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

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

"Free the Land"

Black separatism in America:
Lumumba smiled and raised his right hand halfway, just a little above the podium, briefly showing the clenched fist of a Black Power salute.

“And I want to say, free the land!”

Applause rang out, bells chimed, wooden staffs rose up and people shouted back, “Free the land!” That’s the motto of the Republic of New Afrika (RNA), the movement formed in 1968 that sought to turn the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina into an independent black nation.

Jackson’s new mayor is a former vice president of the RNA and a co-founder of the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement (MXGM), a national group born in 1993 that seeks self-determination for African-Americans — whom it calls New Afrikans — “by any means necessary.” Like many shaped by the Black Power era, Lumumba long shunned formal politics, until a successful run for City Council in 2009. Now, as mayor, he is seeking to apply the tenets of the black radical tradition to the duties of running a city.

“Nowadays you’ve got to call yourself a ‘change agent’ or something, or else you’ll make people scared,” Lumumba told me when I visited Jackson in August. “But I am a revolutionary.”
While I'm skeptical about Jackson's prospects, I'm all in favor of African-American self-determination and separatism. Regardless of how far along the civilizational scale they happen to be, black Americans have the same essential human right to self-government as everyone else. The natural desire for ethnic, cultural, and ideological segregation on the part of blacks, whites, yellows, and everyone else isn't racist, it is human. To pretend otherwise requires literally years of brainwashing from an early age as well as rigid intellectual self-supervision to refuse to see and admit the obvious.

This is why, when white Americans seek exactly the same thing as Lumumba and as the Aztlan activists, they are criticized in a vicious way that the black separatists, the Hispanic separatists, and the Pacific Islander separatists are not.

History informs us that political separation and ethno-racial segregation will eventually take place, the only question is when. Both the USA and the EU have already reached the state of the many multi-ethnic empires that preceded it; no doubt many in the British and Soviet and Austro-Hungarian Empires couldn't conceive that one day there would be many sovereign nations where one central government once reigned.

But the USA is not a single central state, it is a violence-imposed empire that consists of the several States. And, in time, it will go the way of all such empires, riven by the simple human desire to be among one's own kind rather than those of alien ideologies and different levels of civilization.

Labels: ,

250 Comments:

1 – 200 of 250 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Josh October 15, 2013 9:17 AM  

Jackson is basically a ghost town.

All the whites left decades ago.

Anonymous Salt October 15, 2013 9:17 AM  

Louisiana perhaps (Cajuns will object), Mississippi, and most especially Alabama, okay, but Georgia and S. Carolina? That won't happen.

Anonymous joe doakes October 15, 2013 9:17 AM  

Lumumba is confused. Race isn't culture. The difference between Detroit and Salt Lake City isn't racial, it's cultural. Kicking out the ants won't make the grasshoppers prosper.

Blogger IM2L844 October 15, 2013 9:19 AM  

As long as "by any means necessary" also means prying lips off the tits of the affirmative action nanny state, it will never happen.

Anonymous McHaha October 15, 2013 9:20 AM  

The South Will Rise Again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_New_Afrika

Anonymous TheExpat October 15, 2013 9:21 AM  

History informs us that political separation and ethno-racial segregation will eventually take place, the only question is when

... and how violent.

Anonymous Roundtine October 15, 2013 9:30 AM  

I'm unfamiliar with the territory, but there's the "Black Belt" clearly seen in the county-by-county presidential election results. That would be like Czechoslovakia in Europe.

Anonymous Aremo October 15, 2013 9:32 AM  

More power to them. If they annex those states and drive the whites out it will take about 15 minutes for the entire area to become one huge Liberian ghetto and it will still be whitey's fault. The hands will come out and the demands for food, money, and everything else will continue, forever. Even if food is provided they'll raid the border areas which will mysteriously have food, electric power, functional infrastructure, and some measure of wealth.

By all means give them their own area ... just put a huge wall around it. They'll kill each other and starve each other out until the numbers (artificially high due to constant handouts) get more in control. Maybe in time after a massive die off the more successful and community minded ones might make a better civilization.

Blogger Joe A. October 15, 2013 9:32 AM  

Well, as for Georgia, they've nearly taken over our capital, so... maybe it can happen.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein October 15, 2013 9:36 AM  

MR. Lumumba,

Please leave SC out of this. Might I humbly suggest including Ohio and Illinois and perhaps annexing Detroit.

Thanks,
TBG

Anonymous Gamecock October 15, 2013 9:37 AM  

South Carolina whites are one of the very few whites who would actually fight to keep their state. The rest of the whites in those other states would gladly abandon them.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 15, 2013 9:38 AM  

Romans 13 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

Anonymous Josh October 15, 2013 9:39 AM  

Anyone who thinks that there will ever be a black separatist nation state in the south is ignorant.

Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 9:40 AM  

Given that Mississippi is over 62% white and Alabama is 75% white... I find the notion that blacks some how have a right to claim these states as their own to be... dubious.

Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 9:43 AM  

"Louisiana perhaps (Cajuns will object), Mississippi, and most especially Alabama, okay, but Georgia and S. Carolina? That won't happen."

You realize there are geographic features in Alabama with names like "Nigger Lake" right? And there is a little town not far from me where there is a billboard out side of town that says "Nigger Don't Let the Sun Go Down on You In ***redacted*** ".

I don't know what part of alabama you've seen hoss. But Alabama is 75% white.... and unlike the rest of the country.. that isn't actually changing.

Anonymous Roundtine October 15, 2013 9:44 AM  

How black is the "black belt"? They might not take the whole state, but they could take counties.

Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 9:50 AM  

"How black is the "black belt"? They might not take the whole state, but they could take counties."

Absolutely they can take counties. The thing about the deep south is... there already is voluntary segregation. Whole towns are either white or black. It hasn't reached the point where there are whole counties broken up that way though... but it could happen. Already has happened in Mississippi.

Anonymous Josh October 15, 2013 9:50 AM  

Alabama is the most MURICA state.

Anonymous EVP October 15, 2013 9:51 AM  

"Louisiana perhaps (Cajuns will object)...

Well-armed, clannish, and openly racist Cajuns.

The best thing that could happen to blacks is a popular revival featuring racial and individual humility as its primary tenets.

But that might require an artfully engineered retrovirus. Or at least a miracle.

Anonymous EVP October 15, 2013 9:53 AM  

The difference between Detroit and Salt Lake City isn't racial, it's cultural.

Culture is in large part genetically determined.

Anonymous Josh October 15, 2013 9:53 AM  

Already has happened in Mississippi.

Yup.

Jackson is in Hines County, which is 80% black. Madison and Rankin counties are suburbs of Jackson, and are 80% white.

Anonymous Vidad October 15, 2013 9:54 AM  

Nice to see Golf Pro is reading the Bible. Keep it up!

Anonymous Vidad October 15, 2013 9:56 AM  

When I lived in TN, I found it fascinating how different portions of the state were. Knoxville and Memphis are like separate nations.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus October 15, 2013 9:56 AM  

"History informs us that political separation and ethno-racial segregation will eventually take place, the only question is when."

The only important question is whether the white race shall survive.

Mass non-white immigration and forced integration in all white countries and only white countries is genocide.

It won't do us any good if the inevitable re-segregation of America takes place after the whites are already gone. (Or in a position from which recovery is hard to imagine, like in Zimbabwe.)

It won't even help if there is resegregation in our own time, as seems to be going on, if whites continue to live under antiwhite governments that support mass immigration into the remaining white areas from the rest of the world, and from formerly white areas where the whites have already been blended out, driven out or a combination of the two.

Anonymous Aremo October 15, 2013 9:57 AM  

Romans 13 Let every soul be subject to the [Third Reich, Stalin, Pol Pot]. For there is no authority except from God, and the [Nazi SS, Soviet Secret Police] that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists [Edi Amin] resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the [Mongols]? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For [Atilla the Hun] is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for [the Tyrant de jure] does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

This taken to its logical extreme makes the entirety of scripture a complete mockery as it puts GODs seal upon injustice so one must be careful not to use this to justify tyrannical evil.

Blogger CarpeOro October 15, 2013 9:59 AM  

Brings to mind Yugoslavia, with the whites playing the part of the Serbs. A majority that the government (Tito - a Croat) did their best to undermine (Kosovo was still a majority population of Serbs when he took over, then he encouraged Albanians to emigrate and backed their attacks on the Serbs). Any guess which side Clinton dragged the USA into supporting? When the economy finally tanks just about anything could set off the powder keg. I would expect international intervention to support the various ethnic groups at the expense of the whites, along with the rump Federal government looking to create a federation... and using violence against whites while aligning with the rest.

Anonymous dh October 15, 2013 9:59 AM  

I don't know what part of alabama you've seen hoss. But Alabama is 75% white.... and unlike the rest of the country.. that isn't actually changing.

Wrong. Alabama is becoming almost 1% more black each 10 years. And 50% of it's white population growth is actually Hispanic. And, it's disproportionately female.

The fact is that Alabama as you see it now with changing, slower than the rest of the country, but still, it's changing. The population is getting older, the black and hispanic population staying younger.

Alabama whites are being outbred.

Anonymous Josh October 15, 2013 10:00 AM  

When I lived in TN, I found it fascinating how different portions of the state were. Knoxville and Memphis are like separate nations.

Take a look at Colin Woodward's American Nations . Memphis and Knoxville are part of two separate nations (deep south and greater Appalachia).

Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 10:00 AM  

"When I lived in TN, I found it fascinating how different portions of the state were. Knoxville and Memphis are like separate nations."

Always have been. Remember the Mountain folk of east tennessee were against secession.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 15, 2013 10:01 AM  

"black Americans have the same essential human right to self-government as everyone else. The natural desire for ethnic, cultural, and ideological segregation on the part of blacks, whites, yellows, and everyone else isn't racist, it is human."

Your mistake is ignoring that whatever kind of race-based "desire" you are pointing to here, it does not represent the only kind of desire someone might possess who understands self-government as a right. One might desire to form themselves into a state that is multi-ethnic. They may desire more than anything else to live in a state that includes a variety of economic classes or largely one category of economic class without care about race.

The other thing that needs saying is that simply because something is categorized as "human", we can't make any value judgements based on that categorization. You seem to think that if something is "human" it is "natural". This too is just a case or rhetorical flair.

But here's what I think we can say without using the playful and meaningless terms "human" and "natural": Those people who would advocate for a system of organizing society based on prominent race characteristics appear to have an unbounded proclivity to ignore individuals, paint with the kind of broad brush that always covers up individual uniqueness, and possess an instinctual fear of individuals that they have no basis for possessing.

What we've learned over the years is that tribalism, though a very strong influencer of human and societal behavior, throws the baby out with the bath water almost always.

For example, it's entirely understandable why non-white people should fear whites (particularly western whites) for their long history of attempting to subjugate, irradicate, posses, and destroy large populations of non-whites. But to organize a society on the basis of this fear completely ignores the fact that the vast majority of whites today do not pursue any desire to destroy or control non-white populations.

Anonymous Josh October 15, 2013 10:01 AM  

And 50% of it's white population growth is actually Hispanic.

Is that statistic before or after the new immigration law? Most of the hispanics left Alabama.

Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 10:04 AM  

"Wrong. Alabama is becoming almost 1% more black each 10 years. And 50% of it's white population growth is actually Hispanic. And, it's disproportionately female. "

Bzzt. Note the delta of the change. Things started moving the other way about 8 years ago. But as always... people don't see it because they forget that the rate of change has a rate of change as well.

And... as with all demographic based arguments.. people fail to realize that as massive as demographic force is... it is still entirely agile and can totally change in very little time.

Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 10:05 AM  

People who haven't spend a lot of time down here really shouldn't have strong opinions. Just know that it is very... very... different. The rules you live by and things you know to be true don't necessarily apply down here.

Anonymous Anonymous October 15, 2013 10:06 AM  

Might I humbly suggest including Ohio and Illinois and perhaps annexing Detroit.

Might I humbly suggest you bite me?

Ohio Copperhead

Anonymous Spychiatrist October 15, 2013 10:06 AM  

Read Thomas Chittums book, 'Civil War-2' for an interesting take on the ethno-Balkanization of the US and how it could very well shake itself out in due time. I, too, believe that blacks should have self determination, however, most blacks (and many whites) are so addicted to the government/tax-payer tit, that they would fight this tooth and nail. These kinds of black self-determinationists are in rarefied air. I've always thought that self segregation was the answer to 99% of all racial problems, unfortunately it'll be a long time coming. Too much political power is at stake to allow such segregation. The power elite derive so much leverage in keeping us together and at odds.

The tensions are rising in this country every day with blacks slaughtering whites with relative impunity thanks to Der Fuhrer's injustice dept and the racial tones that the mocha messiah himself projects. Look for the STHF at some point, but at what degree and when is anybody's guess. And like you've said, we are a "violence imposed empire".

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia October 15, 2013 10:07 AM  

Republic of New Afrika (RNA), the movement formed in 1968 that sought to turn the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina into an independent black nation.

It already exists, It is called Africa. Good luck to you and yours in your relocation to it.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia October 15, 2013 10:08 AM  

Nate:
People who haven't spend a lot of time down here really shouldn't have strong opinions. Just know that it is very... very... different. The rules you live by and things you know to be true don't necessarily apply down here.


Amen. Yankee bastages don't understand. It is a Southron thing.

Anonymous Will Best October 15, 2013 10:08 AM  

I would expect international intervention to support the various ethnic groups at the expense of the whites

What international intervention? That won't happen. Last thing anybody will want to do is piss off whoever eventually gains power. The US is not a middle east country that you can F with from half way around the globe with no consequences.

Anonymous Van October 15, 2013 10:09 AM  

Golf Pro:

By your understanding of that passage, would not every instance of resisting the government under which resides be an affront to God?

Were the abolitionists in violation of God's will? Those who resisted Nazi rule? The Civil Rights movement?

All of these resisted the government under which they lived. For that matter, Christ himself opposed the rule of the Romans and the corrupt Pharisees - was God in violation of his own command?

Anonymous Golf Pro October 15, 2013 10:12 AM  

"By your understanding of that passage, would not every instance of resisting the government under which resides be an affront to God?"

I have no idea what you are talking about, nor the paragraph to which you are referring.

Anonymous Salt October 15, 2013 10:12 AM  

I spent 4 years in Louisiana, Nate, and you are quite right. But I'll still stake on Miss and Ala before Georgia and SC.

Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 10:16 AM  

"But I'll still stake on Miss and Ala before Georgia and SC."

GA could have problems because of the Tumor you call Atlanta. Bama has a similar problem in Birmingham... but its several orders of magnitude lesser.

Anonymous dh October 15, 2013 10:17 AM  

Bzzt. Note the delta of the change. Things started moving the other way about 8 years ago. But as always... people don't see it because they forget that the rate of change has a rate of change as well.

I forget no such thing. My data is from 2011. See link right here, page 4. Whites, including hispanics, are being outbred by blacks by close to 2 persons per thousand. There are 4400 thousands (or so) Alabamians, meaning each year there are about 8,800 more blacks than whites being born. Thats 88,000 more blacks per decade. Or about 2%. But given that your average black is unhealthy and dies younger for many reasons, thats optimistic. And all that's given hispanics.

And... as with all demographic based arguments.. people fail to realize that as massive as demographic force is... it is still entirely agile and can totally change in very little time.
Now you are just changing goal posts. You are the one who claimed it wasn't changing, and now you are saying that it might change. We might as well just presume that all the blacks from Georgia will migrate to Alabama and create a black mega-state.

Anonymous Alexander October 15, 2013 10:18 AM  

Gentlemen,

This is the goal: to make us fight among ourselves over who to throw to the wolves. Mississippi. South Carolina. Georgia. Texas if we start talking about Mexicans instead of Africans.

But us southern boys have got to stick together. When we divide ourselves, those people win (Missouri, Maryland, looking at you...).

If we've got to throw someone overboard as a multicultural sacrifice, let's offer a counter proposal. Instead of deep south, how about Michigan, New York, California, and Illinois. If the NAR accepts in the next 24 hours, we'll throw in Minnesota for no additional charge!

Anonymous Van October 15, 2013 10:19 AM  

Golf Pro:

I'm referring to your quotation of Romans 13. What is your interpretation, and what is its relevancet to this topic. Direct question.

Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 10:20 AM  

What one must always remember is... outside the south... blacks are not scared of whites. But in the deep south... blacks ARE scared of whites. Now you can draw whatever conclusions you want from that about the morality of southron whites. Judge as you please. I'm just pointing out the observable reality of the situation.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 15, 2013 10:21 AM  

"I'm referring to your quotation of Romans 13. What is your interpretation, and what is its relevancet to this topic. Direct question."

Hmmmm....That's interesting. I didn't write that. It was written by someone else using the "Golf Pro" moniker. Strange.

For what it's worth, the passage strikes me as nonsensical.

Anonymous Anon123 October 15, 2013 10:23 AM  

Is Golf Pro Jewish? Theyre the only ones Ive met with a paranoid fear of whites, which is why theyre so zealously seek their destruction. Its creepy. Its also delusional to seek refuge in minorities, since everyone besides whites have at least a negative opinion, if not hostile. Nobodies scared of whites unless theyre bikers or sporting swastikas. Race hustlers and ethnic activists only speak up just to get money from SWPL's, but no one is ever in a state of fear, except maybe of losing relevance.

As a Puerto Rican who has lived all over the South for a time, I never once had to fear whites, including the openly racist Nazi types. As long as I didnt fuck with them, they didnt fuck with me. You have to be delusional to think that white people are more dangerous than Mexicans gangs or blacks who go around mobbing people for fun, but thats the twisted mind of Jews. Whites are always out to keep them down lol.

They also have the habit of demanding open borders for every country except Israel, where instead they demand that their high tech fences be subsidized by the US and the West. But thats never up for discussion. Instead were supposed to be happy that America is being flooded with low IQ Mexican Indians.

Anonymous Mr. Subby October 15, 2013 10:26 AM  

Great. More foreign aid.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 15, 2013 10:27 AM  

"Is Golf Pro Jewish? Theyre the only ones Ive met with a paranoid fear of whites"

Nope...not Jewish. However, given the history of Jews, particularly in Europe, it's not difficult to appreciate any apprehension or paranoia that group might have. The history of anti-semitism in Europe and its culminating event in Germany might leave scars.

Anonymous Josh October 15, 2013 10:27 AM  

But in the deep south... blacks ARE scared of whites

Friend of mine was in Mississippi on a dove hunt. As they were leaving the lodge to go shoot birds, one of their group asked the old white hunting guide why he hadn't locked up the lodge.

The guide gave him a strange look and said, "our niggers ain't like y'all's niggers."

Anonymous DonReynolds October 15, 2013 10:28 AM  

Lumumba is not even greedy. He is not talking about entire states, just the counties where blacks are 80 percent or more of the population......which they ALREADY dominate. If we are lucky, even more of the Southern blacks will move to those specific counties (and the few remaining whites will finally leave). Heck yeah, let them have their flag......and the white South will do the same damn thing. Do not delay.

Anonymous Van October 15, 2013 10:28 AM  

On behalf of Golf Pro, I demand an investigation into this. Vox, you simply must attempt to determine who posted this under his name. This sort of offense cannot stand!

Anonymous Jake October 15, 2013 10:29 AM  

I have to think people who quote Romans 13 to say "be obedient to your government" have never actually, seriously, read the passage and what it says.

Hint: "governing authority" != "your government". In fact, I think the later verses make it completely clear Paul is NOT talking about your typical government.

"3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil."

Can anyone really read this as applied to our government and keep a straight face? If that is a Godly authority, our government clearly does not qualify.

Anonymous Josh October 15, 2013 10:29 AM  

Is Golf Pro Jewish?

Yes. He's our resident gay liberal Jew. Hence his paranoia about white Christians.

OpenID cailcorishev October 15, 2013 10:30 AM  

I was watching a clip of dancers on Soul Train in the 1970s, and was sort of impressed at the way the people seemed to "embrace their blackness," for lack of a better term. They just seemed comfortable with their differences in a way that blacks aren't today, after 40 years of insistence that we're all exactly the same.

Anonymous Josh October 15, 2013 10:31 AM  

Hey, any other state want to annex Memphis?

Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 10:31 AM  

DH
Mate... do you realize you just proved that you don't understand my argument?

From your own link...

1950: Black birthrate 33.4 vs white birthrate: 23.8.

vs

2011 black birthrate: 13.6 vs white birthrate: 11.8

What you see is... in 1950 the total birth rate was much much higher... but the gap between black and white birth rate was enormous. We see that while the total birthrate has declined... the gap between white birth rate and black birth rate has been shrinking and shrinking.

So while you are correct to note that whites are still being out bred, you will note if you pay attention that I didn't claim otherwise. I claimed the long term trend was changing and most people, and you're obviously among them, didn't realize it.

As for my moving the goal posts... that was actually a concession that long term trends can change on a dime.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 15, 2013 10:32 AM  

"Is Golf Pro Jewish?
Yes. He's our resident gay liberal Jew"

This would be a surprise to both my wife and my mother.

Anonymous Salt October 15, 2013 10:32 AM  

how about Michigan, New York, California, and Illinois.

You'd want it to be contiguous, and with some coastline. To make it effective they'd need egress other than through us.

Blogger IM2L844 October 15, 2013 10:32 AM  

I have no idea what you are talking about, nor the paragraph to which you are referring.

Stop being such a transparent liar, Shifty. You've only submitted a few posts in this thread and there is only one that he could possibly be referring to. I don't know...maybe you're not pretending to be stupid.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 15, 2013 10:34 AM  

"Stop being such a transparent liar, Shifty. You've only submitted a few posts in this thread and there is only one that he could possibly be referring to. I don't know...maybe you're not pretending to be stupid."

Catch up.

Blogger IM2L844 October 15, 2013 10:34 AM  

Hmmmm....That's interesting. I didn't write that. It was written by someone else using the "Golf Pro" moniker. Strange.

Okay. I retract my earlier statement.

Anonymous Alexander October 15, 2013 10:35 AM  

Vox, question,

Where do you draw a line between African-Americans having the legal right to self-determination, and the reality that even in a place where they are the majority, they own very little of the property that would form their new state?

It seems to me that a new state has to have some sort of historical claim or current ownership to the land, or else simply take it by force.

Blacks in the south do not have that. Sure, you'd have your progs who would spin it as the 'final', natural penance for slavery, but the reality is that any black state would require seizing lands that are overwhelmingly owned by white southerners... I cannot see this being peacefully resolved, and I cannot see how libertarians could justify self-determination shitting on the property rights of other people.

Anonymous Josh October 15, 2013 10:35 AM  


You'd want it to be contiguous, and with some coastline. To make it effective they'd need egress other than through us.


Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, Delaware.

OpenID newrebeluniv October 15, 2013 10:36 AM  

Funny how, "bay any means necessary" never includes using their own money, saved and built over generations, to buy the land they want and hold onto it for future generations.

--Hale

Anonymous dh October 15, 2013 10:39 AM  

What you see is... in 1950 the total birth rate was much much higher... but the gap between black and white birth rate was enormous. We see that while the total birthrate has declined... the gap between white birth rate and black birth rate has been shrinking and shrinking.

Yeah, I do get that. In general the 1950's, people were having lots more babies. I guess I got lost when you threw in "8 years ago". What is that referencing?

So while you are correct to note that whites are still being out bred, you will note if you pay attention that I didn't claim otherwise. I claimed the long term trend was changing and most people, and you're obviously among them, didn't realize it.

The trend you mean from being vastly outbred to just moderately outbred? I do realize that. The white population is being replaced with blacks, which you seem to indicate is not really the case with your 75% and not changing argument.

Anonymous Alexander October 15, 2013 10:39 AM  

I believe Hale arrives at the heart of the matter.

Anonymous zen0 October 15, 2013 10:46 AM  

Alexander October 15, 2013 10:18 AM

Gentlemen,

This is the goal: to make us fight among ourselves over who to throw to the wolves. Mississippi. South Carolina. Georgia. Texas if we start talking about Mexicans instead of Africans.

But us southern boys have got to stick together. When we divide ourselves, those people win (Missouri, Maryland, looking at you...).


From an article on Somalia:





Somalis have been divided between the British, French, Italians and Ethiopians. Tens of thousands of people have been handed from one power to another. "When they are made to hate each other," wrote a British colonial official, "good governance is assured."

Anonymous dh October 15, 2013 10:47 AM  

California will never be ceded non-violently to any group. Geographically it is the Jewel of the Americas.

Blogger J Curtis October 15, 2013 10:47 AM  

Lumumba smiled and raised his right hand halfway, just a little above the podium, briefly showing the clenched fist of a Black Power salute

I work with numerous black men and for years upon making eye contact with them in passing, I would always give them the raised fist, Black Power salute and it was always unquestioningly shown back to me. I've done it so much over time that now they raise their fist to me first whenever I happen to pass by. Hopefully it helps years from now when the gray people become less and less of a demographic to deal with :)

Anonymous Golf Pro October 15, 2013 10:48 AM  

"but the reality is that any black state would require seizing lands that are overwhelmingly owned by white southerners... I cannot see this being peacefully resolved, and I cannot see how libertarians could justify self-determination shitting on the property rights of other people."

You sort of hit on the problem with this post. It's not that the practicality of there being black state in the U.S. is difficult. Rather, the notion that ethnically-based states will formally appear in the U.S. is on its face a fundamentally absurd reading of American history, American culture, American politics and American law, not to mention the practicality issue.

Anonymous Josh October 15, 2013 10:48 AM  

California will never be ceded non-violently to any group. Geographically it is the Jewel of the Americas.

So when do the hispanics get violently removed?

Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 10:49 AM  

"The trend you mean from being vastly outbred to just moderately outbred? I do realize that. The white population is being replaced with blacks, which you seem to indicate is not really the case with your 75% and not changing argument. "

Because there is more to it than just breeding. Lifespan matters. Blacks live shorter lives. So they need to out breed whites just to keep pace.

You will also see a massive change in the demographics of alabama in the next census. For the first time in God knows how long... the percentage of the population that is white will actually rise. That's because we basically ran the hispanics out. You will note that the rate of population growth in Alabama cratered is 2011. That's the year of the hispanic exodus.

The 8 year reference was the point that I believe was the point where black breeding no longer made up for the difference of the longer lifespan of whites.

Anonymous Jake October 15, 2013 10:49 AM  

Funny how, "bay any means necessary" never includes using their own money, saved and built over generations, to buy the land they want and hold onto it for future generations.

This is true, but under the current tax system doing this is also extremely difficult for anyone. The estate tax is a forgotten evil wrecking the middle class.

Anonymous zen0 October 15, 2013 10:50 AM  

You seem to think that if something is "human" it is "natural". This too is just a case or rhetorical flair.

Golf Pro declares, based on his authority, that human nature does not exist, and the ongoing "nature or nurture" debate can be abandoned.

What a generous and helpful fellow.

Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 10:50 AM  

"Rather, the notion that ethnically-based states will formally appear in the U.S. is on its face a fundamentally absurd reading of American history, American culture, American politics and American law, not to mention the practicality issue."

***chuckle***

Whole regions of the country were ethnically based... and to an extent... still are. Jesus city people are ignorant.

Anonymous Josh October 15, 2013 10:52 AM  

Rather, the notion that ethnically-based states will formally appear in the U.S. is on its face a fundamentally absurd reading of American history, American culture, American politics and American law, not to mention the practicality issue.

Because it's not like there have been secession attempts before.

What is it about America that makes a multi ethnic state viable over the term compared to, say Austria-Hungary, the Soviet union, or Yugoslavia? Hell, even Czechoslovakia broke up, and Belgium might eventually.

Anonymous Alexander October 15, 2013 10:52 AM  

Yes, Golf Pro,

The idea of a peacefully created ethnic state forming out of the USA is absurd.

But nobody is arguing that is what is going to happen.

Anonymous Josh October 15, 2013 10:56 AM  

Whole regions of the country were ethnically based... and to an extent... still are. Jesus city people are ignorant.

Hell, even in white Alabama, you have a massive ethnic divide between the bama fans and the auburn fans.

A mixed race wedding ain't got nothing on the wedding between a bama fan and an auburn fan.

Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 11:00 AM  

"The idea of a peacefully created ethnic state forming out of the USA is absurd."

And yet the population is peacfully segregating itself voluntarily as we speak.

Anonymous Huckleberry - est. 1977 October 15, 2013 11:00 AM  

California will never be ceded non-violently to any group. Geographically it is the Jewel of the Americas

Yes it will.
10-to-1 odds says the federal government of the United States of America sells the territory teeming with Wise Latinos, after a series of defaults and bankruptcies, to Mexico in a bid to abrogate its own debt.
If you're wondering where Mexico gets the money, a) oil and b) Asian-Pacific investors.
California is already gone in everything but name only.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 15, 2013 11:00 AM  

"Whole regions of the country were ethnically based... and to an extent... still are. Jesus city people are ignorant."

But, there is no serious move to formally (or in formally) create ethnic states in America. More importantly, there is no mechanism for this to happen. It's all just fantasy and Alternative History.

Anonymous DaveD October 15, 2013 11:02 AM  

As an Ohioan, I have to agree mostly. Blacks & Unions have taken over my state & are working hard to make my hometown into Detroit South.

I would argue that Jersey should be included & Delaware removed.

Anonymous Huckleberry - est. 1977 October 15, 2013 11:06 AM  

More importantly, there is no mechanism for this to happen

That's the "human" argument then, isn't it?
It doesn't need a mechanism, it's voluntary happenstance.
Desegregation, on the other hand, requires a mechanism, if my cursory reading of history is worth a anything.

Anonymous Alexander October 15, 2013 11:07 AM  

When the population musical chairs come to a close, we can only hope that karma prevails and we get the New Africonnecticut.

Anonymous Daniel October 15, 2013 11:08 AM  

California will never be ceded non-violently to any group. Geographically it is the Jewel of the Americas.

...Well, at least until a secessionist Arizona takes its water back at Lake Havasu to water their legal tobacco exports to Colorado...

Hell, even in white Alabama, you have a massive ethnic divide between the bama fans and the auburn fans.

Yeah - the bammers vs. the famblers.

Out of curiosity: is Gene Chizik still part of the Auburn fambly or was that a conditional sort of blood relation?

Anonymous zen0 October 15, 2013 11:08 AM  

@ GP

But to organize a society on the basis of this fear completely ignores the fact that the vast majority of whites today do not pursue any desire to destroy or control non-white populations.

The impetus for tribalism is not fear but allegiance based on a natural affinity. This is why you will always be wrong,

You throw the baby out with the bathwater due to your tribal allegiance to your ideological brothers.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 15, 2013 11:09 AM  

"10-to-1 odds says the federal government of the United States of America sells the territory teeming with Wise Latinos, after a series of defaults and bankruptcies, to Mexico in a bid to abrogate its own debt."

Hell, I'd take that bet even if the odds were 1-10.

Anonymous VD October 15, 2013 11:10 AM  

But, there is no serious move to formally (or in formally) create ethnic states in America. More importantly, there is no mechanism for this to happen. It's all just fantasy and Alternative History.

You're a remarkably dim-witted ostrich. What was the mechanism for this to happen in the Soviet Union? What was the mechanism in Czechoslovakia?

It's not alternative history, it is real history. Of which you are quite obviously ignorant.

Anonymous DaveD October 15, 2013 11:11 AM  

There's no ethnically based settlement patterns. That's why my mostly German settled city has various Oktoberfests from September to November & you can get sauerkraut at every other restaurant but mysteriously have few/no Juneteenth Day celebrations, whatever Italians celebrate etc.

Anonymous Huckleberry - est. 1977 October 15, 2013 11:13 AM  

Hell, I'd take that bet even if the odds were 1-10

You're on.
Check back in 2063 to settle up, Hoss...

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia October 15, 2013 11:14 AM  

Can we just give Cali to Mexico for free? Please take it.

Anonymous DonReynolds October 15, 2013 11:14 AM  

There are three stars on the Tennessee flag. One for each of the distinct "states" of Tennessee, legally referred to as the three "grand divisions". But Tennessee is not part of the Deep South, but it is an important part of the Upper South.

East Tennessee and West Tennessee in particular, do not like each other and nowhere is this friction more open than in state government......fortunately located in Middle Tennessee at Nashville.

When I was in high school (at Gallatin), 90 percent of all blacks in Tennessee lived in Shelby County (Memphis). Since then, there has been a steady drift of blacks to the other urban centers of the state, especially Nashville and Chattanooga. Now only 45.6 percent of blacks in Tennessee live in Memphis (Shelby County). The rural counties are where there are very few. (In 8 counties there are less than 100, 8 more counties have between 100 and 200, 8 more counties have between 200 and 300, 22 counties have between 300 and 1,000. Thus in 46 of the 95 counties of the state, there are less than 1,000 blacks.)

Blogger CarpeOro October 15, 2013 11:17 AM  

"The US is not a middle east country that you can F with from half way around the globe with no consequences."

You really need to review history. When the bottom drops out of the economy all sorts of people will want to mess with the USA. Threats of nuking someone if a civil war breaks out here will not deter anyone.

As for Michigan, outside of the SE corner it is pretty conservative. Not to mention tons of hunters and vets. Don't be promising land there when there is more of a right to it in your neck of the woods bubba and we won't promise your home to them.

Anonymous dh October 15, 2013 11:23 AM  

You will also see a massive change in the demographics of alabama in the next census. For the first time in God knows how long... the percentage of the population that is white will actually rise. That's because we basically ran the hispanics out. You will note that the rate of population growth in Alabama cratered is 2011. That's the year of the hispanic exodus.

Got it. That will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Anonymous Susan October 15, 2013 11:24 AM  

Unless someone takes it to court, I believe that Moonbeam Brown has already given the state back to the Hispanics by signing that sanctuary bill recently. So the only violence will happen when they terrorize and chase the remaining whites out.

Anonymous Leatherwing October 15, 2013 11:26 AM  

Nate, you said " But in the deep south...". What states do you consider Deep South? To me, it's Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Maybe Tennessee.

I currently live in North Carolina, ad definitely don't consider it Deep South. Lived in Arkansas as a kid and do consider it to be Deep South - all but the largest towns are segregated.

Just curious about what you mean when you say the phrase, and whether you feel that Tennessee is included. (I've seen what wikipedia defines as Deep South. Don't think I agree with their assessment)

Anonymous dh October 15, 2013 11:28 AM  

Can we just give Cali to Mexico for free? Please take it.

Whatever you think of California, it is a huge engine of production for the country. It routinely contributes more federal tax receipts than outlays, and also generates a substantial chunk of the US exports.

Giving it to Mexico would be like.. well, it's not like anything. It's like giving 10% of the US economy to vandals.

Anonymous HoosierHillbilly October 15, 2013 11:29 AM  

"Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, Delaware."

More than a few of us in the hills of Southern Indiana may have a problem with this divide...

Take everything north of Indy, sure. Be happy to get rid of them. They have a whole different ball of roots in the Northern vs. the Southern half of the state in terms of historical settlement and sentiment.
But as was mentioned before, it would probably be more of a swath from Chicago across the southern part of Michigan/northern half of Indiana and on to the east. Marking whole states up in divides would not go well. Counties, sure...I could see it.

Anonymous Josh October 15, 2013 11:30 AM  

But Tennessee is not part of the Deep South, but it is an important part of the Upper South.

Memphis is part of deep south

Anonymous Huckleberry - est. 1977 October 15, 2013 11:34 AM  

Giving it to Mexico would be like.. well, it's not like anything. It's like giving 10% of the US economy to vandals

Yes, but selling it to Mexico, at a point in the future when it costs the feds more to keep it than it gets from it, makes sense. Especially if there is any kind of state-constitutional crisis that results from California's impending interminable insolvency.

Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 11:35 AM  

"Just curious about what you mean when you say the phrase, and whether you feel that Tennessee is included. (I've seen what wikipedia defines as Deep South. Don't think I agree with their assessment)"

Tennessee is every bit as southern as Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia. But I wouldn't call it deep south. Hell I wouldn't even call Birmingham deep south.

Tennessee is Mid south. Remember the South starts at the Ohio River.

Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 11:36 AM  

"Memphis is part of deep south"

No. Memphis is part of chicago. You wouldn't believe how many blacks in memphis are from chicago.

Anonymous Josh October 15, 2013 11:38 AM  

Ah yes, the land of bacon from rocks

Anonymous Alexander October 15, 2013 11:39 AM  

Marking up whole states sucks, but that's the way these things go - look at maps of Europe and how many boundaries still exist from states that haven't existed in centuries. People accept the idea that "Georgia" or "Indiana" are complete entities that belong in sum to X or Y.

The only exceptions I can really see are interior divisions that are defined by major geographical barriers - east Louisiana one day becoming part of Mississippi, or the western squares losing their straight sides and right angles.

This isn't trying to justify throwing your state under the bus as a 'them's the breaks', but if we ever do get to the point where we're redrawing the map, the reality is you're looking at some sort of all-or-nothing scenario.

This goes double if the new governments intend to mimic the makeup of the United States so as to appear to be the legitimate successor. The last thing anyone's going to want is the other guy having two Senators from some rump Kentucky or Oregon doing nothing but demanding the liberation of the rest of his state.

Anonymous damntull October 15, 2013 11:45 AM  

@GolfPro
HAHAHAHAHAH ... AAAAAHAHAHAHAHA ... AAHAAHAHAHA!
whoa! I'm out of breath...
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA aHAHAHAHAHHA HAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Anonymous Vidad October 15, 2013 11:47 AM  

"If you're wondering where Mexico gets the money, a) oil and b) Asian-Pacific investors."

Don't forget silver.

Blogger Uland October 15, 2013 11:49 AM  

Racism is a Socialist construct.

Anonymous fnn October 15, 2013 11:49 AM  

No. Memphis is part of chicago. You wouldn't believe how many blacks in memphis are from chicago.

The black population in Chicago mostly came from Mississippi. Memphis is sometimes called the true capital of MS.

Blacks only came to Chicago after whites had built and fully developed it:

Chicago's black population
(...)
Chicago's black population grew significantly during the twentieth century. Although the percentage increase was greatest during the initial period of ghetto formation, the largest increase in absolute numbers came during the 1940s and the 1950s. Analysts of the 1919 riot never fail to cite the growth of Chicago's black population; more than 148% between 1910 and 1920. yet, it was the addition of 65,355 new black Chicagoans to a relatively small existing black population that accounted for the large percentage increase. Between 1940 and 1950 Chicago's black population swelled by 214,534; between 1950 and 1960 it grew by 320,372. Although the percentage growth during these two decades cannot compare with that associated with the Great Migration, the absolute numbers of new black resident represented a movement of unprecedented scale. In 1920 Chicago's black population totaled 109,458; between 1940 and 1960 it grew from 277,731 to 812,637.

Whereas blacks represented only 4.1% of the city's total population in 1920 and but 8.2% in 1940, they accounted for 13.6% of the city's total in 1950 and 22.9% in 1960.
(...)

Blogger tz October 15, 2013 11:53 AM  

I wonder if the title is just bad grammar.

I think they assume if they gain the land, more things will be "free". Like health care, food, housing, etc.

Perhaps someone should fund the Lakota tribes' legal bills and just ask for a small free state (think Singapore) somewhere in the middle

Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 11:55 AM  

"The black population in Chicago mostly came from Mississippi. Memphis is sometimes called the true capital of MS.

Blacks only came to Chicago after whites had built and fully developed it:"

/facepalm

Yes.

We are quite aware that blacks from the south moved north. The point is... they have been moving back now for about 40 years.

Anonymous fnn October 15, 2013 11:56 AM  

More Chicago History:
(...)
...blacks maintained only a slight presence at the time of the Columbian Exposition [1893]. There were just less than 15,000 African Americans in Chicago in 1890, when Chicago was home to 161,000 German-born immigrants, 70,000 Irish-born immigrants, 43,000 Swedish-born, 38,000 British-born, 25,000 Czechs, 24,000 Poles, and 22,000 Norwegians.
By 1910, the city’s black population had risen to just “40,000 Negroes among the heterogeneous two million inhabitants of Midwest Metropolis.” Blacks composed just 2 percent of the population of the nation’s leading industrial and population growth metropolis, whose spectacular economic and demographic expansion during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was fueled by massive European immigration, primarily Eastern and South-Central European after 1880.

(...)

Anonymous fnn October 15, 2013 11:59 AM  



The South is where they obviously belong-unless they can be convinced to move to Africa.

Anonymous Josh October 15, 2013 12:00 PM  

I predict that, for his next trick, fnn will start ranting about how sports are racist against whites and FACKING DAHKIES AH BAD!

Anonymous Josh October 15, 2013 12:01 PM  

The South is where they obviously belong

Why?

Anonymous fnn October 15, 2013 12:03 PM  

I predict that, for his next trick, fnn will start ranting about how sports are racist against whites and FACKING DAHKIES AH BAD!

Why is some jackass complaining about blacks moving back to their ancestral homeland in the US?

Blogger tz October 15, 2013 12:04 PM  

Giving it [CA] to Mexico would be like.. well, it's not like anything. It's like giving 10% of the US economy to vandals.

That 10% is already moving across the Arizona or Nevada border, or even up to Idaho.

It would be like the queen disguised as an old lady giving what appears to be a beautiful Apple (yes, Cupertino included) to Snow White. Without a prince to come and revive her. CA is being sucked dry from within. San Diego and Tijuana should merge.

Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 12:10 PM  

SBPDL: Stormfront for Dummies

Anonymous a_peraspera October 15, 2013 12:11 PM  

From the Democrat party perspective, California must stay. Without Cali's enormous number of electoral votes, we'd have a good chance at a Repub president again.

Therefore to the DC Democrats it will make more sense to just keep funneling taxpayer dollars to Cali, to keep it afloat no matter HOW bad its economy gets.

Anonymous Josh October 15, 2013 12:13 PM  

SBPDL: Stormfront for Dummies

Should it, like moldbuggery, also be an automatic penalty? I'm leaning towards yes.

Anonymous fnn October 15, 2013 12:13 PM  

SBPDL: Stormfront for Dummies

Are you challenging the stats they quote?

Anonymous alexander October 15, 2013 12:14 PM  

The north made its position perfectly clear in 1860. So Chicago can suck it up.

Anonymous Josh October 15, 2013 12:19 PM  

Are you challenging the stats they quote?

We already knew that blacks migrated north. You're not giving us any new information?

Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 12:19 PM  

"Are you challenging the stats they quote?"

Generally speaking I would double and triple check anything that idiotic site posted.

The migration of blacks north is a matter of the historical record. Its also observable reality. What is also observable reality... is that those blacks are now moving back south. To places like ATL and MEM.

If that concept is novel to you... then you've lived an awfully sheltered little life.

Anonymous civilServant October 15, 2013 12:21 PM  

More importantly, there is no mechanism for this to happen.

What was the mechanism for this to happen in the Soviet Union? What was the mechanism in Czechoslovakia?


The mechanism was historical nations with historical borders. The Soviet Union broke up not willy-nilly but into national identities that existed before the Soviet Union. The same was true of of Czechoslovakia. There is no such previous history in the United States (except of course for the Native Americans who are not numerous enough to wield significant influence).

Anonymous fnn October 15, 2013 12:22 PM  

The South is where they obviously belong

Why?


Your ancestors fought a war to keep them, so you should deal with them. Not excusing Lincoln's invasion.

The South also should pay for being the most pro-war part of the country in 1940-41. Not a single America First Committee chapter in the entire South! Lindbergh spoke to massive crowds in Chicago and New York.The South cut its own throat by supporting the War for Radical Egalitarianism and Communism.

Anonymous Josh October 15, 2013 12:26 PM  

The South also should pay for being the most pro-war part of the country in 1940-41.

That's an idiotic non sequitur.

Also, dumbass, FDR was a Yankee.

Anonymous Rex Little October 15, 2013 12:26 PM  

You might be interested in reading a fictional version of how a black separatist state might be formed in the US.

Anonymous fnn October 15, 2013 12:27 PM  

The migration of blacks north is a matter of the historical record. Its also observable reality. What is also observable reality... is that those blacks are now moving back south. To places like ATL and MEM.

Like I said before, it's their ancestral homeland in the US-you have to expect them to move back there. Those solely motivated by the big welfare benefits remain in-or move to-places like WI and MN.

Anonymous civilServant October 15, 2013 12:27 PM  

riven by the simple human desire to be among one's own kind rather than those of alien ideologies and different levels of civilization.

"Riven" is a good word to use here. Notice that this justification supports not only nations but classes within nations.

Anonymous Josh October 15, 2013 12:29 PM  

Your ancestors fought a war to keep them, so you should deal with them. Not excusing Lincoln's invasion.

Here's the thing sugar tits. South dealt quite well with blacks until desegregation was forced by federal troops on the orders of Yankees.

So you don't get to have it both ways.

Anonymous fnn October 15, 2013 12:30 PM  

That's an idiotic non sequitur.

Also, dumbass, FDR was a Yankee.


He could have done nothing without political support, dummy. The Solid South gave it to him. The South was the willing tool of "The British, the Jews and the Roosevelt administration."

Anonymous civilServant October 15, 2013 12:30 PM  

Those people who would advocate for a system of organizing society based on prominent race characteristics appear to have an unbounded proclivity to ignore individuals, paint with the kind of broad brush that always covers up individual uniqueness

Not their own. Everyone else's yes but not their own. "Most People" and all that.

Anonymous Josh October 15, 2013 12:32 PM  

There is no such previous history in the United States

Incorrect. Several different cultures developed in the colonies before the revolution. Unless you're going to assert that colonial new England, new York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the Carolinas were all the same.

Anonymous fnn October 15, 2013 12:32 PM  

That's an idiotic non sequitur.

The world Democratic-Communist victory of 1945 meant that Jim Crow would soon come to an end, you moron. Everyone except you probably understands that.

Anonymous fnn October 15, 2013 12:35 PM  

Here's the thing sugar tits. South dealt quite well with blacks until desegregation was forced by federal troops on the orders of Yankees.

The fruits of the Democratic-Communist-Jewish victory of 1945 that the South enthusiastically supported.

Anonymous fnn October 15, 2013 12:41 PM  

Josh is off crying somewhere, I win. Signing off this thread for good.

Anonymous Josh October 15, 2013 12:44 PM  

The fruits of the Democratic-Communist-Jewish victory of 1945 that the South enthusiastically supported.

I understand that you've seen these phrases on sites and you thought to yourself "that sounds really smart. I'm going to use that next time I want to sound smart."

I'm here to tell you that they're not smart and they're not making you sound smart.

Anonymous a_peraspera October 15, 2013 12:44 PM  

The national identity of Mexico existed before the USA as you know.

Take the example of Texas. Mexico allowed unrestricted immigration of whites into the Texas territory. Once there were enough whites in the area, they said F off and joined the white nation of the USA.

Sure it took a minor war, but it got done. Now it's happening again in reverse.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza October 15, 2013 12:45 PM  

Good luck in his endeavors for the future that he wants for his people.

I'll be out of the fray.

Anonymous Josh October 15, 2013 12:46 PM  

Josh is off crying somewhere, I win. Signing off this thread for good.

I'm right here, bitch.

I'll be your huckleberry.

Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 12:57 PM  

"More importantly, there is no mechanism for this to happen."

The mechanism is the same as ever. The mechanism is violence.

Anonymous Philalethes October 15, 2013 12:59 PM  

Many here are probably familiar with Edgar Steele; for those who aren't, his thoughts on "The Balkanization of America" are worth reading.

OpenID cailcorishev October 15, 2013 1:00 PM  

But as was mentioned before, it would probably be more of a swath from Chicago across the southern part of Michigan/northern half of Indiana and on to the east.

Yep. Pretty much every state, north or south, has one or more big cities that are dominated by liberals and NAMs, with the rest being a mostly-white rural area dotted with mostly-white small towns, all of which lean conservative. Chicago has more in common with Atlanta and San Francisco than it does with downstate Illinois. But there's no way to carve out the cities into a separate nation. They could become their own little fiefdoms, but they'd starve. Some, like Chicago, could band together with a nearby city like Madison and claim the farmland in between, so they'd have something to eat. But cities like St. Louis and Kansas City are islands. Also, presumably whatever "white America" nation resulted would want to have a few cities in it. That would mean building new ones, or a major migration of conservative whites from some cities to others and liberal whites and NAMs in the other direction.

It's hard to picture anything that orderly happening. It seems more likely that the country would break into chunks, at least partly on state lines (due to lack of imagination), and then people "caught behind enemy lines" would gradually move or die out.

Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 1:00 PM  

as for anyone wanting to live in world free of blacks... wisconsin exists. I'm sure you'll find a glorious lilly white paradise there. Its not like the birthplace of progressivism or anything.

Anonymous Jos October 15, 2013 1:07 PM  

Nate, there is also Massachusetts and Minnesota. Both places are very white.

Anonymous GreyS October 15, 2013 1:16 PM  

"Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina"? Zero chance. They simply don't have enough people and enough people with initiative to do anything close to that, and the people who live there just plain wouldn't let it happen.. They should concentrate on mostly just Mississippi and part of Louisiana-- relatively unpopulated, ocean port access, major river access, lots of arable land, lots of Christians. They should take over east Louisiana to take control of that side of the Mississippi all the way to the ocean. If I were them, I'd attempt a small nation carved out of Mississippi and east Louisiana and recruit like-minded folks to come live there. Forget all the other southern states-- the big dream would be to take LaPlace, Louisiana -- they'd own the largest volume shipping port in the western hemisphere.

Anonymous damntull October 15, 2013 1:27 PM  

@civilServant

The mechanism was historical nations with historical borders. The Soviet Union broke up not willy-nilly but into national identities that existed before the Soviet Union.

It’s absurd to assert that historical borders had anything to do with it. As Vox said, it’s the ethnic, cultural, and ideological identity of a people that drives change. It’s self-evident that we now have many different peoples, even many different nations, inside the borders of the “United States.”

Anonymous ZhukovG October 15, 2013 1:30 PM  

Any attempt to carve out a part of The South as some kind of African homeland would result in such an ethnic cleansing of Blacks as to make Bosnia look like a church social.

In fact, I suspect that as soon as the idea was seriously considered many rural Southern Blacks would loudly and publicly declare their opposition to any such thing while waxing eloquent about their deep and abiding love for their White neighbors.

Anonymous civilServant October 15, 2013 1:31 PM  

There is no such previous history in the United States.

Incorrect. Several different cultures developed in the colonies before the revolution.


Cultures are not nations. A nation is a culture able to carry the weight of independence. The cultures you cite are real but never once have they been free-standing and independent and thus they have no experience or means to be so. It is unlikely they will succeed at independence if it is thrust upon them.

The national identity of Mexico existed before the USA as you know.

Very true. But Mexicans never have been interested in California or Texas and never had more than a handful of people in those regions. In fact when Mexico separated from Spain the handful of Spaniards in California were ignored and even sided with the Americans when the Americans finally arrived. Mexicans then moved to California and Texas because of and for the money the Americans brought with them and not for any other reason whatsoever. If Americans ever leave California and Texas then the Mexicans will leave too.

The mechanism is violence.

Violence must be directed by nationalist objectives to achieve a nationalist goal. There are few nationalist objectives native to the United States.

Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 1:33 PM  

"Violence must be directed by nationalist objectives to achieve a nationalist goal. There are few nationalist objectives native to the United States."

Native has nothing to do with it.

Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 1:34 PM  

" A nation is a culture able to carry the weight of independence."

No one made any claims about longevity. The claims are about the splits. Not how long the individual states survive.

Anonymous civilServant October 15, 2013 1:34 PM  

The mechanism was historical nations with historical borders. The Soviet Union broke up not willy-nilly but into national identities that existed before the Soviet Union.

It’s absurd to assert that historical borders had anything to do with it. As Vox said, it’s the ethnic, cultural, and ideological identity of a people that drives change.


They of course required every driver you cite. The borders allowed them to say "Here. As it ever was." These justified and delimited and focused their efforts.

Anonymous 11B October 15, 2013 1:37 PM  

Can we just give Cali to Mexico for free? Please take it.

I am not saying we will keep everything intact, but I'd like to use our strength to try. The idea of capitulating to Mexico is crazy. Yes I know they have planted 12 million of her citizens into California. But the USA has a GDP almost 14 times larger. The USA has thousands of top of the line combat aircraft. Mexico has 10 fighter jets! That's right. They have ten 1970s era F-5 light fighters. The disparities on the ground are even worse.

So the thought of just handing over one of best pieces of real estate in the world to such a weak country, whose only weapon is unarmed, dimwitted peasants is ludicrous.

To paraphrase Madeleine Albright, what's the point of having this great military if you are not going to use it?

Anonymous Alexander October 15, 2013 1:41 PM  

The problem, 11 B, is not that I wouldn't mind fighting for California real estate.

It's that I don't particularly care to fight for it and then put it in the trust of the same group that were going about surrendering it in the first place.

I live 2,500 miles from that place - I'd rather the whole lot of them left me alone, white and hispanic.

Anonymous civilServant October 15, 2013 1:41 PM  

Native has nothing to do with it.

Sweet home in Alabama
Where the skies are blue ....

One of course may force a home anywhere. But this requires much ... cultural infrastructure? ... to succeed. You may feel you have that within you but it will require more than you yourself and a handful of others to succeed. But perhaps you will. Your area certainly has the best chance. It simply appears unlikely.

No one made any claims about longevity.

Oh. Well. If success is not an issue then of course the sky is the limit. "Until their meagre store of loot was consumed" and all that.

Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 1:42 PM  

"Oh. Well. If success is not an issue then of course the sky is the limit. "Until their meagre store of loot was consumed" and all that."

This indicates that you honestly have no perspective at all. What is success? All civilizations fall.

Blogger Kabooga October 15, 2013 1:44 PM  

California can be broken up into a few different states itself. I can see portions of Southern Cali becoming part of a greater Aztlan, but Northern Cali is very different.

Blogger Monadh October 15, 2013 1:45 PM  

Drop the speculation. Reality is I have over 300 years of family buried in the hills of North Georgia. I would be dead before it would become a part of New Africa, and the vast majority of North Georgians feel the same way. Excluding Atlanta which isn't worth a damn, Georgia would never surrender to that.

Anonymous civilServant October 15, 2013 1:46 PM  

The idea of capitulating to Mexico is crazy.

California was captured from Mexico with a battalion IIRC. Perhaps it will be relinquished to a gang chapter?

Anonymous Alexander October 15, 2013 1:46 PM  

How did Canada, Australia, The United States, New Zealand come to be? They were not pre-existing nations. They shared a very similar culture to their motherland. Yet here they are.

What about Quebec?

North America fits a different - though similar - set of rules from the Old World. State boundaries supplemented by geography will eventually suffice for historical sovereignty.

Not even taking into account of course the previous existence of the CSA, Republics of Texas and California, French Louisiana and Spanish Florida, New England, the original independent minded 13 colonies, or Deseret.

Anonymous civilServant October 15, 2013 1:48 PM  

Oh. Well. If success is not an issue then of course the sky is the limit. "Until their meagre store of loot was consumed" and all that.

This indicates that you honestly have no perspective at all. What is success? All civilizations fall.


If you believed that you would put down your gun.

Anonymous 11B October 15, 2013 1:51 PM  

The problem, 11 B, is not that I wouldn't mind fighting for California real estate.

It's that I don't particularly care to fight for it and then put it in the trust of the same group that were going about surrendering it in the first place.


No doubt the NAMs and self-hating whites in CA are bad. But presumably if there ever were a battle with Mexico to keep CA, I'd imagine the Mexicans in CA would be driven back to Mexico upon successful completion of that battle. The self-hating whites could be relegated to the status of the Confederate leaders after the Civil War, and the state could in effect have a reboot.

Keep in mind that although CA is off the charts for most of us, we the US taxpayers have pumped a lot into that state. Whether it is with the water system that we jointly created that allows CA to have a population greater than 5 million to the high tech research labs the Feds funded, we have invested too much to just let it go. How many other places in the US would have benefited from having a Lawrence Livermore National Lab? I am sure my home state and its flagship university would have loved to become such a tech center.

Anonymous whatever October 15, 2013 1:52 PM  

A Modest Racial Proposal

Reality is racist, and without some creative new proposal the US is destined for dystopia, race war, or worse. So here's a thought...

Pay each and every black one million US bernanke dollars to peacefully emigrate to Michigan. First make it voluntary, and then make it mandatory by tightening various tax screws and other (dis-)incentives to stay where they're currently at.

This will allow all blacks to get away from the evil clutches of YT and his endemically raaacisss meritocratic White civilization, a move which I'm sure will provide them with great psychological relief and surcease from feelhurt and other such suffering. Simultaneously, the rest of the nation can simply grant them a few trillions of bloc grants each year, no strings attached as to what they want to do with it, just as long as they keep to their side of the fence ("good fences make good neighbors"). There will also be a specific internal passports issued just for those vibrant new citizens of Michigan.

Every year, the dark state of Michigan can hold internal contests to identify their top performers in whatever, be it science, business, or entrepreneurship (to name but a few). The few select winners will then be allowed by the rest of the US to travel and reside for a limited basis outside of Michigan within the area of the normal non-vibrant US. Their stay will be limited to no more than 5 years, so that they can learn about life in the real meritocratic YT world, and the rest of us can partake of their oh-so-vibrant wonderfulness, but in limited doses of course. Then at the end of 5 years, they must on pain of arrest, prosecution, and forced deportation go back to their dear homeland of Michigan.

Is this over the top (short answer: NO)? Is it really so unworkable in light of myriad historical precedents like the partition of India and Pakistan, the formation of Bangladesh, the Great Wall, Hadrian's Wall, the Berlin Wall, Sudentland, etc., etc. I think that upon real analysis this will be a winner for everybody all around. Of course, the rabid left will immediately go into their normal screaming meemies, but so what, they've repeatedly proven that they're nothing but a bunch of irredeemable assholes marinated in their immaculate memes, narratives, and fantasies, and thus without any possible ability to ascertain the real world of reality-based feedback.

So, what say you?

Anonymous Harsh October 15, 2013 1:52 PM  

But, there is no serious move to formally (or in formally) create ethnic states in America. More importantly, there is no mechanism for this to happen. It's all just fantasy and Alternative History.

Because nothing in history has ever happened without a formal proposal. Seriously, do you stop and think before you post this nonsense or does it all just come vomiting out of your brain?

Anonymous Joe Doakes October 15, 2013 1:59 PM  

Minnesota and Wisconsin OUT-STATE are largely White, non-Hispanic, German/Scandinavian, hard-working, gun owning, tax paying, Christians. But Milwaukee is just Chicago North, Madison is Chicago North-Central, and Minneapolis is Chicago NorthWest. Pick your landing zone carefully.

Anonymous Alexander October 15, 2013 2:00 PM  

11B, I do get what you're saying and feel the frustration of how much we've spent only to see it pissed away.

But this is the same logic that leads to all Empires insisting that they *have* to hold onto such and such province. Let's say we push the Mexicans out and relegate anyone who ever lived in California to resident status.

Okay, great. But what about their kids? And what about the New England liberals who are still running things and were just lucky that geographic distance kept them out of the cross hairs. Within a generation you'll have the same groups poisoning the national through process once more.

And then our grandchildren will say they have to grin and bear it cause hey, their grandfathers fought a war to keep the damn place.

Either go in and exploit it as an eternal colony, or don't bother and just let it go.

Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 2:01 PM  

"If you believed that you would put down your gun."

That is perhaps the single most idiotic thing you've ever said. So because I believe civilizations fall... I shouldn't want to either A) Defend a civilization or B) Hasten that fall ?

Do you think at all before you comment?

Blogger ajw308 October 15, 2013 2:02 PM  

To paraphrase Madeleine Albright, what's the point of having this great military if you are not going to use it?
We have Mexico beat in nukes to, but they are about as useful in this conflict as fighter jets. The US already controls the airspace in North America. We're not fighting that kind of war.

All we need is our military to defend our borders like they are supposed to.

Anonymous DonReynolds October 15, 2013 2:02 PM  

There is no such previous history in the United States

Josh....."Incorrect. Several different cultures developed in the colonies before the revolution. Unless you're going to assert that colonial new England, new York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the Carolinas were all the same."

Does no one remember the Indian Territory? (now known as OKLAHOMA) Absolutely, a creation of this country as a place to dump American Indians.....yes, a distinct racial group. Even within Oklahoma, there exist to this day national capitals of the various INDIAN nations. Durant, for example, is the national capital of the Choctaw Indian nation, and yes, they take it very seriously. Elsewhere, there were Indian reservations in many of the states, which were self-governing territories under the authority of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Anonymous Alexander October 15, 2013 2:05 PM  

On the other hand, a number of other quotes throughout this thread are invaluable into insights about other historical issues. I imagine many a Czech once said,

"Sudety will never be ceded non-violently to any group. Industrially it is the Jewel of Bohemia."

Anonymous Josh October 15, 2013 2:09 PM  

Minnesota and Wisconsin OUT-STATE are largely White, non-Hispanic, German/Scandinavian, hard-working, gun owning, tax paying, Christians.

They are also progressives.

Anonymous DonReynolds October 15, 2013 2:23 PM  

For those who want to know, the South is divided into the Upper South and the Lower South (usually called the Deep South).
The Deep South seceeded from the Union before Lincoln took office.....South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.
The Upper South either did not seceed(*) or did so after Lincoln took office (precipitated by active warfare at Ft. Sumter and the collapse of the Crittenden compromise).......North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland*, Delaware*, Tennessee, Kentucky*, Arkansas, and Missouri*.
Yes, Tennessee is very much part of the Upper South. The last state to seceed and join the Confederacy, but has the distinction of being the Confederate state that provided the most troops for the Union army and also provided the most troops for the Confederate army. Pretty amazing, actually.
(Memphis is overrun with people from east Arkansas and north Mississippi on a daily basis, but it remains part of Tennessee.)

Anonymous Porky October 15, 2013 2:30 PM  

Elsewhere, there were Indian reservations in many of the states, which were self-governing territories under the authority of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

This sounds like great solution for the South. Establish the Bureau of Southron Affairs, let 'em open a few casinos, drink themselves toothless fat and illiterate, and make Paula Deen their President.

Win, win.



Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 2:37 PM  

"This sounds like great solution for the South. Establish the Bureau of Southron Affairs, let 'em open a few casinos, drink themselves toothless fat and illiterate, and make Paula Deen their President."

of course you're just being your typical dickheaded self... but never the less the point is a valid one. The Indians got a much better deal than the south did. I mean the North didn't enslave them for a decade.. nor did it spend the next 80 years indoctrinating them into believing that they were the bad guys and that everything is, and always will be, their fault. Because they are just so dumb you see.

Anonymous DonReynolds October 15, 2013 2:38 PM  

a_peraspera....."The national identity of Mexico existed before the USA as you know."

A false statement.
Perhaps you do not make a distinction between the Crown of Spain and Mexico. Spain ruled and occupied Mexico until 1820 ....only at that moment did Mexico exist and their claim to all other territories formerly occupied by Spain is not worth ten cents. The government of Mexico only existed ten or twelve years before the Texas war of independence, which is a very brief time to still be bellyaching about it almost two centuries later.
Try to keep the two governments separated. Mexico is in Mexico. Spain is in Europe.

Anonymous WaterBoy October 15, 2013 2:38 PM  

Nate: "I shouldn't want to either A) Defend a civilization or B) Hasten that fall ?"

I'm surprised you didn't mention C) Protect my family from the marauding hordes bound to arise from the ruins of that civilization.

It seemed to be the most obvious reason to have them once civilization falls.

Anonymous Carlotta October 15, 2013 2:41 PM  

Lived in SC. Cant see it happening there.

FYI
Only place I have had someone spit at me for holding my Husbands hand in public. Himself is not black, but was told by the friendlier whites "down here, your black".
It was flipped when we lived on an Island and everyone there hated my skin.

Its been fun. Guess we live in the right place if things split up.

Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 2:44 PM  

"Kentucky*"

Except Kentucky did secede.

Kentucky originally declared itself neutral.. but then the people learned that their government was sending ammo and guns to Ohio to help the yankees. The people of kentucky then abolished their government... formed a new government... and seceded.

They created what would become the Orphan Brigade. Called such after the state of kentucky was conquered by the yankee invaders... and the new government was thrown out in favor of one friendly to the North.

Anonymous Carlotta October 15, 2013 2:44 PM  

@ Porky
How is that a bad thing? I love Miss Paula's cooking :)

Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 2:44 PM  

There is actually a state monument on the grounds where the vote was taken to abolish the state government.

Its a tall obelisk. Vidad would not approve.

Anonymous Alexander October 15, 2013 2:48 PM  

In fairness to Maryland, it took arresting Confederate sympathizers in the state legislature, suspending habeus corpus, forcing the state's capital to move to union-friendly Fredricksburg, and then turning Fort McHenry's guns onto the city of Baltimore to get a vote against secession.

You know, because the Union wanted Freedom.

Anonymous Alexander October 15, 2013 2:50 PM  

Fredrick. I know Vox is against quibbling second posts for editing mistakes. But in the context of the Civil War that's a pretty important one...

Anonymous Porky October 15, 2013 2:57 PM  

The Indians got a much better deal than the south did. I mean the North didn't enslave them for a decade.. nor did it spend the next 80 years indoctrinating them into believing that they were the bad guys and that everything is, and always will be, their fault. Because they are just so dumb you see.

Apparently not as dumb as southrons. (Although you did turn running moonshine into a multibillion dollar a year spectacle.)

Just don't go off the reservation, Drunky.

Anonymous Porky October 15, 2013 2:59 PM  

How is that a bad thing? I love Miss Paula's cooking :)

I made her fried chicken just this weekend.

Anonymous Alexander October 15, 2013 3:14 PM  

Of course, we always get back to the issue:

If we southrons are so dumb and useless, why do Yankees insist on killing ours and theirs by the carload to keep us in?

If New England voted to secede tomorrow, I would not life a finger. And a bunch of smug assholes would tell me what an idiot I was and how much the rump USA would suck without them... but the fact is, I won't life a finger to keep them in, and they'd see me dead before they'd see me out.

Seems like that speaks for itself.

Anonymous Porky October 15, 2013 3:24 PM  

If we southrons are so dumb and useless, why do Yankees insist on killing ours and theirs by the carload to keep us in?

There's a myth that progressives have bamboozled you with to great effect. It goes like this: "Though we disagree politically, deep down we are all the same. We love America, we love freedom, we love our children and we want the best for our nation."

Progressives want power and authority. Period.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Anonymous Earl Ragnar Cheddarman October 15, 2013 3:25 PM  

The day shall come when I unleash my berserker army. We will baptize the northern lands in blood, and purify them by fire and sword. And then there will be peace.

Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 3:27 PM  

"Progressives want power and authority. Period. "

Yankee = progressive now?

And you call us dumb?

Anonymous DonReynolds October 15, 2013 3:29 PM  

Nate....."Except Kentucky did secede."

You are absolutely correct, of course. Kentucky did seceed (November 20, 1861) and so did Missouri (October 31, 1861). Both were admitted to the Confederacy later in the year. The Missouri state government was driven out of the capital by Union military forces and spent most of the rest of the war in exile in Marshall, Texas. The Kentucky confederate government was created at Bowling Green. In both cases, the Confederate government did not exercise control over the state.

Anonymous . October 15, 2013 3:32 PM  

If we southrons are so dumb and useless, why do Yankees insist on killing ours and theirs by the carload to keep us in?

If they didn't keep you on board with one war of aggression, then they couldn't have used you as cannon fodder in future wars of aggression (1898, 1917, 1941, 1965, 2003, etc.).

Anonymous Porky October 15, 2013 3:42 PM  

Yankee = progressive now?

And you call us dumb?


No, 'McDaniel's IQ Estimate By State' calls you dumb.

Your confusion merely underscores his results.

Blogger Nate October 15, 2013 3:47 PM  

"Your confusion merely underscores his results."

Well do be kind and explain then how it makes sense for you to be asked about yankees... and respond with a rant about progressives.

Anonymous Jonathan October 15, 2013 3:47 PM  

I don't see why people keep insisting that Golf Pro is Tad. Their writing style is highly dissimilar.

Anonymous Blume October 15, 2013 3:50 PM  

You do realize that the Assyrians were one of the most despotic governments ever and did Gods will in massacuring the jews. God repeatedly bitch slaps us to teach us lessons.

Anonymous Tawmmy from Quinzee October 15, 2013 3:52 PM  

Well do be kind and explain then how it makes sense for you to be asked about yankees... and respond with a rant about progressives.

BECAWSE YANKEES AH FACKING WICKED SMAHT BECAWSE OF HAHVAHD AND THE IVY LEAGUE! AND OWAH POPULATION HAS LESS DAHKIES THAN YOUWAHS!

Anonymous Porky October 15, 2013 3:57 PM  

Well do be kind and explain then how it makes sense for you to be asked about yankees... and respond with a rant about progressives.

The point, Drunky, was that "Yankees" are not the ones who want to kill you now. "Yankees" is just a convenient bogeyman for fat, drunk, Nascar lovin' southrons.

Get it now? Probly not.

Anonymous a_peraspera October 15, 2013 3:59 PM  

But Mexicans never have been interested in California or Texas and never had more than a handful of people in those regions.

Well they have a bit more than a handful now. And have you not heard of the Latino supremacist groups MECHA or La Raza? They are definitely interested in seizing the southwestern US, and their influence can only grow as more and more Latinos pour into the US.


In fact when Mexico separated from Spain the handful of Spaniards in California were ignored and even sided with the Americans when the Americans finally arrived.

Yes, because the Mexicans by then were more racially "indio" than white, so actual Spaniards would have felt more kinship with the folk of the US. This argument supports our position, not yours.


Mexicans then moved to California and Texas because of and for the money the Americans brought with them and not for any other reason whatsoever.

I doubt the Americans of the early 1800s showed up with huge amounts of money. Many left Europe with little but the clothes on their backs. But they did have what it took to work hard and build a civilization out of the southwestern deserts. Mexicans, like anyone else, prefer to live in places with good roads, hospitals, running water and open land to build a home. So do the blacks in Zimbabwe/South Africa. But when the blacks got enough power and numbers, they kicked out the whites and took all the hospitals, farms, etc for themselves. Once the Mexicans feel powerful enough they will do the same.

If Americans ever leave California and Texas then the Mexicans will leave too.

What do you mean – that they will go back to Mexico? They fled Mexico in the first place. Do you mean that when the whites leave, the Mexicans won’t be able to fend for themselves and will have to follow wherever the whites went in order to survive (presumably by leeching off the whites)? Sounds a bit RACISS!

Anonymous Alexander October 15, 2013 4:06 PM  

Nah, we all know what will happen. The vast majority will stay behind in the Estados Unidos de Tejas or whatever they end up calling it and grinding out a decreasing standard of living as the infrastructure collapses. Then a few 'really hard workers' who just want to help their families and give us the side benefit of nice restaurants(!) and fun music and taco holidays and cheap fruit will insist on their right to work and live in whatever anglo rump state is left.

And a bunch of civilservants will tell us what a capital idea this is - after all, without the EUT's, how would Anglos ever feed themselves?

1 – 200 of 250 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts