ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Secession fever spreads

Or, in this case, merely intensifies:
Catalonia’s push for independence from Spain received some unexpected help this week: the Spanish minister of education proposed an attack on the system of Catalan-only instruction in core courses in the school curriculum. The FT reports:
Under the current “immersion” programme used in Catalonia, all core subjects are taught in Catalan. Primary schoolchildren study Spanish for three hours a week, similar to the time dedicated to a foreign language, such as English. Under Mr Wert’s plans, any region that cannot satisfy the wish of parents who want their children taught core subjects in Spanish, would have to meet the costs of that child being educated privately.
The Education Minister’s proposition to “establish parity” between Spanish and Catalan has predictably sparked a backlash and inspired secessionist sentiment:
When one considers how many empires have fallen apart since the end of World War II, and that the Union of the current United States was imposed by force, it should not come as any surprise that support for secession will continue to grow throughout America as the economy worsens and the divisions between American culture and the immigrant cultures widen.

This is particularly true given that the union between Spain and Catalonia is older than the United States union, and unlike the younger unionn, was not imposed through violence.

Labels:

138 Comments:

Anonymous paradox December 12, 2012 9:37 AM  

Deo Vindice indeed.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 12, 2012 9:45 AM  

OT: Media glorifies HIV because it cures cancer of little girls

Blogger Tiny Tim December 12, 2012 9:50 AM  

The roaches from the SS California are swimming to Texas as their ship goes down. If we don't close our borders soon we will be a blue state and it is going to get real nasty because Texans like to fight....

Blogger Tiny Tim December 12, 2012 9:53 AM  

and we particularly like owning a firearm in every caliber, at least one.... and if we like the firearm, we might buy three of them.... and we really like to reload our own ammo.... and hunt..... and skin animals.... and have them mounted on a board.... for all to see when we have parties where we BBQ and consume alcohol.... and no one dies.... and no one gets hurt.... because underneath it all we love Jesus!

Anonymous Stilicho December 12, 2012 10:01 AM  

The liberal, statist bureaucrat is susceptible to relying on the handout carrot/ no-handout stick to enforce statist group conformity (Spain's leftists) without realizing that his fellow travelers may have a separate group loyalty that is more important to them than the handout (Catalan identity).

Catalan: Yes, we're rabbits too, but we are brown rabbits, not those silly white rabbits.

Anonymous Tad December 12, 2012 10:05 AM  

@Vox Day
the Union of the current United States was imposed by force, it should not come as any surprise that support for secession will continue to grow throughout America

I think it's a real possibility that the evidence for a growing secessionist "movement"in Texas or anywhere else is the existence of a few website, the willingness of a few cranks to talk about it in the media, followed by the same websites reporting on the cranks talking about secession publicly.

Besides the problem of there being only shoddy evidence for this movement, there is the problem that there is no mechanism by which the "movement" could carry out its goals.

What you have basically is a bunch of cranks talking to themselves and a liberal wing of the media indulging the cranks for the sake of entertaining their audience by ridiculing the cranks.

It's a little sad.

Blogger George December 12, 2012 10:08 AM  

Dear Tim ... I am a roach stuck in SoCal. I have always felt more Texan than Californian but I understand how you feel. The scum are the majority here. But what about us Bro? What about us?

Anonymous Toonces December 12, 2012 10:11 AM  

"I am a roach stuck in SoCal. I have always felt more Texan than Californian but I understand how you feel. The scum are the majority here. But what about us Bro? What about us?"

If you're the same George that normally comments here, move to Canada.

Anonymous stevev December 12, 2012 10:16 AM  

lookit Tad there on his oh-so-high moral superiority throne up there! Pray tell Tad, if you're privy to sooo much information that you feel it is necessary to make sure the Ilk know how naive, reactionary and sycophantic they are, why don't you create and populate a stellar blog of your own with your superior knowledge? I can't wait!

Anonymous Athor Pel December 12, 2012 10:17 AM  

Tad,

You're a provincial that doesn't know how provincial he is.

Blogger JartStar December 12, 2012 10:20 AM  

there is the problem that there is no mechanism by which the "movement" could carry out its goals.

There was no mechanism by which the colonies could secede from Great Britain. There is no mechanism that I'm aware of by which the Syrian rebels can secede or legally remove their hated ruler. So in the end people start shooting.

Anonymous bbtp December 12, 2012 10:20 AM  

Tad,

There is not presently a mechanism for separation, nor is there sufficient popular support, but continued economic decline may well lead to the latter, and the latter may force the former.

In 1995, Quebec voted 50.5% to 49.5% to remain in Canada. There was no mechanism for provincial separation, but obviously if Quebec had voted in favor of separation, that would have at minimum precipitated a constitutional crisis. The Canadians were fortunate to avoid catastrophe.

I don't expect a separatist majority to emerge in any state just yet, but on the other hand, no union is ultimately indivisible, as the history of China shows...

--bbtp

Blogger JDC December 12, 2012 10:25 AM  

I have two good friends who are state troopers in MI who were called in for crowd control yesterday at the capital in MI following the big vote, now making MI a Right to Work state. I had a long conversation with my hunting buddy and trooper this morning. Although he is union, and could perhaps be negatively affected by this (e.g. now non-union members don't have to pay obligatory fees for union bargaining), he was horrified by the behavior of the "pro-union" rioters.

They want to impose their beliefs on everyone. Everyone should be in a union, and if you don't belong to the union - f*** you pay anyway me is their mantra. They have drawn a line in the sand, and will never budge. IMO this is a small issue - but these small issues are beginning to affect the whole. How many lines in the sand will have to be drawn before people start to talk about separation? I have no idea what it would look like, but given our country's history - I am sure that violence will be part of it.

I think this goes far beyond a bunch of cranks and an indulgent media. As cities (and states for that matter) in start filing for bankruptcy, and basic services begin to crash, we can expect all hell to break loose. The have nots will not be satisfied. They will IMO try to take what they feel they are owed. Police, teachers, fire fighters, anyone on a government pension, any contractor who depends on government contracts...not a few cranks. Everybody will be affected.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 12, 2012 10:25 AM  

It's time to drop the damn rope and don't pick it up again. Quit playing tug-a-war with each other, claim the the Federal Reserve Bank as Unconstitutional. If we would just drop the rope and quit pulling on it all the tension will be released and the banks will twist in the wind and empires will die on the vine.

Anonymous patrick kelly December 12, 2012 10:26 AM  

"What you have basically is a bunch of cranks talking to themselves and a liberal wing of the media indulging the cranks for the sake of entertaining their audience by ridiculing the cranks."

Woah, I like and agree with something Tad wrote. Send lawyers guns and money, get me outta' here. ;-)

Seriously, until the the Governor or Legislature of any state petitions the feds for succession, it pretty much is what Tad describes. Nevertheless, I enjoy being a crank. Sometimes I even like being ridiculed for being a crank.

Tad, got any comments about the meat of this post, you know, about Spain and Catalonia? Or do you just enjoy being a left wing-nut indulging the cranks?


Anonymous JI December 12, 2012 10:26 AM  

Vox,
I think the point about the Civil War creating a forced union is not relevant to the schisms in today's America. These days, the dividing lines are traditional American culture, which includes the former Confederate states, versus the culture of Mexican immigrants. The only way your point comes into play, as far as I can tell, is that the southern states are more representative of traditional American culture that are many of the former northern states which have become very liberal in the modern sense of the word, and hence tend to suicidally side with the immigrant cultures.

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis December 12, 2012 10:28 AM  

Catalonia's absorbtion into Spain wasn't entirely without conflict. Catalonia was turned from the crown terriroty of Aragon territories to territories of Castile after backing the wrong side during the Spanish War of Succession. Catalonian institutions were dismantled and merged with those of Castile. I think one of the issues is that Catalonia has always considered itself Catalonia rather than a part of Spain much like the Basque country or Corsica for France.

Blogger JaimeInTexas December 12, 2012 10:31 AM  

When I came to Houston, Tx, in 1985, there was a distinct and palpable mindset that Texas can go on its own if we so choose it. That attitude has changed drastically since. Speaking with people who have been living in Texas longer than I, have told me that I was right but that the sentiment continues pretty strong in west Texas. I did not pay close attention to the recent GOP primary numbers but Ron Paul's support was the weakest in the Texian "secessionist" strongholds.

In the Houston area, people voted in favor of new bonds, by over 60% in the yeah column.

I in full support of the Republic of Texas flying the Lone Star once again but I have no illusions.

I suppose, at least, the manacles will be placed on our wrists by ourselves and not by large population areas in the Liberal northeast, Peronista rusted belt, or nuts and granola west coast.

Blogger JartStar December 12, 2012 10:37 AM  

Vox wrote recently about that people know something is wrong, but can’t put their finger on the exact cause. I’ll offer more evidence of this: Liberals have been pinning away for the good ol’ days when the top marginal rate was 91% and the unions were more powerful. What’s interesting about this is that even the more intelligent of them, like Robert Reich, never even bring up that after WW2 ½ of all manufacturing was done in the US and the Depression dramatically increased union power and laws.

I haven’t been able to decipher if this call for higher taxes on the wealthy and a return to unions is simply rhetoric to deflect and distract from the current situation, or if they truly believe that this would return us to some mythical time of prosperity and equality. It’s probably a combination of both.

What is most interesting about this call to turn back the clock is that liberals typically want to be “progressives” with eyes firmly fixed on the future as they rebuild their secular Utopia, again and again. I have to think they are starting not to believe their own myths about the future and now simply look to the past for consolation.

Anonymous Cheddarman December 12, 2012 10:37 AM  

Besides the problem of there being only shoddy evidence for this movement, there is the problem that there is no mechanism by which the "movement" could carry out its goals. - Ta(r)d

Ta(r)d, How stupid are you? What happened to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the German Empire, The Russian Empire, The British Empire, The USSR, The French Colonial Empire, The Ottoman Empire and Yugoslavia? They broke up because they were no longer sustainable.

Let me make it very simple for you. These empires went belly up because they were broke. America is broke and it is no longer sustainable. America will break up.

Sincerely

Cheddarman

Anonymous Reality Check One-Two December 12, 2012 10:39 AM  

The past did not have government indoctrination facilities from age 5 to 18 (and beyond). The past did not have the technology (and a military-industrial complex) for the government to quickly and aggressively deal with domestic threats. The past had a more self-reliant populace, not latched onto the teat of the State. Governments come and go, yes, but the reality of today, in the US, needs to be considered.

Who is willing to die in order to live in a state no longer tethered to the federal government, but surrounded by it on all sides?

Anonymous Krul December 12, 2012 10:49 AM  

Besides the problem of there being only shoddy evidence for this movement, there is the problem that there is no mechanism by which the "movement" could carry out its goals.

I think it's pretty clear that the FedGov would never approve of TX secession, meaning that the only way TX or any other state could even concievably secede is by winning a war of independence. But in any fight between TX and the remianing 49 states, the 49 would obviously win.

This is why I think that secession can only happen as part of a much larger scale collapse of the Union. The power of the FedGov to impose its will throughout the continental US must be severely diminished before secession becomes practically possible, or even attractive to a sufficient number of TX residents.

In other news, weed is now legal by CO state law, but illegal by Federal law. I wonder if similar disagreements between state govs and the FedGov could lead to more secession movements. Suppose for example that the CO state gov tried to prevent the FedGov from enforcing federal drug laws in CO. Just a hypothetical example.

Anonymous Daniel December 12, 2012 10:49 AM  

Jl
The only way your point comes into play, as far as I can tell, is that the southern states are more representative of traditional American culture that are many of the former northern states which have become very liberal in the modern sense of the word, and hence tend to suicidally side with the immigrant cultures.

That's a hoot. The North is the cradle of the forced Union. The North has been a culture separate from a southern confederacy for centuries. The North has been immigrant soup, Democrats with Lincoln/

Note that the southern states have no corollary to, for example, Minnesota's Dominant Democratic Farmer Labor Party. Southern culture has not corollary to rust belt unions.

The "traditional" American culture of the spiritual descendants of Abe Lincoln and Eugene Debs are very different from the "traditional" American culture of the spiritual descendants of Thomas Jefferson and Nathan Bedford Forrest.

The only thing a Norwegian farmer in Iowa has in common with a real McCoy is that they are both white, but the Norwegian might deny that, if pressed.

Anonymous Daniel December 12, 2012 10:51 AM  

...oops. That 2nd paragraph should end with "Democrats with Lincoln/Douglas concepts as gospel."

Anonymous fred December 12, 2012 11:02 AM  

@Reality Check One-Two

Who is willing to die in order to live in a state no longer tethered to the federal government, but surrounded by it on all sides?


*raises hand* Certainly willing to risk it. The only reason this whole thing even exists is that there were those who did that exact thing long ago. By definition the 47% is not the whole. Guerrillas are the bane of the elite. Those that are too lilly-white chicken to fight for their way of life do not deserve to keep it. Seems like someone said that once...

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 12, 2012 11:05 AM  

TAD: there is no mechanism by which the "movement" could carry out its goals.
LACEDAEMONIANS: Yet.




Anonymous paleopaleo December 12, 2012 11:07 AM  

Cheddarman is onto something. Lefties love the phrase 'American Empire'.

Rather than 'succession', begin the discussion with a honey-trap: Breakup of the American Empire and the dismantling of American Hegemony

Anonymous Tad December 12, 2012 11:19 AM  

@Jartstar
There was no mechanism by which the colonies could secede from Great Britain. There is no mechanism that I'm aware of by which the Syrian rebels can secede or legally remove their hated ruler. So in the end people start shooting.

Are you suggesting that revolution is a method by which Texas secessionists can achieve their goal?? How would would that move actually work? How would it succeed?

Anonymous Daniel December 12, 2012 11:21 AM  

OT: Is there a Hultgreen-Curie Lifetime Achievement Award for multicultural murder-suicide pioneer?

I mean, fire, then gas, then slit wrists then stereo cord garotting? Who did she think she was, girl Svengali?

Anonymous Tad December 12, 2012 11:22 AM  

@BBTP
There is not presently a mechanism for separation, nor is there sufficient popular support, but continued economic decline may well lead to the latter, and the latter may force the former

May, may, may, may. There is no movement of any significance. You've got a bunch of good old boys that can build websites and some followers willing to hold themselves up for ridicule in the media: This a movement does not make.

Anonymous Tad December 12, 2012 11:25 AM  

@Patrick
Tad, got any comments about the meat of this post

The meat of this post is that secession desires are likely to spread to the U.S. Hogwash. There is no significant movement now. Hinting that there is or will be is just bad wishful thinking.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 12, 2012 11:25 AM  

"But in any fight between TX and the remianing 49 states, the 49 would obviously win."

Not so fast. It isn't obvious. If the Texans decided to fight, then it would be the Texans, a formidable bunch, doing the fighting for Texas.

Who will fight for the Union, in this era? I mean, actually fight? Yuppies and SWPLs? Undisciplined, easily-defeated negroes? Rich Jews? (SPITS COFFEE THRU NOSE LAUGHING)

When push comes to shove, the Army and the National Guards, whose actual fighting units are mainly white, will fracture; one side will refuse to fight, and may possibly also actively hinder the side that does fight. The actual US forces invading Texas will consist of basically competent Latinos, angry but incompetent negroes, the non-Southern working class whites who could not overcome their brainwashing and continue to blindly follow orders (and whose numbers will thin as they begin to perceive that it is in fact a vicious anti-white race war), and a sprinkling of various other resentful, whining, mooching, shit-colored immigrant groups. Meantime the sympathetic white resistance, not only in Texas but throughout the rest of the continent, will begin sabotage operations and make life miserable for the Union.

In order for the Union to win, the Union will have to actually win; in order for Texas to win, they merely have to make it not worth the agony for the Union to continue fighting. There will be no Shermanesque scorched-earth march of terror in this scenario, because the true battlefield will be nationwide, and earth will be scorched elsewhere if need be.

Whites will split on the issue, but the pansy blue-state whites won't actually enlist. Pro-Texas whites from throughout the South will go to Texas and will enlist for the Lone Star. Blacks will eck and ook, burn down their own neighborhoods, and then enlist for the chance to shoot some crackas. They will be mown down like grass. Latinos will fight competently, but will begin to question everything after a while since, even though they are lower IQ than whites, they are a people with genuine discipline and a conscience. Rich Jews will write large checks for massive advertising campaigns encouraging the goyim to go fight and die to kill other goyim, wring their hands disingenuously, hide from danger, and also secretly begin buying those plane tickets to Israel.

Has anyone ever before seen the rats flee from a sinking ship, after they themselves gnawed the fatal hole in the hull? Moreover, the rats themselves will have determinedly, successfully sunk the only ship in history which flew a banner saying, "Rats Welcome." The mind reels at their relentless depravity.

Anonymous Tad December 12, 2012 11:28 AM  

@Cheddarman

Let me make it very simple for you. These empires went belly up because they were broke. America is broke and it is no longer sustainable. America will break up.

Show me the desperate men and women and movement of significance that will lead to this "break up". Is it more than just a few websites and silly partisans that get dug out of the muck to attend ridiculefests on talk radio and cable?

Your wishful thinking gets ahead of reality, Cheddarman.

Anonymous Daniel December 12, 2012 11:30 AM  

Tad, for just one minute, stop being silly. You know very well that self-determination is the same mechanism used by:

Quebec (they self-determined to stay with Canada, so far)
The Republic of Lakotah (they are still in the political throes of determining viabilty)
The existing dependent nations of the U.S. (sovereign tribal nations)
The union of socialist soviet republics
Catalonia
Scotland

etc.

Do you also think that cars run on magical fairy dust, because you can't see the engine?

If you really want to do something useful, I recommend you visit a group home today and share your insights, wisdom, and ability with them. Those folks will feel like they are on the top of the cognitive scale in comparison to you.

Anonymous Tad December 12, 2012 11:33 AM  

@Scoobius

Oh my god....You've been partaking, haven't you.

All the U.S. would need to to is put a blockade around Texas and its borders. Barely a shot would be fired before the sissy crank boys in Texas raised their arms.

Take another hit.

Anonymous Stephen J. December 12, 2012 11:33 AM  

A line from Heinlein comes to mind: "A revolutionary has to be willing to fight and die -- or he's just a parlor pink."

And a LEO who posted on a board I frequent made a remark once which has always stayed with me; I paraphrase: "To get an actual civil war you have to get to a point where the citizens -- not just soldiers or police, but ordinary folks -- are willing to take up arms against fellow countrymen as if they were foreign invaders. If this isn't what you see for yourself on the ground, then no matter how heated the public rhetoric gets, you're probably not close to it yet."

Catalonia has the advantage over any American state of having a cultural tradition and ethnic identity that predates its political absorption into Spain and still survives today, and such things always rouse more passion than mere economic discomfiture (even the Weimar Republic wasn't really overturned until the Nazis could tie the economic woes to a cultural-ethnic scapegoat foe). Whatever the "Southern pride" that still exists in formerly secessionist states after 150 years in a culture with an extremely short historical memory half-life, is it widespread enough and fervent enough that a sufficient majority of people will pick up guns and kill over it?

(That's an honest question, by the way: as above, it's what you hear on the ground from the people on the line that's important, I think.)

Blogger JartStar December 12, 2012 11:33 AM  

Are you suggesting that revolution is a method by which Texas secessionists can achieve their goal?? How would would that move actually work? How would it succeed?

I have no idea of how it would actually work, but one thing is certain, all forced unions eventually break up and all empires eventually fail. I doubt we will see it in our lifetime unless there's an economic crash of nearly unprecedented proportions.

Personally I don't see a massive crash for the US for the next decade or more, but likely a Japan style slump for most of the rest of my working life.

If any state had a vote and wanted to leave the union I would support their decision to leave. I think it is immoral to kill someone and destroy their property simply because they no longer want to associate in a union.

Anonymous A Visitor December 12, 2012 11:33 AM  

"It's time to drop the damn rope and don't pick it up again. Quit playing tug-a-war with each other, claim the the Federal Reserve Bank as Unconstitutional. If we would just drop the rope and quit pulling on it all the tension will be released and the banks will twist in the wind and empires will die on the vine."

I've never thought of it like that; I quite like that.

With regards to Catalonia, all autonomous communities in Spain that have a major language spoken in them besides Castillian Spanish give their people a choice: get your kids educated only in Castillian, Castillian, and the local language, or just the local language. Just the local language is popular within the 10% of Basques that are separatists/ETA supporters/members. I don't have the statistics off-hand for Galicia, Murcia, Valencia, or Catalonia.

A side note: if you don't speak catalán and you are one (i.e. a person from Catalonia), you are immediately shunned and life is made difficult. A friend of mine who is Spaniard to the bone but is ethnically catalán is testament to this.

Anonymous Tad December 12, 2012 11:34 AM  

@Daniel

"Self Determination"? Ok....Tell me how this idea of "Self Determination" plays out in an actually attempt to secede.

Anonymous Tad December 12, 2012 11:37 AM  

@Jartstar
I have no idea of how it would actually work

Of course you don't. Because you are a smart guy. Vox Day thinks that secession just might come to the U.S. and Texas. He's smart too. It just goes to show that smart does not rule out delusional.

Anonymous VD December 12, 2012 11:44 AM  

Tad, do you believe the United States of America will endure forever in its current form?

Blogger James Dixon December 12, 2012 11:46 AM  

> Whatever the "Southern pride" that still exists in formerly secessionist states after 150 years in a culture with an extremely short historical memory half-life, is it widespread enough and fervent enough that a sufficient majority of people will pick up guns and kill over it?

A majority? Probably not. But a significant minority, yes. But it will take quite a bit before we get to that point, if we do. If one or more of the states do decide to leave, peaceful disengagement will be tried first.

Anonymous Susan December 12, 2012 11:46 AM  

Earlier this week, I googled something to find out about a treaty between Canada and the US. Found out that it was signed Feb. 14, 2008 in TX. The gist of the treaty says that US and Canada agree to use each others troops in the event of a civil emergency. So this was a last valentine to the country, thanks to Bush, before he left office.

If the South/TX seceeds, they will most likely be fighting against Canadians or even UN troops who probably won't have a problem shooting at US citizens.

Blogger JDC December 12, 2012 11:55 AM  

Show me the desperate men and women and movement of significance that will lead to this "break up". Is it more than just a few websites and silly partisans that get dug out of the muck to attend ridiculefests on talk radio and cable?

Well if you need convincing I have a task for you. Go to travelocity and get a ticked to DTW. Rent a car, and take 94 W to 275 N - pass HWY 96 and go about a mile. Take the Six Mile exit, and head W for a mile or so - stop at any 7-11 or party store. Become accosted by at least 5 people asking for money or assistance. Decline assistance...maybe even throw in a "get a job" or "I don't have any money." See what happens.

That vitriol and anger you will experience is coming to your doorstep. There are too many people who absolutely depend on federal / state handouts. That is coming to an end. The money is gone. Our country is an animated corpse, being fed on debt and broken promises. This goes far beyond some far right militias and secessionists. I don't pretend to know how this is going to play out...but I believe the birth pains are just beginning.

Blogger James Dixon December 12, 2012 11:55 AM  

> If the South/TX seceeds, they will most likely be fighting against Canadians or even UN troops who probably won't have a problem shooting at US citizens.

How many troops do you think the UN would actually send to the US?

Anonymous Susan December 12, 2012 11:57 AM  

The best explanation I could find for this treaty is on WND website in the archives, authored by Jerome Corsi. Read the last paragraph and see how Obama is probably salivating at the chance to use this clause.

I am sorry that I can't be more helpful with links, but I rank barely above luddite when it comes to tech stuff.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 12, 2012 11:58 AM  

"These empires went belly up because they were broke."

Not necessarily. Many went belly-up because they were multiracial and multicultural, and too much diversity kills -- as we are observing today. A few went belly up because they were defeated while being multicultural, and could not withstand both stressors simultaneously.

America will not split apart because of the "cultural" pressures and differences of immigrant groups, but because of their perceived differences in economic interest. (For these purposes, blacks, though long-resident in America, can be perceived as an immigrant group as well, because they are consciously hostile to, and determinedly culturally foreign to, white America, which is for all intents and purposes congruent with a practical idea of "America."

As long as non-whites and immigrants perceive that their economic interest lies in basically using the leverage of their numbers to extract wealth and benefits from whites, then the decline will continue. If they managed to somehow perceive their economic interests as somehow in line with, and similar to, the interests of white America (as the non-Jewish white-ethnic immigrants of 1850-1924 managed to do), then a modus vivendi could be reached, and the Union might be preserved.

That development is possible, but several factors militate against it:

1. The mainstream liberal culture is determined to continue indoctrinating non-whites and immigrants in a rabid carnival of hatred and resentment against whites. This shows no sign of slowing down.
2. Blacks and Latinos have demonstrably lower IQs than whites. This means that no matter what happens, left to their own devices, they will never achieve economic parity with whites. This is simply a natural phenomenon, which can be somewhat mitigated through intelligent policy (which we do not have, and have never had), but at the end of the day, there you are. However, because of 1) blacks and Latinos will never admit that the disparity was baked into the cake by Mother Nature, and will therefore continue to use leverage to demand payouts from whites. As their numbers increase, whites will conclude that they will never escape this racket, and consequently whites will increasingly wish to devise a new racket (viz., secession).

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 12, 2012 11:58 AM  

3. Asians and subcons, who like Jews frequently have demonstrably higher IQs than whites (but lack certain constructive social traits which whites demonstrate, and which tend to compensate), will, like the Jews before them, seek to leverage their capabilities to carve out a special niche of Asian Privilege. (They're doing it already.) They will use the cultural anti-white animus to bolster their bogus claims, and they will use the low-IQ immigrant numbers as shock troops to wear down whites. As whites continue to perceive that this racket, too, is rigged against them, they will increasingly desire to construct a new racket (see 2.)
4. As Muslims increase in numbers, their ludicrous demands for special privileges and conditions which elevate Islam and denigrate everyone else, will increase and become louder. They will continue to look for ways to undermine, subvert, and betray America, and deliver it into the claws of Islam. Their religion requires them to do this. They will be aided and abetted by stupid liberals and traitorous Jews, whose prime directive is to eradicate whites and Christianity. Afterwards they'll cut a deal with the Asians and Latinos, and hope the Muslims and blacks can be contained.

The Union would not collapse if the whites could fine the cultural and intellectual balls to tell the blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Asians and Muslims to sit down, shut up, and join the team for the big win. But it appears that they are unwilling to do this, so those groups will simply continue to grow in numbers, influence, and demands. But trees don't grow to the sky; once the whites perceive that their situation has become desperate, they will finally fight. They'll eventually get their own piece of the continent, but the tragedy is, that if they had played their cards more wisely, and hadn't listened to the toxic counsels of a certain tribe, they could have kept the whole thing.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 12, 2012 12:00 PM  

TAD: All the U.S. would need to to is put a blockade around Texas and its borders. Barely a shot would be fired before the sissy crank boys in Texas raised their arms.

LACEDAEMONIANS: At present.



Anonymous Stilicho December 12, 2012 12:01 PM  

If the South/TX seceeds, they will most likely be fighting against Canadians or even UN troops who probably won't have a problem shooting at US citizens.

Then Texas will win. Easily.

Anonymous Krul December 12, 2012 12:02 PM  

Susan, for an html link you use these tags (without the apostrophes):

<'a href="http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_links.asp">html link<'/a>

Anonymous Susan December 12, 2012 12:03 PM  

Almost forgot, I think the Corsi article was posted in 2007.

I almost feel like I am channeling my inner Dread.

Depends on how many they can scrape up. Not that they would be anything to be afraid of IMO. They tend to cower when an opponent says BOO.

I would be more worried about the Canadians myself. (no offense to Canadians) After all, the UN has to protect their cushy NY limo lifestyles. The UN has been angling to get involved in our lives for a long time.

Anonymous Krul December 12, 2012 12:07 PM  

They will be aided and abetted by stupid liberals and traitorous Jews, whose prime directive is to eradicate whites and Christianity.

I don't believe you'll answer me, but I'll ask anyway. Where did this prime directive come from, and why do you believe it is the "prime" directive for libs and Jews?

Anonymous Stilicho December 12, 2012 12:07 PM  

TAD: All the U.S. would need to to is put a blockade around Texas and its borders. Barely a shot would be fired before the sissy crank boys in Texas raised their arms.

How can the U.S. blockade all of Texas when it cannot even secure Texas' southern border right now?

Blogger James Dixon December 12, 2012 12:08 PM  

> I would be more worried about the Canadians myself.

As would I. The Canadians have a history of fighting.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 12, 2012 12:10 PM  

What really should happen, of course (though it won't), is a sort of reverse-secession: whites should come to their senses, realize that THEY are the true United States of America, and kick out all the foreign plunderers and interlopers into a semi-dependent protectorate-state carved out of some piece of the continent. (I could draw you some sensible maps.)

State-by-state secession might be the proximate political device by which it worked (and there are scenarios in which it could work peacefully), but these would make no difference if the seceeded states kept their populations of useless, ever-needy negroes and mooching foreigners. Secession only makes real sense if it is whites-only secession, (and "white" is not the same as "Caucasian"; Arabs, Jews and many Hindus are Caucasian, but none of them are "white".)

If the seceeded states do not find a way to send most of their non-whites elsewhere, then the same pathologies will simply reproduce themselves in miniature over time.

Again, to Tad: You have a point insofar as I don't see anything like this happening soon. Things will have to get much worse first, but that is taking place of its own accord. Eventually the whites will no longer be able to tolerate being permanently out-voted, out-taxed, and culturally spat upon. But even twenty years can bring a lot of ruin. Think of the changes in this country between 1955 and 1975. Now think of the expected changes between 2012 and 2032.

Blogger Brad Andrews December 12, 2012 12:19 PM  

I would like to see your answer to VD's question Tad.

I would agree that the movement is currently a bunch of people on the edge, but what major societal change did not start out as a bunch of people "on the edge"?

That doesn't mean it will happen or tell us anything about its exact format, but history does point toward big empires breaking up.

Anonymous fnn December 12, 2012 12:21 PM  

Cheddarman is onto something. Lefties love the phrase 'American Empire'.

Rather than 'succession', begin the discussion with a honey-trap: Breakup of the American Empire and the dismantling of American Hegemony


Lefties (the ones who actually have jobs) CONTROL the American Empire:
http://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/capitalist-liberal-multicultacracy/

Blogger JDC December 12, 2012 12:27 PM  

Jimmy Hoffa Warns of Civil War

@Tad - is this they type of "desperate man" and movement of significance you have asked about?

Anonymous fnn December 12, 2012 12:30 PM  

Besides the problem of there being only shoddy evidence for this movement, there is the problem that there is no mechanism by which the "movement" could carry out its goals.

True that American Cathedral's two-party system (enforced by Duverger's Law) is an effective blockade against any change that means more than spit. That means that the secessionists will have to do stuff they find distasteful- mass demonstrations, strikes and civil disobedience. Oh, and history shows that it's a fatal blunder to start the shooting too soon.

Anonymous civilServant December 12, 2012 12:31 PM  

the divisions between American culture and the immigrant cultures

Does this include the division between Irish and German and English?

Are (say) Nate and a New York liberal equally american?

Blogger Giraffe December 12, 2012 12:33 PM  

@susan

Luddite method of creating links

Anonymous Clay December 12, 2012 12:34 PM  

Be patient. I'm sure Tad the homotard just sashayed down to the local gay bar to pick up some swingin' sirloin for lunch.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 12, 2012 12:46 PM  

@Krul -- when I get around to writing a book, I'll send you an autographed copy. A proper and well-considered answer to your question is book-length in nature, and I don't believe VD's blog exists for me to write manifestos and begin teaching history courses.

A very short answer to your question would be: Circumspice! ["Look around you."]

But I wouldn't blame you if you thought that was merely being cute. I'm not trying to be cute, but I couldn't say that wasn't a legitimate objection.

This is a blog, not an academic forum, and like all blogs by their very nature, its purposes are as much polemical as they are analytical. The form simply can't contain a truly thorough and exhaustive analysis on any complex topic. I take a rather pitched tone on this particular topic as a species of pushback, which I believe is culturally necessary if this culture is ever to regain its health. When Jews hear nasty grumpy poorly-educated people saying things they perceive as uncomfortable, they reactively cry, "Anti-semitic!" and who knows, maybe they are right to do so. But when Jews hear calm, experienced, educated, thoughtful people leveling criticisms they don't like, they again cry "Anti-semitic!" when instead they should be considering themselves and wondering with some honesty why so many people seem to think the things they think.

Here is a question I have for you: leaving aside your (I must say, reasonably asked) questions about my (arguably strident, but then that's merely a posture) point of view on this particular topic, let me ask you: in general on this blog, do I give you the impression of being poorly-read, un-thoughtful, and/or deranged or consumed with animus?

Anonymous Tad December 12, 2012 12:49 PM  

@Vox Day

Tad, do you believe the United States of America will endure forever in its current form?

No. For example, I think we will see at least one new state admitted to the Union.

That said, "Forever" is a long time. It probably makes more sense to talk about something that matters and can be reasonably assessed: the next 20 years.

Anonymous Stilicho December 12, 2012 12:57 PM  

Trade Texas for Puerto Rico? One in, one out? After all, why should the rest of us not have the same options as the Puerto Ricans: territory, sovereign, or state? As Vox would ask, why do Puerto Ricans have a right of self-determination and Texans do not?

Anonymous kaflick December 12, 2012 1:06 PM  

>> If the South/TX seceeds, they will most likely be ?>fighting against Canadians or even UN troops who probably >won't have a problem shooting at US citizens.
>
>How many troops do you think the UN would actually send to >the US?

I would expect about 1/16 as many as were needed.

That seems to be the usual ratio.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic December 12, 2012 1:06 PM  

Tad is looking at things as if the US has reached a steady state, or angle of final repose. This is an illusion maintained by huge interventions from the Fed and US government. These entities are trying to maintain the structure of production and the regnant social order as if the underlying variables remain fixed. They are not. In fact, we are accelerating the rate of change. Social and economic forces as powerful as the laws of biology and physics themselves remain pent-up, behind a wall of paper money and nuclear-armed bureaucrats.

Surely that's enough to keep things going, right? The soldiers are still getting paid, the pension funds are still sending checks. How could such an edifice ever collapse?

Doubtless, the members of the Soviet Central Committee told themselves the same thing. When people no longer believed in the government's claim to governance and specifically, when soldiers found themselves begging for food and government retirees and near-retirees found their cherished pensions evaporating, things changed rather quickly.

We are not there yet--perhaps even three generations away--but home plate's in sight and we are rounding second.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 12, 2012 1:07 PM  

Pull them out of the mud Tad. Grab a root and growl. When you do they will take everything you have and run your ass over. Or you could just leave them stuck where they are at and walk away. But some people just want to help the government kill them. Most people have a subconscious death wish, have fun playing in the mud.

Anonymous Stilicho December 12, 2012 1:14 PM  

We are not there yet--perhaps even three generations away--but home plate's in sight and we are rounding second. Google "military on food stamps" (or welfare, assistance, etc.). I would also point out that, this year, in order to make its contribution to the NY state employees' retirement system, the state of NY borrowed the amount of its contribution from the NY state employees' retirement system. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is bad enough, but at least it keeps Paul happy. Pretending to pay Paul with money you borrowed from Paul is unsustainable. Even if Paul has the relatively lower IQ of a schoolteacher, eventually he'll figure it out.

We may be a lot closer to collapse than we realize.

Anonymous Krul December 12, 2012 1:15 PM  

Scoob, I can honestly say you do not come off that way, at least to me. I wouldn't bother asking you the question if I didn't think you had an answer, after all.

I understand that the topic is a complex one, but I find myself being asked to swallow some very big propositions with little in the way of justification. So Jews are loyal to their tribe, they try to accumulate wealth, and they advocate politically for policies favorable to them. How does this make them any different from other groups? And where does this anti-white war come from? What's the motivation, and how do you know it exists? Is it really a Jewish thing, or a liberal thing? I think these are reasonable questions to ask about the people who are supposedly trying to destroy me.

Blogger James Dixon December 12, 2012 1:18 PM  

> We may be a lot closer to collapse than we realize.

Than some of us realize, at least.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic December 12, 2012 1:21 PM  

It probably makes more sense to talk about something that matters and can be reasonably assessed: the next 20 years.

That is the extreme outer bound for homosexual time-preference. The horizon extends to what assets are required to maintain a certain lifestyle thru retirement and quality of care in final illness.

Children and grandchildren, the perspective changes.

Blogger The Original George...or OG December 12, 2012 1:21 PM  

""I am a roach stuck in SoCal. I have always felt more Texan than Californian but I understand how you feel. The scum are the majority here. But what about us Bro? What about us?""

"If you're the same George that normally comments here, move to Canada." - Toonces

Actually...I am the OG Original George and haven't commented here for probably a year or so. I remember Bain from back in the day. Do you? I am the cool George....even tho "gasp" I am a Boomer. No I am serious. I hate California and when we retire...in 7 years, we will leave California like we were shot out of a 155 Howitzer. It's Texas or Arizona that is if I am not in prison for carrying a concealed weapon and those states will still allow Cali xpats to move there. Peace.

Anonymous Stilicho December 12, 2012 1:29 PM  

Than some of us realize, at least.

Sure, but you and I come from a partially pre-collapsed state, so we have an advantage.

Anonymous bw December 12, 2012 1:31 PM  

THE ECONOMIST had a map not long ago as to what a potential break-up might look like.
A very interesting source for such.
I believe it got sent to VD.

Anonymous George of the Hole December 12, 2012 1:33 PM  

Tad: "That said, "Forever" is a long time. It probably makes more sense to talk about something that matters and can be reasonably assessed: the next 20 years."

Sounds like Tad and Vox have found something to agree on.

Anonymous TheVillageIdiotRet December 12, 2012 2:07 PM  

A child cries out;

The King has no Gold

DannyR

Anonymous Tad December 12, 2012 2:07 PM  

@anti-Gnostic
We are not there yet--perhaps even three generations away--but home plate's in sight and we are rounding second.

Rounding second? You have to get in the ball park first. And there is no evidence that a secession movement has the juice to by a seat in the stands, let alone get up to bat.

I'm amazed at the fantasies you are willing to indulge.

No one is seriously considering breaking up the states or seceding other than a few cranks in Texas that didn't like the election results. And yet you treat this collection of websites and cranks like harbinger.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic December 12, 2012 2:25 PM  

You could say the same thing about the USSR. Sure there were a few high-profile dissidents but whole republics seizing the nukes and declaring independence? The fall of the Politburo? Bureaucrats fleeing vengeful mobs? Nobody thought it would happen, and then it happened. Caught the geniuses in the CIA and State Department completely by surprise.

Again, you are looking at the outward signs. People still say the Pledge, play the National Anthem, sign up to fight in the Democratic Rainbow Warrior Army, etc., and you assume a steady state. We print money to buy our own debt. We reduce citizenship to an administrative designation. There's a lot else we do, but those are the two big markers of a State in decline.

Again, your time horizon extends to your final illness which, for most gay men, is in their early 60's. A lot can happen in the next 20 years, and a lot more will happen after that. I can remember when 'immigrants' were French and British aerospace engineers from the Brain Drain. Now, it includes Muslim Somali clans, each with their own dialect. That's just in my lifetime.

Anonymous CunningDove December 12, 2012 2:52 PM  

James Dixon December 12, 2012 11:55 AM

> If the South/TX seceeds, they will most likely be fighting against Canadians or even UN troops who probably won't have a problem shooting at US citizens.

How many troops do you think the UN would actually send to the US?

Zero. I think Russia would use their Security Council Veto to prevent the UN troops from being used to prevent secession. NATO troops I would expect them to show up. However, with the appearance of weakness, I wonder how long the smaller nations of NATO would be willing or able to send troops. Considering the fighting that would break out in places like the Balkans.

Anonymous WaterBoy December 12, 2012 2:53 PM  

Krul: "Suppose for example that the CO state gov tried to prevent the FedGov from enforcing federal drug laws in CO. Just a hypothetical example.

Much as I would like to see that happen, I agree that it is completely hypothetical. Our current AG has already shown he hasn't the backbone to fight the Feds on distance requirements from schools in the MMJ arena, and both he and the governor were against Amendment 64 altogether. I don't see either one resisting the Feds on any aspect of this issue that they try to enforce.

While it is true that the AG did join the states' lawsuit against Obamacare, I think there was safety in numbers, there. In this fight, for the moment at least, Colorado and Washington stand alone.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 12, 2012 2:53 PM  

Tad: "Rounding second? You have to get in the ball park first."

You are misreading the contextual meanings of "we" and "you".

But then, you misread a great many things.

"No one is seriously considering breaking up the states or seceding other than a few cranks in Texas"

Hi there, Tad. I'm a Northeastern white-ethnic professional, of mixed ethnic origin (none of it Mayflower or Cavalier), with no roots in Texas or the South, and with little cultural sympathy (but also no antipathy) for either. I speak (or really, have spoken, at one time or another, one gets rusty) four languages. While at school I studied with some of the major international players in my field. Trust me: I'm not a crank. And I have not only given serious thought to whether the states would break up, I've gamed out some of the plausible scenarios. I can also tell you that other people in my rather elitist little social and cultural circles have done the same, and there are those I've never spoken to about it, but if I asked them, I bet more than a few of them would answer yes.

Granted I'm not out signing petitions or standing on the streetcorner with a sandwich-board sign covered in exclamation points, handing out leaflets. And I won't be, any time soon. Nevertheless...

"The world is an iceberg, so much is invisible!"
--Frank O'Hara

What was that thing that Donald Rumsfeld said about 'unknown unknowns'?

Oh, I forget. I'm prone to forget things, because I'm just a crackpot.

Anonymous Cheddarman December 12, 2012 3:10 PM  



When there is no money to pay the soldiers, national guard, cops, department of Homeland security, local police, FBI, etc., it will be every man for himself...just as it has always been in the final death throes of all previous empires... Some of them will form gangs and rob the general populace, others will quietly walk away from their posts and try to make it home.

Cheddarman







Blogger The Anti-Gnostic December 12, 2012 3:11 PM  

If the South/TX seceeds, they will most likely be fighting against Canadians or even UN troops who probably won't have a problem shooting at US citizens.

What makes you think a bunch of Canadians and Fijians will fight to preserve the composition of the US? Canada's just a remnant colony of disintegrating Great Britain. The UN is a charade paid for by US funny-money. UN forces are hopelessly corrupt and incompetent.

Once the first State (probably a confederation of States) even clears its throat about secession, that's the end of 1% financing for Uncle Sugar. When the checks stop, the UN and NATO will be too pre-occupied with all their employees ripping out computers and ransacking the armories to plan an invasion of CONUS.

Blogger Tiny Tim December 12, 2012 3:24 PM  

The only reason the Govt. of the US would even care to hold the Union together is because the Union is the military for the Elitists. They need Southern White Boys to kill brown men, women and children. Now that the Southern White Boys are getting sick of dying for these vermin they have turned to effiminate men looking to hookup with other soldiers, powderpuff girls who will cry when the first shot is fired, and foreigners who want citizenship. This is why they need the drones. They know too many in the military will turn their guns and charge back the other way, thus the need for morally corrupt sodomites in the ranks. Give them some psychoactive meds and they are good to start the sexual torture of those captured.

Anonymous cheddarman December 12, 2012 3:25 PM  

Tad,

You silly bitch, It has been shown through numerous examples on this blog that the U.S. will have a financial reckoning day. We cannot balance the budget unless we cut spending by 1/3. We cannot raise taxes without killing off economic growth. If we continue to spend money we don't have, we will go bankrupt, like every other country that went this far into debt.

You can make all of the silly assed pronunciations you want, though. If you want to have any credibility here, You need to explain how the U.S. is going to be able to stave off the looming financial disaster.

Do we kill off the tax feeders or just let them starve? If so, which ones? The elderly? The poor? Who?

Anonymous Outlaw X December 12, 2012 4:43 PM  

"I'm amazed at the fantasies you are willing to indulge."

The Feds trying to push States is like a drunk trying to push a chain.

Anonymous Tad December 12, 2012 5:20 PM  

@chedderman

You can make all of the silly assed pronunciations you want, though. If you want to have any credibility here, You need to explain how the U.S. is going to be able to stave off the looming financial disaster.

No, I don't have to explain how to state off a "looming financial disaster" that is not a given in order to express why the notion of secession is lunacy. I don't have to do anything of the sort because 1) such a disaster in no way assumes a secessionist impulse and 2) because the suggestion being made is that, despite the lack of any evidence for a significant secessionist movement, there already exists such a movement. And it just doesn't exist.

In a comment above Scoobius wrote:

Granted I'm not out signing petitions or standing on the streetcorner with a sandwich-board sign covered in exclamation points, handing out leaflets. And I won't be, any time soon. Nevertheless...

Of course he's not doing any of those things because no one is asking anyone to do those things and because he knows the response he would get to asking people to sign a petition and get on board a secessionist movement would be either a laugh, an invitation to be ridiculed on the radio or the creation of a cabal of 20 old white men willing to meet to talk about their limited arsenals.

Anonymous Ghandi December 12, 2012 5:23 PM  

First, they laugh...

Anonymous TheVillageIdiotRet December 12, 2012 6:00 PM  

I sing this song a little different everywhere I go.
This is the way them old boys down in Texas like to hear it sung.
Something To Shoot

Chris Wall

Blogger tz December 12, 2012 6:16 PM  

Yea. Those Amish will never be part of the US - they've always kept their Pennsylvanian German instead of learning english, they dress funny and don't want to obey the laws like having tail lights on at night...

Anonymous TheVillageIdiotRet December 12, 2012 6:26 PM  

Freeze A Yankee

The Folkel Minority

Anonymous Susan December 12, 2012 6:44 PM  

Anti-gnostic, if you would read my previous comments, I talked about a treaty that Bush signed with Canada in 2008 that guaranteed mutual military assistance in the event of civil emergency. It is how Obama will get around that Posse C. act from the time of the civil war if TX or anyone else tries to leave the union.

Jerome Corsi also talked about it in detail on WND in 2007.

Blogger JaimeInTexas December 12, 2012 6:49 PM  

good'uns. here's another

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKQtg2TeXy8

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 12, 2012 7:02 PM  

"the creation of a cabal of 20 old white men"

Ah, good! Talking points straight from the National (Whose nation, though?) Council of La Raza.

You see, all white people are old and feeble and soft and confused and obsessed with their gun collections.

Tad remains, quite predictably and tediously so, on the shrill racist anti-white drip-feed, (hmm wonder why), using the all-too-predictable debate techniques of glib ridicule and deliberately mis-stating the opponents' arguments.

What else did they teach you at shul while you were preparing your Torah portion? Always contradict the goy, no matter what? Seen it all, boychik, seen it all and then some.

Anonymous Van December 12, 2012 7:42 PM  

An economic collapse is, at this point, inevitable. Our annual budget is 3.5 T, of which we borrow between 42 and 46 percent. Even before 2008, we were borrowing close to 40 percent. The Clinton surplus is a myth; they were borrowing more from SS and pensions off the books. Even with this accounting trick, the official deficit skyrocketed in Clinton's last year (fiscal 2001, starting Oct 2000), not W's first. They could only briefly shuffle spending around, for the sake of Clinton's and Gingrich's legacies.

Today, we would need to cut federal spendin g in half to eliminate the annual deficit and start paying down the total debt. this would result in an instant depression due to the extent the economy depends on federal spending. It never had to be this way, of course, but it is this way. So spending won't be cut, there will only be "cuts" to the rate of growth.

It's impossible to predict exactly when or how it will unfold, but it's foolish to say it's unlikely.

Anonymous Bones December 12, 2012 7:57 PM  

Has anyone here even visited Texas recently?

It is a minority-majority state.

According to the 2010 United States census, the racial and ethnic composition of Texas was the following (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas#Demographics)

Non-Hispanic Whites: 45.3%
Black or African American: 11.8%
Native American: 0.7%
Asian: 3.8%
Hispanic or Latino: 37.6%

The problem with Texas secession is that Texas will become a blue state in about ten years:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/30/1114634/-Projecting-Texas-The-Coming-Democratic-Plurality

If the secession movement in Texas doesn't pick up steam real soon, then it won't happen. Period.

Anonymous Tad December 12, 2012 8:34 PM  

@Bones

Your mistake is thinking that all you need is the white vote to get you to secession. That's not your problem. What you need to do is capture the sane vote. The problem is that the sane vote isn't going your way. So, you need to turn to the insane vote. Fortunately, there aren't enough of those to vote in a local dog catcher.

Anonymous Tad December 12, 2012 8:36 PM  

@Scoobious
What else did they teach you at shul while you were preparing your Torah portion? Always contradict the goy, no matter what?

No. We were taught to contradict knuckleheads when they took a stroll down Crazy Lane.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 12, 2012 8:39 PM  

"What you need to do is capture the sane vote. "

I don't recall Washington and the boys collecting votes from the populace to secede from England. I am sure your history is much more accurate though.

Anonymous Tad December 12, 2012 8:43 PM  

@Outlaw

I don't recall Washington and the boys collecting votes from the populace to secede from England. I am sure your history is much more accurate though.

Ah, so the outlaw expects it just to be some sort of an armed uprising in Texas, and not a vote. Ok. Well, you still need to capture support. And that means all you have are those in the insane camp. Again, luckly, that bunch is too small to round up a dog catcher.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 12, 2012 8:47 PM  

If one were committed to doing this on a political basis and hopefully a non-violent one (I think that can happen, just not soon) --and bear in mind I believe there are other nonviolent ways to implement secession which don't operate directly through the state governments -- then the proper way to begin would be to test the waters, and establish precedent, at the state level, not the federal, as a sort of lab experiment.

For instance, imagine that the eastern counties of Washington State and Oregon (I mean, east of the Cascades, that is) decided to secede from their respective states, and either combine to form a new state (on the grounds that they as a region and an economic bloc deserved proper Senatorial representation apart from their blue Western cities, which perpetually outvote them and do not in fact represent them or their interests in any meaningful way), or else to combine the seceded counties with say with Idaho to increase its population and thus its representation in the House). If this were to succeed, and the history of state formation in this country is rather fluid so it's hard to declare that it a priori couldn't, it would set a precedent for major reshuffling of political lines.

Imagine if Texas split into several states along racial and ethnic lines; I seem to recall that at the time that the Republic of Texas negotiated its entry into the Union, it reserved the right to split itself into several states -- this right may have been forfeited when Texas joined the CSA, (I don't know for sure), but it is established precedent with respect to the malleability of the states. So is Virginia/West Virginia.

Imagine if upstate New York north of say Poughkeepsie decided to secede and form its own state, or if New York City were to combine with Connecticut and northeast New Jersey (which is its true racial and economic bloc-composite), or if southern Illinois were to secede from Chicago. All of these would create interesting precedents without the pearl-clutching existential crisis of dissolving the Union.

Who knows, perhaps this internal political reshuffling would be sufficient to alter the electoral college and Congressional seating in such a way as to allay the fears of the secessionists -- the set of which, over time, will inevitably come to be congruent with the set of white people.

But even if it did not, the precedents would be set, and the ball moved down field.

It is worth recalling two things:
1) In the current discussion of secession, unlike the last time it was tried, there is nothing like the moral abomination of slavery hanging over the debate and adding layers of meaning extraneous to the actual literal questioning of the limits of state sovereignty. This time around it would simply be a political question of people choosing their destiny, as VD has smartly chosen to frame it.

2) The gathering talk of secession is not, as some non-astute commenters have put it, a mere fit of pique at having lost an election. Rather, it is a growing perception of the consequences of the illegal and unwanted demographic shift which has been forced on the American people through shady interests and outright traitors. People can look down the road and see, not simply the loss of this election, but the loss of all future elections as a mathematical certainty, and thus their permanent political dispossession. The overt outright anti-white gloating of the Left in the wake of this election is the thing that matters, not the results themselves. Well, well -- win a battle, lose a war. The left never was very bright about these things, nor about anything else for that matter.



Anonymous Outlaw X December 12, 2012 8:49 PM  

Your History really does suck. It was the British coming for the guns with about 5% of the populace ready to chew bubble gum and kick ass. But they were all out of bubble gum.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 12, 2012 8:50 PM  

^ @Tad

Anonymous Azimus December 12, 2012 9:31 PM  

How long did Texas last during their last secession, anyway? It doesn't strike me that they were in it until the end like some of the other states.

Fighting Canadians and UN troops? Utter fantasy. If Texas was insane enough to try a secession now, and it went far enough that Texas raised an army for itself, NONE of the upper army leadership in Texas would join them, and any heavy equipment there would be spiked before it could be captured. Even if a particular base commander cooperated, they'd nuke the base before they let rebels have the equipment. Heck they might nuke all the bases anyway.

So you have a privately "equipped" leaderless, untrained, undisciplined, mob of potentially radioactive posers who might occupy a few key buildings in a few cities. Or even go so far as to shoot up some soft targets like border patrol or coast guard. Then what? Then about a month of propaganda and pumping up the other 49 states. And then the bombs and the drones. That's all you would fight.

On the other side of that debacle would be re-educatioN camps, revocation of the 2nd amendment (the people will cheer for its demise), a lot of dead young men, and a more centralized government than ever. Not to mention unspeakable amounts of wealth and property destruction, death of innocents, etc., etc. Also don't expect to keep your draft horse and get amnesty if you survive this one.

Why not just let the FedMonster die of natural causes?




Blogger James Dixon December 12, 2012 9:39 PM  

> No, I don't have to explain how to state off a "looming financial disaster" that is not a given...

Oh, it's a given. But you won't believe it even when you see it happening.

> ... despite the lack of any evidence for a significant secessionist movement, there already exists such a movement. And it just doesn't exist.

Tad, as I believe you commented to me once, you have no idea what you're talking about.

> So, you need to turn to the insane vote. Fortunately, there aren't enough of those to vote in a local dog catcher.

They elected Obama.

Anonymous Edjamacator December 12, 2012 10:05 PM  

So, you need to turn to the insane vote. Fortunately, there aren't enough of those to vote in a local dog catcher.

They elected Obama.


I thought the dead elected Obama. Those and the ones who exist beyond 100% of a population.

Anonymous Tad December 12, 2012 10:12 PM  

@scoobious

For instance, imagine that the eastern counties of Washington State and Oregon (I mean, east of the Cascades, that is) decided to secede from their respective states, and either combine to form a new state (on the grounds that they as a region and an economic bloc deserved proper Senatorial representation apart from their blue Western cities, which perpetually outvote them and do not in fact represent them or their interests in any meaningful way), or else to combine the seceded counties with say with Idaho to increase its population and thus its representation in the House). If this were to succeed, and the history of state formation in this country is rather fluid so it's hard to declare that it a priori couldn't, it would set a precedent for major reshuffling of political lines.

This has the benefit of being constitutional via Article 1, Section 3.


Imagine if Texas split into several states along racial and ethnic lines; I seem to recall that at the time that the Republic of Texas negotiated its entry into the Union, it reserved the right to split itself into several states -- this right may have been forfeited when Texas joined the CSA, (I don't know for sure), but it is established precedent with respect to the malleability of the states. So is Virginia/West Virginia.

New states cannot reside within another state. Your best bet here, where Texas is concerned, is to carve out the southwest portion of the state (much more blue) and make it a separate state. The TX state legislature would have to approve and the U.S. Congress would have to approve. This last requirement dooms you as the move would be understood to clearly be motivated by racism.

Anonymous Godfrey December 12, 2012 10:13 PM  

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think The American Empire will break apart anytime soon. It took the corrupt incompetent Roman Empire hundreds of years to collapse. The same is true of the Ottoman Empire and the Qing Dynasty to name two other examples.

I think the regime will survive for many years to come through use of divide and rule. The political class will continue to pit the plebs against one another while enriching themselves. The structure will only collapse over a long period of time as individuals psychologically secede one by one. The process has already begun.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 12, 2012 10:42 PM  

"This last requirement dooms you as the move would be understood to clearly be motivated by racism."

The entire Democrat Party is motivated by quite obvious racism, snarling malignant overt gleeful gloating boastful anti-white racism, and it doesn't seem to have taken any air out of their tires. Jews are motivated tirelessly and unceasingly by their own vicious and repugnant racism, doesn't seem to have slowed them down a bit. I think a few more active players in the whole racism game might just liven things up a bit, don't you?

Sorry to tell you, but the magic coin of racism is rapidly succumbing to hyperinflation. Very soon it will take an entire wheelbarrow full of 5 billion Wiesel-Mandela Race-Bucks to buy a single loaf of "white" bread.

"Racism" is a very nebulous and therefore poisonous word, and also a deeply stupid word, which ought to be avoided by all thinking people; and as time drags on and whites grow tired of noxious anti-white evil racist bullshit --and thousands are waking up to it daily-- whites are going to start to ignore the canard at first, and then they are going to start to weaponize it against their own enemies.

Heee's makin' a list, he's checkin' it twice.....


Anonymous Clay December 12, 2012 10:59 PM  

Tad, you truly are a troll, a faggot, Jewish, liberal troll. You have no idea what self-determination is, unless your asshole is included.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic December 12, 2012 11:08 PM  

Susan and Tad - words on paper. The system will collapse; that is social and economic inevitability. When it does nobody's going to be poring over legal documents. Canada, btw, has its own huge stressors, starting with the fact that it's just a remnant colony with Ontario and Quebec filling up with anti-Anglos. Also the most likely scenario for the US won't be whites holing up in compounds like David Koresh but Mexican annexation.

Have we already forgotten what went down in New Orleans after Katrina? You think guns and ammo are flying off the shelves because people anticipate a squirrel hunt? The French aristocracy were living like, well, kings up to the Revolution. The Arab Spring, the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc--things can turn on a dime. Look at Syria--the Alawite-Christian elite never saw it coming.

We are in this situation because we are leveraged to infinity and are packing ourselves to the gills with groups that barely tolerate each other under the terms of a government-imposed truce. When that dam shows a single fissure the American experiment in propositional nationhood is over. The American system no longer has the tolerance for extreme stresses like the Great Depression. (The current one is being untenably papered over.) Does anyone think Muslim Arabs forget their historical grievances against Jews once they hit US airspace? Will La Raza pitch in to save the day when millions are told their government checks aren't coming?

Sheesh.

Anonymous Elmer (just plain ole Elmer, ya know, like in yogert) December 13, 2012 3:39 AM  

Boy am I going to have some fun here. Threads like these need to be kept alive. I mean, constantly. Forget everything else. This is paramount.

Secession, whether Texas or Catalonia is really immaterial at this stage of the game. It may become more relevant later. But for now, let's keep our eye on the ball.

Let's concentrate on the USA for the moment. What makes North Dakota unique? Anyone, anyone? No, Texas outproduces of other states in oil/gas production, including North Dakota and Alaska.

So, why does North Dakota have an unemployment rate of ~3%, and Texas that of +4% (to be generous). That ND being well within "full employment," and TX, simply nowhere close.

No, I'm not just going to give you the answer. Best way to learn, is to comprehend for yourself. So, watch these four videos:

Forbes magazine called her the "Dean of American Private Banking."

Now, that was over a year ago. What is going on at present, is even more paramount. So, what does all this have to do with Catalonia? With Spain for the matter. It is the protocols. What protocols you might ask. These protocols:

Wanta-Reagan-Mitterrand Protocol

Let's see:

$30 billion to the Russian Federation.
$5 billion each to the Governments of Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Mexico and Spain.

The Protocols will settle the rocky financial markets so close to failure in Europe and that, in turn, will go a long ways toward settling the markets of the United States.

So, why be so generous to Russia and Europe? Believe me, when the protocols are in full swing, the USA will not be hurting. The first prescription discussed, will be even more necessary to safeguard the future prosperity.

You get the drift. Just devour the entire website. Maybe your children and grandchildren will thank you someday...

Anonymous Tick Tock Tick Tock December 13, 2012 10:03 AM  

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think The American Empire will break apart anytime soon. It took the corrupt incompetent Roman Empire hundreds of years to collapse. The same is true of the Ottoman Empire and the Qing Dynasty to name two other examples.

The USSR lasted 74 years.

Our current socialist system was created in 1933.

1933 plus 74 is... uh oh.

Anonymous Stilicho December 13, 2012 10:22 AM  

I keep thinking it cannot become more amusing, but then I check the comments again and see Tadfly confirming every claim Scooby has made about American Jews. He must be doing it on purpose. Ben, Sam, perhaps it's time to police the tribe a bit.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 13, 2012 10:33 AM  

The US could have survived a quasi-socialist regime a la FDR if it had remained racially, culturally, religiously and linguistically homogeneous, at least for the most part. Like Sailer is fond of saying, a race is a kind of extended family, and family are naturally capable of looking out for one another, barring excessive vice. When was the last time you invited three dozen total strangers over for Thanksgiving dinner? How did that work out? Some stranger offers to do the dishes, and on that score you allow them to move their entire family into your house and crash on the living room sofa, permanently? And then they invite their cousins to move in, too? And _their_ cousins?

A dab of socialism can be tolerable if there is no group-entitlement resentment attached to undermine it out of inborn venom and noxiousness, and everyone understands what the socialism is really for: that it's an emergency measure and not a general way of life (see the Great Society); and if there are no foreign welfare farmers flooding into your country to exploit your innate generosity which after all was structured for your own posterity, not theirs. Socialism works best when you don't live right next door to a gigantic pauper factory, like we do -- or import the paupers from halfway around the world, out of sheer perversity, as in Scandinavia. As Robert Frost once said, Home is the place where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in. But a zillion squillion foreign plunderers also looking to be taken in, plus the presence of two home-grown fifth columns of natural genetic enemies, will collapse socialism pretty damn quick.

The start-date of the demise of the present regime is therefore 1965, not 1933. A 90%-white America could have tweaked the New Deal until it almost sorta worked, provided it remained a Deal for a 90%-white America. But a 60%-and-declining white America, beset on all sides by foreign plunderers and gleeful black and Jewish traitors, is another ball game entirely.

Like Adam Smith said, There's a great deal of ruin in a nation. I reckon white America (which is to say, America) still has a ways to plummet. But that doesn't mean it won't hurt like hell when it finally splatters on the pavement.

Anonymous cheddarman December 13, 2012 3:28 PM  


IMO, the charade of financial stability will end, then the party will be over. I cant say when it will end, though one would have to be a retard to believe we will somehow magically pull ourselves back from the cliff and all will be well.

I give it 15 -20 years at most. Events could accelerate out of control, and push the date forward.



Anonymous Tad December 13, 2012 4:42 PM  

@scoobious

"Racism" is a very nebulous and therefore poisonous word

It may indeed be. However I was only pointing out how the suggestion that Texas be carved up based on race will fly in the REAL world of politics, whether you think that world is fair, unfair or poisonous.

Your suggestions, for the reasons I stated—constitutional and ideological—are non starters.


Clay:

Please tell me you have more than nonsensical bigoted and anti-Semitic rants.

Anonymous civilServant December 13, 2012 5:02 PM  

However I was only pointing out how the suggestion that Texas be carved up based on race will fly in the REAL world of politics

Historically is that not exactly how nations and territories are "carved up"?

Anonymous cheddarman December 13, 2012 5:42 PM  

However I was only pointing out how the suggestion that Texas be carved up based on race will fly in the REAL world of politics, whether you think that world is fair, unfair or poisonous. -Ta(r)d

Ta(r)d, when Yugoslavia went belly up as a country, it WAS carved up along ethnic and religious lines, and so was the former USSR. And the political power to carve up the former Yugoslavia came out of the barrel of a gun, or more precisely, the ethnic Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian Slovenian, Macedonian militias that formed SPONTANEOUSLY when Yugoslavia was no longer viable as a country.

The break up of the former USSR was also along ethnic lines, although it was relatively peaceful in that there were no armies shooting at each other, there was a lot of armed gangs of former soldiers, cops, etc. shaking down people for food and money

once the borders were defined, the rest of the world more or less recognized the new states.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 13, 2012 5:57 PM  

Tad: "It may indeed be. However I was only pointing out how the suggestion that Texas be carved up based on race will fly in the REAL world of politics, whether you think that world is fair, unfair or poisonous.

Your suggestions, for the reasons I stated—constitutional and ideological—are non starters."

Well of course you're perfectly right about that... in the present dispensation. But the "REAL world of politics", as you put it, changes from dispensation to dispensation. 160 years ago, the dreadful magickal charge of "RAAAACISM!" would have been brushed off with a laugh, if not genial and frank agreement... and will be again. "Zionism is RAAAACISM!" cries the UN. Doesn't seem to bother the Israelis a bit, nor should it.

If it were to become generally understood at some future point that the silly, quasi-magick taboo of "raaaaacism" is merely a noxious absurdity employed for the purpose of cynical wealth extraction without genuine effort, used against a generous and fatally gullible people, then the world would re-align accordingly. Nothing lasts forever, not even the magick word of raaacism; and whites will not be forever kept at bay, disavowing their own very real and very physical interests, in terror of a silly word.

Recall what happened with the demise of the Ottoman Empire: the Turks retreated and regrouped to form an ethnic rump-state, Turkey, a mere fragment of their former empire, but in reality also roughly congruent to their 'ancestral' homeland in Anatolia/Asia Minor (of course it wasn't 'theirs' any more than anything is anybody else's, except by right of conquest; but, that's the world, there you are). And thus the notion of "Turkishness" was preserved in the ruins of a busted empire.

What is this fake chop-shop demon that is going to eternally prevent white people from recognizing and frankly pursuing white interests, AS white interests? Who is going to perpetuate it? (Wait, don't answer that.)

Another thing to consider: no one denies that the insane ultranationalist militarists of Imperial Japan, between 1933 and 1945, committed a vast array of unspeakable atrocities and crimes against humanity, horrors which equal anything in the darkest annals of human history, against the Manchurians, the Chinese, the Koreans, the Filipinos, and any Americans, Britons or Australians who fell into their clutches. The thing is not in dispute. And yet, even after their utter, total, humiliating defeat, never once was it raised in Japan as a serious idea that some portion of the Home Islands should be ceded to China or Korea as reparation for their monstrous cruelty. Never once was this discussed with seriousness.

And yet the white people of the United States are told they are forever, endlessly guilty for.... what? Evicting a few tens of thousands of Spaniards and their Amerind servants from an undeveloped and poorly-defended expanse of land which the Spaniards and the Amerinds had themselves stolen from other Amerinds? For this they are supposed to forever surrender their self-determination as a people?

Tell the Turks to go back to Central Asia on principle, and return Anatolia to the Greeks, who must then on principle return it to the Persians, who must then return it to the Greeks, who must then... well, you see what I mean.



Anonymous Tad December 13, 2012 6:41 PM  

@Scoobious
160 years ago, the dreadful magickal charge of "RAAAACISM!" would have been brushed off with a laugh, if not genial and frank agreement... and will be again.

We differ. I don't believe the charge will be brushed off in the U.S. The history of ultimate forms of racism in this country are too strong.

I have an honest question. Is the idea that we ought to carve up Texas (or any part of the U.S.) along racial lines so that Whites are not marginalized a racist idea in your mind (whether or not most Americans would determine it so now? If not, Ok. If you think so, do you find any element of the idea immoral?


What is this fake chop-shop demon that is going to eternally prevent white people from recognizing and frankly pursuing white interests, AS white interests? Who is going to perpetuate it? (Wait, don't answer that.)

Conscience. Morals and Ethics. History. Integration.


And yet the white people of the United States are told they are forever, endlessly guilty for.... what?

I think you misinterpret the message. It isn't "Be Guilty!" It is, "As a nation we were guilty and it should not happen again."





Anonymous civilServant December 13, 2012 7:47 PM  

Conscience. Morals and Ethics. History. Integration.

Is there any successful history of integration? The Soviet Union spent much time and energy attempting to integrate its various peoples. And Yugoslavia as well. They and others seem to have failed completely. Even in Japan which formally states a unified racial policy the powerless aboriginal Ainu still recognize themselves.

The history of ultimate forms of racism in this country are too strong.

By this you mean "white" racism and no-one else's. Yes?

Anonymous Tad December 13, 2012 8:36 PM  

@civilServant

By this you mean "white" racism and no-one else's. Yes?

No. I'm thinking of primarily slavery and Jim Crow.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 13, 2012 9:16 PM  

"I'm thinking of primarily slavery and Jim Crow."

Slavery has been over and done with since 1865. Jim Crow since 1964 or thereabouts. There is no black person alive in the United States, not one black person, who has ever been a slave, or whose parents have ever been a slave, or whose grandparents have ever been a slave, or whose great-grandparents have ever been a slave. If the phenomenon is to be eternally retroactive as a matter of permanent grievance, then that must mean, morally speaking, that ALL slavery throughout history is equally such a permanent matter; and since the claims ought to be settled in historical order, then the West by right should seize large tracts of Arabia, North Africa, and Turkey, as reparations for centuries upon centuries upon centuries of grievously brutal (and, apparently, eternally unforgivable) Islamic-inspired slavery of whites, their rape, mass murder, pillage, the kidnapping and brainwashing of white children (see under 'devsirme'), seizure of white territory and resources, and forcible and deliberate retardation of white economic development. If you are not prepared to demand that with a straight face, then black demands for something over and done with for a century and a half must also be dismissed with a chortle and extreme prejudice.

"Conscience. Morals and Ethics. History. Integration."

All completely meaningless in context, except as cynically used as a stick by interested parties to beat other parties, so as to draw attention away from the actual forces at work in the present day. What conscience? What morals? What history? Slavery and Jim Crow are dead letters. Are we still twisting the arms of the British to get them to pay to rebuild Washington DC fter they burned it down back in 1812?

You want to talk about conscience and morals. Okay, but I want to talk about them in the present day -- about the 30,000 white women who are raped by black men every year. Every. Year.

Until that and other egregious racist black atrocities are on the table; until egregious endemic black crime, black incompetence, and congenital black underachievement are on the table; until all this is is part of the genuinely honest conversation... well guess what, secession will remain on the table, and it will grow every year in insistence. All you hear right now are tiny whisperings. Stick around, it's gonna be like one of those Steve Albini-produced records that starts out really quiet and then suddenly becomes a deafening roar.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 13, 2012 9:24 PM  

EDMUND: ...and pat on ’s cue he comes, like the catastrophe of the old comedy.
-- KING LEAR, I.ii

And whaddaya know...

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/024006.html

Just, you know, every-day stuff.

Every.
Day.

Anonymous Tad December 13, 2012 10:20 PM  

@scoobious
Slavery has been over and done with since 1865. Jim Crow since 1964 or thereabouts...

I think you are underestimating the impact that the inclusion of slavery has on American society, culture and heritage. And I'm not suggesting that it ought to be paid for still. I'm suggesting that the history of racism in American and impact it has on our culture and politics still is more than enough to guarantee that any call for action based on racists motivations will fall flat.

Also, "Conscience. Morals and Ethics. History and Integration" may seem meaningless to you, but I assure you all these factors of the motivations of Americans work against the notion that any blatantly racist motivation will fail. You may regret this. Or think it is unfortunate. But it is what it is.

secession will remain on the table, and it will grow every year in insistence

But scoobious, it's not on the table...

Finally, no thoughts on this:

"I have an honest question. Is the idea that we ought to carve up Texas (or any part of the U.S.) along racial lines so that Whites are not marginalized a racist idea in your mind (whether or not most Americans would determine it so now? If not, Ok. If you think so, do you find any element of the idea immoral?"

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 13, 2012 10:52 PM  

"No thoughts on this/I have an honest question..."

Not to be cute, but I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean here. Could you rephrase differently?

Let me be more specific. I am not prepared to accept as valid the underlying premise of any question involving the term "racism" and its arpeggios unless you can give me a definition of what you mean by that word, that I can in good faith agree with. In my view, if "racism" is in any way connected with "morality/immorality" rather than merely with situational "expedient power politics, the frame of which changes in every era", then I need you to provide me with a definition of "racism" which I could legitimately understand to be true throughout human history, for every possible historical situation, on all the inhabited continents. In the same way that we can understand, for instance, what "murder" generally is, and can differentiate it from say a judicially-approved execution or killing in combat or in self-defense. I won't accept a definition of "racism" which uniquely blames whites and no other groups. If you can't provide such a definition, then it is my counter-claim that "racism" does not exist in American history, and never did, and has never been a relevant factor. In such a case, I think I would be forced to conclude that only power politics exists.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 13, 2012 10:54 PM  

"But scoobious, it's not on the table..."

What you mean to say is, it's not in your direct line of sight.

You disappoint me. Somehow I thought you'd have an innate understanding of what theatrical sight-lines are, and how they work. :-)



Anonymous The Anti-Gnostic December 13, 2012 11:10 PM  

Tad - The guilt account is empty and overdrawn. Whites aren't buying it, and their comments are all over the internet. Asians and Hispanics can't be tarred with it, and whites, Asians and Hispanics are now the pluralistic majority. The transfer payments we are making for old times sake for the historical grievances of a perpetually violent, under-performing tribe is running out fast, and Asians, Hispanics, their blood-kin Africans and all the other new vibrant Americans are not going to step up to the plate. Blacks will end up where they started in this country.

Anonymous Van December 14, 2012 7:35 AM  

Whites are inherently oppressive towards others, creating socities wrought with institutional racism and structural racism. No other racial group can be treated fairly when in our presence. But when we want to leave, somehow that is also racist, as if they can't live without us. I'm confused; are we oppressors or providers?

Here's how you can tell which group is truly oppressed: the one that wants to get away, but is legally prevented from doing so.

Blogger Porter December 14, 2012 9:26 AM  

This debate could be summarized as follows:

Gentile: I don't want my civilization destroyed and my people rendered extinct.

Jew: Oh, but you must (spoken with a coquettish grin and little finger to the lower lip).

Scooby I applaud the tireless toil you have put into this thread. You realize of course that you are not speaking to Tad, but to those reading whom may yet be convinced.

In this, your foil is your unwitting friend. The effete contempt with which he flounces around your positions should be illuminating to all.

I'm looking right here at the rule book, and don't see any path out for you people...oh dear.

Anonymous Tad December 14, 2012 9:54 AM  

@scoobious

I am not prepared to accept as valid the underlying premise of any question involving the term "racism" and its arpeggios unless you can give me a definition of what you mean by that word

Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that race is inferior.

Anonymous Tad December 14, 2012 10:00 AM  

@scoobious

"But scoobious, it's not on the table..."

What you mean to say is, it's not in your direct line of sight.


A secession movement is not only not in my line of sight, it exists merely as an idea that has no substance, no embodiment and momentum. Of course it's not in my line of sight. The movement to elevate "Honey Boo Boo" to the position of governor of Texas has more substance.

Anonymous Mason_Arrow December 15, 2012 11:18 AM  

"based on the belief that race is inferior."

They are inferior. Reality's so mean - ain't it? NEEXT!

"secession movement is not only not in my line of sight, it exists merely as an idea that has no substance, no embodiment and momentum. "

Maybe if I deny that big ol' meanie reality hard enough I can make him go away !!!

What's more, the anti-secessionists' logistical arguments don't hold any water. The Jewish Bolsheviks in Russia couldn't hold together a multi-ethnic political union for an entire century even with all their extermination camps, the Cheka, KGB, Red Terror, etc. But we're to think that a feckless pack of rump rangers in DC and their affirmative action Negroid enforcers will be able to enforce the status quo indefinitely. Against a well-armed former racial majority, no less.

Not to mention that minorities are already themselves separatists in practice despite political allegiance to the dems. Take a good look at most areas 5 minutes from downtown in Any City, USA and tell me that these simians are Proud To Be 'Murikans, and integrated into the nation as a whole just because they push the lever for (D) every four years. Separatism is upon us now due to the very immigration policies pushed by Sodomite Jews since the 1900's. It's not something in the future for Sodomite Jews to scoff at. And it includes not just the sort of people whom Sodomite Jews hate, but their temporary political allies (the aforementioned Ghetto 'Groids and Amerinds). Both of whom will, in due course, tear the country apart - butt pirates included - once their Gibs-me-Dat dries up. No intervention by those scaaaary "Neoconfederates" required!

Anonymous Anonymous December 16, 2012 4:47 PM  

Scoobius: I'm amused at some of your observations but not because I disagree. Unfortunately I believe just about everything you've stated is true. It would be funny if it weren't so damn scary.

Anonymous civilServant December 17, 2012 12:36 PM  

No intervention by those scaaaary "Neoconfederates" required!

Indeed. One notes that those who have the most to gain from "integration" have the least interest in the ideals behind it.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts