nations, could have snuffed out in a few weeks the most formidable revolt that Nehru and his gang could conceivably have instigated and organized.
    The power is still ours. The greater part of the globe lies open for our taking, if we as a nation resolve to take it. Despite all the frenzied efforts in Washington to sabotage the United States for the past thirty years, it is still beyond doubt that if we were so minded, we could, for example, simply take the whole continent of Africa, exterminate the native population; and make the vast and rich area a new frontier for the expansion of our own people. No power on earth – certainly not the Soviet that we have so diligently nurtured and built up with our resources – would dare to oppose us. To be sure, there are good reasons for not annexing Africa, but if we are to think clearly about our place in the world, we must understand that lack of power is not one of them.

    That the Western world, with its virtual monopoly of the instruments of power, should slavishly cringe before the hordes for which it felt only contempt when it was less strong than it now is, is obvious proof that our civilization is suffering from some potentially fatal disease or decay that has deprived us – temporarily or permanently – of the intelligence and the will to live. Every philosophy of history, or, if you prefer, every system of historionomy, is simply an effort to diagnose our malady – to tell us, in effect, whether the debility and enervation of the West is the result of a curable disease or of an irreversible deterioration.

    We should also note that the historical question can, except in its most immediate aspects, be partly separated from the problem posed by the International Communist Conspiracy. That band of criminals was so well hidden in 1914 that no one suspected the extent of its secret strength or anticipated the almost incredible growth of that strength in subsequent decades. Many philosophies of history simply ignore, and others barely notice the existence of the conspiracy whose capture of governments and the organs of public opinion in the West is the obvious cause of the paralysis from which we are now suffering.

    There is nothing new about the Bolsheviks except the scale on which they operate. History provides many examples of criminal conspiracies to capture entire nations: the Catilinarian Conspiracy is an obvious example and many others could be cited. Every race and nation has produced throughout its history depraved creatures animated by a blood-lust that we regard as inhuman, and these fearful animals have sometimes formed conspiracies whose motivation was simply the joy of killing, with no thought of profit or political power: One of the clearest examples is provided by the biped beasts described by Louis Zoul in his excellent Thugs and Communists (Public Opinion, Long Island City: cf. American Opinion, January, 1962, pp. 29-36). The only innovation that the Communists have made is their success in organizing the depraved and the degenerate throughout the world, and their determination to capture the entire globe instead of a part of it.

    But the members of the Communist Conspiracy are never more than a tiny fraction of the populations they subjugate; they are a small gang that could in any country be handled by the local police force in a merely routine operation. The terrible power of the unhumans is entirely obtained by their ability to deceive and manipulate human beings.
    So the historical question remains. What sickness of our civilization has so paralyzed us that we permit the vermin to swarm over us? What stupor prevented us for so long from recognizing them? What has palsied our hands so that we make no move to rid ourselves of the infestation?

    Many of the criminals are almost impenetrably disguised as “liberal intellectuals”. The nature of the “liberal” has been clearly and brilliantly analyzed by S E D Brown and Taylor Caldwell (see American Opinion, October, 1961, pp. 35-44: March, 1963, pp. 29-41), and we can only marvel that such weak, ignorant, and irrational little men, bearing a secret and morbid animus against the civilization that nurtured them, should have been able to occupy the positions of intellectual prestige and influence in our society. How does it happen that we have the herds of “liberal intellectuals” among whom the members of the Criminal Conspiracy can so easily and effortlessly conceal themselves?
    The Communist Conspiracy is therefore a proof that there is something seriously wrong with our civilization. If that were not so, the Conspiracy would be helpless. As we all know, everyone is daily exposed to tuberculosis and many other potentially lethal infections, but healthy bodies simply throw off those infections automatically. All societies will always have criminals in their midst, but a healthy society will automatically keep those ever-present germs of evil and death under control, partly by the exercise of police-powers, but mostly by the social pressures that are generated by the refusal of individuals to countenance subversion and crime.

    If God in His Mercy were to remove from our globe tonight every member of the International Communist Conspiracy, we would rejoice wildly in our liberation. But within a century – perhaps in half a century – we should find ourselves in our present plight once again, unless we developed powers of resistance to infection that we obviously have not yet developed.

    Like

    • BroncoColorado says:

      Alexander Solzhenitsyn was similarly perplexed by the collapse of will power within the Western world. The reason is possibly simply one of cynicism. We all know how we have been lied to and betrayed in the past, so it is understandable White men knowing what they know now have great reluctance to risk their lives in great and noble deeds only to have the fruits of victory snatched from their grasp by jews and banksters.
      The territorial standing armies of the past and present were and are the creation and tools of monopoly capitalism / communism, but if the wars of ‘national liberation’ within the Third World can teach us anything it is our wars of national liberation will be fought by small bands of ‘free enterprise’ fighters, acting as independent units without regard to conventional formalities.

      Like

      • King George III says:

        Third World wars of “national liberation” are sponsored by State Department & Co. (notably CFR).

        I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again: there are only three spheres of sovereignty in the world: US, Russia, China. (and sort-of Israel) Everything that happens in the world happens with the approval and protection of at least one of these powers. As example, when Duterte defects from the Empire, who does he go to? China. When Assad says “fuck you” to USG, where does he turn? Russia. Israel has a bit of freedom because it has nukes—as it turns out, Ben-Gurion was totally right.

        Put simply: if you don’t have nukes or a backer who has nukes, you’re fucked. This “asymmetric warfare” bullshit of goatherds beating real states at warfare only works when you have friends at State.

        Like

      • It’s all about the threat values

        Like

    • Miha M says:

      I enjoy reading great thinkers so much. Mr. Oliver is exactly right about communist conspiracy. Unfortunately he falls in same trap as most people who are waking up to it. Many reactionaries completely ignore or barely mention the mere possibility that revolutionaries are also just a tool in someone else’s hand in similar manner as brown/black filth is tool in their hands. This is a big bone of contention; all white nationalists think if we get rid of revolutionaries (whom are overwhelmingly Jewish) that all problems will disappear and we will live in eternal prosperity. Jews are easy. Their goals are clear, but their plans ware doomed to fail from their inception. The real puzzle is what is the purpose of this charade? To what end?

      Like

      • King George III says:

        Some men I admire think it’s conspiracy, and some others think it’s entropy. Jim of Jim’s Blog thinks it’s a special form of entropy he calls “left singularities” (http://blog.jim.com/culture/history-interpreted-as-left-singularities). I think he’s probably mostly right, with a good bit of conspiracy thrown in—the Satanist stuff of Clinton & Co. is pretty damning, and points to a loose organization of blackmail perhaps extending to Soros, Rockefeller, Rothschild, and possibly beyond.

        As for white nationalists, I would encourage our gracious host Lawrence Murray to read the Mencius on why white nationalism doesn’t work: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-i-am-not-white-nationalist.html

        I would further add that white nationalists’ conception of the flow of power is all backward. This is attributable to white nationalism being a radical left-wing movement of not 70 years ago. And one basic truth of leftists and liberals is that their conception of power flows from bottom up, as though the people have a will and exert it upon the world. Mr. Murray, for instance, thinks that it would require war and bloodshed to put a bunch of mestizos on buses and send them back to their homeland. He thinks that somehow the Mexicans violated the sole world superpower’s borders because the border is just simply impossible to defend, rather than because USG is electing a new people.

        White nationalists think that getting back to a 90% white country will solve all our problems, but we were a 90% white country within living memory, and yet here we are. It is obvious that government is upstream of racial demographics, as it is obvious that USG has been importing Democratic voters by the 100 million…unless you’re still high on liberal democratic “will of the people” crack, in which case you think that fixing racial demographics by ceding territory will somehow fix the root problem, which is the theological seminary commonly known as Harvard.

        Like

    • Miha M says:

      Entropy is when average European gets approx. 1% negro DNA over several millennia. And it will likely increase in future. Completely wiping out entire nations in century is no entropy. However it makes little difference in end result. Entropy always wins in the end.

      However there is a way to work around it. Because if it wasn’t, there would be no progress, no evolution. In nature you see this happening all the time. The more evolved version exterminates and replaces the lesser variant. Any less drastic measure: entropy wins. Which is why Darwin wrote that quote in The Descent of Man: “At some future period, not very distant…”.

      It is this fact what drove Nazis, not the hate towards lesser races. And I am 100% certain it wasn’t the last attempt.

      Like

  17. This is an excellent article. Since I write about the theme of balkanization every day, quite literally, I typically do a Google search for the tag line, but I guess in the pre-Thanksgiving rush, I missed this, initially. Your map even follows much of what I’ve recently extrapolated and written about, so we’re of the same accord. Would it be shameless self-promotion for me to mention that I wrote a book on this subject last year, called, the “The Balk”? Because, I wrote a book about this subject, called “The Balk”. I won’t mention that it’s available through Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Books-A-Million, though. That would be too much.

    Seriously, my only difference with what you portend is that continued ethnic cleansing, out-migration, casualties of war, and even population exchanges as happened in the waning of the Yugoslavian conflict will leave us with a higher than 88% (heh heh) White population. My congratulations on an excellent piece of scholarship.

    Like

  18. Pingback: Amerikaner Free State+ [Thicc Nationalism Edition] | ATLANTIC CENTURION

  19. CrockettCapitalist says:

    It says that Boston is the largest metro area but the map puts Houston and Dallas within Amerikaner land, which are both substantially larger than Boston Metro area.

    It’s interesting, but did your error lie with the fact that the map is wrong or you didn’t closely look at metro populations?

    Like

  20. Zorost says:

    Very interesting. Main point of contention is the same as I have for the similar “Civil War 2” by Chittum. Basically, “the (demographic) map is not the terrain.” Maps showing where majorities voted for DT, or where whites are a majority, don’t show by how much they are a majority. In 2012 ~43% of Montana voted for Obama… Almost every state is similar, where no candidate gets less than 40%. We are as divided as we were just before the Civil War if not more, but by ideology and not geography.

    I doubt we’ll have a split unless we intentionally work to bring it about (See: Covington’s “Northwest” series) which will be pretty horrendous. If we don’t work to create a split, I fear we’ll fall into an even worse civil war. But not the Eastern Campaign civil war, of organized armies and extremely tiny civilian casualties. More like Bleeding Kansas and the Missouri Border war. Instead of Grant vs. Lee, it will be Quantrill vs. Charles Jennison. Or perhaps more accurately, Quantrill vs. Jennison vs. Nat Turner vs. Pancho Villa…

    This leads to another point, that our enemy is not a monolithic entity but a fucked-up coalition of people that hate and mistrust each other, united mainly by a hatred of whites and a love for the fruits of our labor. W/o whites to leech off of, it is unlikely that the USA will only split into 2 separate nations. As unlikely as a split is, it is far less likely that it would be a clean split between 2 nations.

    Like

    • Steel T Post says:

      I don’t want to be around half the whites either. they’re a bunch of damned pussies, too tame for my taste. I live in boondocks, and my good “conservative” neighbor just told me that out of the many voting adults in his extended family, including a Marine combat vet, all but he voted “with her.” He’s being shamed by them. He appeared despondent.

      So I’m praying for Apocalypse, in whatever form comes soonest, be it peak oil, peak soil, global thermonuclear winter, Carrington event, Mauder minimum, 28 Days Later near slate-wiper, whatever it takes to get some natural selection happenin’ again.

      To hell with domesticated easy living. Whites are the Edge Lords of Pleistocene Hard Times when we Co-Evolved with Wolves [Schleidt & Shalter, 2003]. Homo Homini Lupus.

      Even so, come Lord Shiva.

      Like

  21. kerberos616 says:

    Reblogged this on Kerberos616.

    Like

  22. Pingback: Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals | ATLANTIC CENTURION

  23. tonytran2015 says:

    Why do the United States of A OFFICIALLY call themselves United Races (Hop Chung Quoc) of A in Vietnamese. Do they need to make a mockery of proper translation to hide their own insecurity with an impending racial problem?

    Like

  24. tonytran2015 says:

    Why do USA OFFICIALLY call themselves United Races (Hop Chung Quoc) of A in Vietnamese. This makes a mockery of proper official translation. Is it due to their own insecurity fear of the impending racial implosion ?

    Like

  25. Pingback: UNDERSTANDING THE ‘PSYCHOLOGY’ OF JEWS – aladdinsmiraclelamp

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s