Now that I’ve gotten your attention with a meme, let’s talk business. I’ve written on American balkanization, White nationalism, and Anglo-American identity before, but here I would like to bring these together and elaborate on the ideal of a North American White ethnostate and some of its practical concerns. Provisionally, I will refer to this as the Amerikaner Free State, because I am a fan of the Amerikaner neo-ethnonym and in retrospect think Anglo-American sounds too academic and less organic. Regardless of what sticks, what matters most is getting away from the anti-identity we are told to pencil in by the US Census, i.e. “non-Hispanic White.” No self-respecting ethnic group identifies itself primarily as non-x. We have to take control of our identity and consciousness before we can control anything in the material world, and we cannot do that if we are denied a positive identity, which every other group is encouraged to possess.
For Ourselves and Posterity
Why do we need a new state? Our original state on this continent was founded in 1776 on the basis of protecting “the rights of Englishmen,” who were unable to secure these rights living as divided colonial subjects of the king of Britain. For better or worse, the colonists banded together and opted to sever their political ties with the European metropolis. But what they did not do was renounce their identity as a European people, nor did their new state seek to undo this. Among our earliest laws passed within a generation of independence were statutes limiting citizenship and immigration to “free White persons of good character.” And so the Amerikaner was born, melding the liberty of the English, the strength of the Scots, the homesteading of the Germans, the luck of the Irish, the labor of the Italian, and so forth. A free White nation was brought forth into the world.
For generations, the Americans at home and abroad were understood to be a European people speaking a common English language. This identity formed the foundation of our Anglo-American culture until 1965, when the infamous (((Hart-Celler Act))) was passed by Congress. An act of racial treason against the historical American nation, the native-born English-speaking White majority. It opened the floodgates and continues to threaten us and our posterity with the loss of our homeland and culture. We were of course told this would not happen, that immigration was not going to change the ethnic composition of the United States. It was a lie, and like all lies it must perish.
Over the last few decades, the US government has facilitated White minoritization—there are less of us as a share of the population each year as a result of mass non-White immigration. The United States may have a population of over 300 million people, but Whites only number about 200 million, and most population growth since 1965 has come from immigration, an overwhelmingly non-white process. If nothing changes, this will result in our political dispossession and not long thereafter the end of Amerikaners as a people. We are projected to lose majority status by the 2040s. But we need not wait that long to experience the deleterious effects of demographic change, as we are already living with the consequences—nearly all electoral politics now revolves around appealing to ethnic voter blocs. The left projects it will have a permanent majority in a few more presidential cycles, on the backs of immigrants and people of color.
A transformation of this nature without provoking any sort of conflict would be unprecedented in all of human history. Would any non-Western society ever stand for this? Not even a century ago we wouldn’t have either. We must shatter the false consciousness that has been impressed upon our people since the triumph of hostile anti-white forces in 1945. From Germany to Britain, from France to the United States, the story is the same—White people are collectively evil for "racism" and can atone by supporting the colonization of their homelands by designated victim ethnic groups. It's less about pathological altruism and more about a hostile elite gaslighting us to serve their interests.
The American Empire is a third-worldist country that puts us last; at best it doesn’t care if we are destroyed and at worst it is actively pursuing our destruction. Just how much malevolence, as opposed to ignorance, has played a role in the demographic transition taking place is debatable, but the social contract is undeniably broken and the colorblind consensus shattered. We live under an anarcho-tyranny in which wrong is right and the law is anti-White. Pocket editions of the Constitution are waved in our faces by disingenuous abusers of our iconography and legal system, who seek to advance their tribal interests at the blatant expense of ours. Numerous departments of our government are staffed and run by people who hate us and want us replaced, such as Housing and Urban Development. This cannot continue, and the only way to put a stop to it is for our people to become independent of the Empire. We owe nothing to a system that wants to take everything from us. Those who look upon you with genocidal intent for political gains are not friends, no matter their color.
The White Ethnostate as Liberation from the United States
I hesitate to call it inevitable, but taking a historical perspective it seems that our multi-ethnic country is destined to fall, and probable that it will break along lines of tribal identity. The United States—as a transcontinental and contiguous state encompassing multitudes of people, having sizable and distinct ethnic and/or racial groups, possessing a large and powerful military, being governed by a strong centralized bureaucracy and maintaining a hegemonic position over other states—is an Empire, And as an Empire, it will fall. The United States has become the Austria-Hungary of the 21st century, a polyglot Empire of diverse populations that do not see eye to eye politically, socially, culturally, etc. Or maybe it is more akin to the Ottoman Empire, with our elite following a hostile creed and being completely alien to us in culture and manners, even if they share some of our genes from years of co-habitation. And are we not rewarded for serving them and betraying our own ethnic interests, like janissaries of the post-modern world?
I believe that partition of the United States is a likely outcome, and moreover a beneficial outcome. Much of the political gridlock and culture war in this country is derived from ethnic or racial differences and divergent ideologies. Whether it’s social policies, media representation, interactions with the police, ideas about government size, or any number of contemporary issues, they are all rooted in identities in some way, shape or form. And that's only the cold aspects of this conflict—a haphazard post-1970s resegregation has prevented larger-scale interracial violence.
The division—or collapse—of the United States into several successor states along nationalist principles would help solve this issue. If we are lucky, we will get a nice conference with lawyers and politicians. If we are not so lucky, will will get frontlines.
Ethno-nationalism would end racial identity politics and allow us to move left or right as we please without having to deal with kingmaker ethnic blocs, e.g. Republicans and Democrats desperately trying to win “the Latino vote,” by advocating for mass immigration and amnesty for violating our border. Or consider how one party openly wants to hamstring our police so that its precious black voters aren’t turned off. This is insanity, and as civilized people, we must not be ruled by insane directives. It is brutally obvious that the different ethnic and racial identity groups of this country wish for different realities. So why not go our separate ways?
Enter the Amerikaner Free State, a homeland for the English-speaking European people of North America, of whom there are enough to populate three Britains (or thirty Irelands). Let California go do their thing; we don't need bastions of multiracial managerial liberalism inside our homeland. Partition or balkanization ideally entails division of the United States into nation states and multicultural/multi-ethnic states depending on what groups are concentrated where. Diverse parts of the the United States would simply become diverse countries—little Weimerica Shopping Centers—as opposed to following the current trajectory of making the entire country resemble New York City.
This is the most peaceful method of carving up the Empire, and would require the least amount of force and deportation. It would also prevent a future civil war, the casualties of which would be completely atrocious and rival any of the great man-made disasters of the 20th century or of Chinese history.
An ethno-nationalist successor state like the Amerikaner Free State would have a large ethnic majority a foundational mission to guide and preserve the nation. Nativism and pro-natalist policies will be enacted, the border will be enforced, and there may be a tendency toward autarky. This would be economically inefficient, but the modus operandi of nationalism is neither profit maximization nor a monomaniacal focus on quarterly growth, but national liberation, survival, and regeneration. The hostile doctrines of marxism and neoliberalism must be abolished. Without a majoritarian state that rejects the current paradigms of third-worldism and GDP-before-goyim, we will be destroyed.
An End to Strangers in a Strange Land
Some argue that creating a White ethnostate in the United States is a non-starter because there are so many non-whites. But a White ethnostate is not the same thing as creating an all-White United States. It’s also worth remembering that no sufficiently large and complex society has ever been 100% any single group, though critics would do well to remember that the most ethnically fractured societies have been some of the most oppressive. For instance, the leftist- and Jewish-lauded Umayyad and Ottoman Muslim empires were built explicitly upon a concept of second-class citizenship for infidels. Vedic India and Colonial Mexico had racial caste hierarchies. Ultimately our goal is far more moral and humane than many currently realize—to put an end to the out-of-control expansion of an inevitably oppressive society that people across the political spectrum despise. No people desire a foreign yoke, and in a country without a majority, everyone is a foreigner.
In the Amerikaner Free State, it would be government policy to promote the majoritization of the Amerikaner population through White immigration and natalism, not to promote our colonization by the third world. We shall end the politics of suicide and reverse the top-down imposed program of turning our people into strangers in a strange land, where by legal fiction everyone belongs but no one feels at home.
This will not happen overnight. A small percentage of ethnic minorities will inevitably exist in an ethno-nationalist country, but this does not mean the society will be multicultural or promote disintegration. It will do the opposite. If history and our lived experiences in this lifetime are anything to go by, demographics can be changed from the top through state policy. In the Amerikaner Free State, foreigners could not expect the same rights, privileges, guarantees, or preferences they would have under their own nation states, or a xenophile multiculturalist state. Just as foreigners in China, Japan, India, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and most other countries are not treated like precious lordlings, the Amerikaner Free State will value its citizens first and the "citizens of the world" last. I imagine many recent arrivals to our lands will not be particularly keen on staying if their privileges are cut off. They have their own homelands which can receive them. Moreover, we will not be receiving any newcomers from those places in any substantial numbers, possibly no numbers.
And are they happy here? Do they enjoy hunkering down in ethnic ghettos to avoid those racist gringos and the gweilo? Are they happy when their sons and daughters come home with White (or black!) boyfriends and girlfriends, when they swear like truck drivers, when they dress like tramps and whores, when they eat like slobs, when they are embarrassed to speak their mother tongue, when they abandon their religion, etc.? When we say we want to exclude these foreigners from our collective, which has its own issues of degeneracy to overcome, we are equally advocating that these people return to their ancestral ways of life that were in harmony with centuries of their own development as peoples. The United States as it exists now is a cultural nightmare for everyone involved, and has been for some time.
Self-deportation and repatriation would be encouraged through financial incentives—perhaps covered by a fund set up as one of the last acts of the unitary United States government—or through economic pressure. In fact, using both would work fine. As I said before, a small amount of non-whites would undoubtedly remain in our largest cities and ports. Cities and ports are by their nature as centers of trade diverse, but today we see a perversion of that. In the medieval and ancient worlds, outsiders had their own “quarter” in a city (often not literally 25% of the city but much less)—now it is the natives who have a quarter of the city while the rest is in the hands of outsiders. And those outsiders frequently have more political and economic power than the natives. Asians have the highest median household income of any racial group. Jews are the wealthiest "religious" group. When we praise immigrants for creating new companies and start-ups, to an outside observer we must sound insane (or like easy marks for a predatory tribe). Could you imagine the Powhatan tribe praising the tobacco production of the English planters of colonial Virginia? This is no way for a nation to allow its cities to be run.
Foreign resident minorities—as non-whites would be considered in the Amerikaner Free State—would be completely ineligible for any kind of social or governmental programs, severely limited in their ability to own land or businesses, required to be self-sufficient, and politically debarred from participation in government. And of course, there would be no birthright citizenship or further mass immigration allowed.
This is the model of decolonization that essentially already exists around the world. Could you or I clandestinely enter Japan and then petition to be made into a Japanese national with full rights as a citizen? What about Israel?
The Amerikaner Free State would mitigate population and labor losses from non-white emigration or repatriation through the immigration of our kinsmen from beyond our borders, with the long-term goal of total Europeanization of our demographics. There will be tremendous potential to accomplish this task, as millions of our people would be left outside the borders of any hypothetical White ethnostate. For instance, more Whites live as a minority in California than as a majority in West Virginia. While some of them would choose to stay “abroad” for whatever reasons they may have in what is becoming a de facto Mexican province, many would ultimately move. White flight already exists internally and if the contemporary behavior is any indicator of privately-held racial attitudes of Whites, they probably would immigrate with the right mix of push and pull factors. We have a foundational tradition of receiving European immigrants and assimilating them into our national and regional cultures, so Europe is another potential source for outside growth (though unnecessary, given how poorly Europe is doing right now).
The creation of an Amerikaner homeland would be the greatest fulfillment of our Founders’ call to govern for ourselves and our posterity. And it would put our political purpose back on the track that was first laid at Jamestown and which was derailed in 1965—to make a European society in the New World. That is the true American value we ought to honor, that of our blood and soil. We cannot do this in a society which forbids our freedom of association with one another under the penalty of forced diversification, repressive taxation, and cultural poisoning. It can only be done through the creation of a national safe space, as millions of former subjects of Empire have done around the world. As a nation of settlers, we have built states before. We must do so once more.
A White Proposition
The United States was founded as a White country. The Founding Fathers were as much aristocratic republicans or paleolibertarians as they were settler-colonial nationalists. They revolted against the Crown specifically because “their rights as Englishmen” had been violated—not their inalienable and universal UN-proclaimed "human rights." Identity mattered to them as much as liberty. If the press could interview the Founding Fathers or any pre-1960s national leaders on their racial views today, they would deem them Evil Nazi White Supremacists.
Proposition nationalism is an anachronistic graft onto what was an overtly racialist society. And until 1965, there was a general trend of the United States becoming whiter each decade from European immigration. In 1790, we made up 80.7% of the population; by 1950 we peaked at 87.5%. This was a result of state policy.
In 1790, Congress passed a naturalization act that could only be described as White nationalist:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States... And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States... United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (1790).
A 1795 law made these rules even longer and stricter. In 1862, when the country had become much larger and was experiencing non-European immigration on its west coast, the California legislature passed an "Anti-Coolie Act." But that's kind of vague isn't it? The full title was "An Act to Protect Free White Labor Against Competition With Chinese Coolie Labor, and To Discourage the Immigration of the Chinese into the State of California."
The same people who wanted the territories to be "free" and not "slave" did not want the plantation system extended into the western United States, which was envisioned as a preserve for the White race, a place for the White laborer to achieve prosperity and spread American civilization. That meant, rightfully, keeping out unpaid black slaves as well as wage-undercutting Chinese migrants. In 1882 there was a federal Chinese Exclusion Act passed which did exactly what it sounds like, though had to be renewed every ten years. So in 1892, the federal Geary Act was passed, written by California Congressman Thomas J. Geary, and in addition to renewing the 1882 law, required the Chinese population to essentially register with the government.
But being a people of laws, the Americans decided they needed to exclude the Chinese again:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the following classes of aliens shall be excluded from emission into the United States, in accordance with the existing acts regulating immigration, other than those concerning Chinese laborers: all idiots, insane persons, paupers or persons likely to become a public charge, persons suffering from a loathsome or a dangerous contagious disease, persons who have been convicted of a felony or other infamous crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, polygamists, and also any person whose ticket or passage is paid with the money of another or who is assisted by others to come, unless it is affirmatively and satisfactorily shown on special inquiry that such person does not belong to one of the foregoing excluded classes. United States Congress, "Immigration Act of 1891" (1891).
Asian Americans are now considered the highest median household income earners in the United States according to the census. Were our forebears on to something? T. Lothrop Stoddard certainly felt that way, writing in The Rising Tide of Color (1921) that "when removed to the easier environment of other lands, the Chinaman brings with him a working capacity which simply appals [sic] his competitors."
More laws were passed. The Immigration Act of 1917, in addition to creating an "Asiatic barred zone" that banned immigration from a swath of the globe encompassing everything between Turkey and the Philippines, also banned illiterates, invalids, "idiots," and insane, disabled, or diseased people, echoing much of 1891's law. The Immigration Act of 1921 set up a national origins quota system based on the 1910 census that favored Northern Europe over Southern and Eastern Europe (which was intended to protect the homogeneity of the population and keep out Italian criminals and Jewish socialists). More immigration slots would thus be available for people from Britain, Ireland, and Germany than say Italy or the Soviet Union (Russia). The rest of the world was also de facto banned since Chinese immigration was already illegal as was Japanese, and 1910s America contained virtually no non-native blacks or non-European immigrant groups that could be counted in quotas. But lawmakers decided that wasn't strict enough and so the Immigration Act of 1924 rolled back to the 1890 census, when there were even fewer foreign-born persons from outside Northern Europe, and thus their nations of origin would receive even fewer slots. History showed that throttling Italian migration allowed them to assimilate into the greater White population (along with Slavs and other newer immigrants from Europe), while the Jews remained a nation inside a nation (as they have been for over 2000 years). Pick your immigrants carefully.
To summarize, every few decades—if not more frequently—American legislatures declared that theirs was a White nation and that they would not accept the mass migration of Orientals or other non-whites, poor or poorly behaved Mediterranean and Slavic Europeans, or Jews. Well until Senator (((Jacob Javits))), Rep. (((Emanuel Celler))), and their shabbos goyim had their way in 1965 with the Hart-Celler Act. We were told that ending the national origins quotas wouldn't radically change our society. But it did. Now we are being told to deal with it. And we should deal with it by creating a new state.
The Case of Zionism and Surrogate Nationalism
We are not alone in being a nation founded through settler colonialism. Zionism, or Jewish nationalism in Palestine, has given rise to the modern state of Israel. The Jewish state is much respected by Americans, despite little acknowledgement of any similarities beyond “democracy,” and no acknowledgement of the crucial distinction that Israel is nationalist while the United States is globalist. Israel is a Jewish ethnostate—you have to be Jewish to immigrate there and the state actively encourages Jewish migration to metropolitan Israel as well as Jewish colonization of the West Bank. In fact, prior to massive backlash from the rest of the world, Israel once had settlers in the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula, the latter having since been returned to Egypt decades ago.
During our own period of mass settlement, from the 1790s until the 1880s, the vast interior of this country and the West Coast were colonized by Germans, Irishmen, Appalachians, New Englanders, Scandinavians, Poles, and others, who came to adopt the national identity of English-speaking White Americans. Similarly, Israel is amalgamation of the world’s Jews: Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Mizrahim, etc., who came from places as distant as Algeria and Russia to colonize Palestine and make it into their own country and adopt a new nationality, Israeli (and resurrected language, Hebrew). The Israeli is a settler colonist and a nationalist, and so too is the Amerikaner.
Many of our people claim to support or “stand with” Israel, while having no simultaneous feelings for their own ethnic nation. Israel is thus a surrogate nation for such people. The Israeli struggle to hold the Levant is ongoing (and their own problem). Yet it is viewed as totally legitimate by the American Empire, which sends Israel billions of our tax dollars annually. We need our people to understand their own heritage and history, and to embrace their own nation over that of foreigners. Why care more about the survival of Israel than the survival of your own kind? We more or less had fully pacified this country by the 1880s, and had made it 85.6,% White before the Civil War. There is no question that we have a claim to this land, because we have certainly held it continuously longer than Jews have formed a majority in and governed "Israel." Yet the claim to a "Jewish state" is seen as sacrosanct.
The United States was a European settler-colonial nation, a White nation. The “frontier thesis” is essentially correct—America was created by (White) people expanding into the frontier, and not just through political theories and propositions. Ours was a European nation in a new land, not some purely civic proposition. It is only since 1965 that we’ve had our nation-state completely undone. If the Israelis have a right to create one and defend it, we certainly have the right and moral imperative to take ours back, or barring that create a new one on this continent. Those who admire Israel for its muscular nationalism and take-no-shit attitude should adopt said attitude themselves instead of projecting their emotions onto a surrogate nation and conducting wars on its behalf.
The lyrics of the Israeli national anthem, the Hatikvah, are as follows:
As long as in the heart, within, A Jewish soul still yearns, And onward, towards the ends of the east, an eye still gazes toward Zion; Our hope is not yet lost, The hope two thousand years old, To be a free nation in our land, The land of Zion and Jerusalem.
Do you not have an American soul and an eye gazing towards our great Manifest Destiny? Have you the hope to be a free nation in our land? This is what nationalism sounds like. Not (((give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore))).
Independence or Losing Ground?
The Amerikaner Free State, as you have probably noticed, does not exist, and its proposed territory is a truncated form of the United States. This poses two immediate issues depending on one’s frame of reference, becoming independent from the United States versus ceding territory of the United States. I am of the opinion that we will be doing the former. The United States is no longer ours. Our culture has become decoupled from its culture. Its territory is not ours to give or take. Its major cities are populated with foreigners. Its coasts are colonized by non-Whites. A minority of births in the Empire are to our people. In a couple of decades, it will be demographically impossible for a hypothetical Amerikaner identitarian/nationalist party to be voted into the federal government and initiate an ethno-nationalist partition program, to say nothing of a more milquetoast alt-right platform. If even every one of us voted for an ethno-nationalist candidate he would not win.
We don’t have this authority now, and it will be impossible to obtain it in the future conventionally. The catastrophe of diversity plus proximity will be the catalyst for imperial collapse, and we will need to have rekindled our racial consciousness by then to take advantage of it, lest we perish into the black night of history. We won’t be granting independence to the multiracial lands of the Northeast Megalopolis, California, and Dindustan; we will be declaring our independence from them.
Conversely, the “ceding territory” perspective comes from the notion that the entire United States is our racial patrimony. From a historical perspective, it truly was our Manifest Destiny. But undeniably, great swathes of this country have shifted from being Amerikaner to being pales of settlement of the nations of Africa, Latin America, Asia, and Judaea.
Can anyone truly say the ideal situation is to keep these regions inside an Amerikaner ethnostate? Would they have us implement a caste system? Such a configuration literally never lasts and history is ripe with examples of the collapse of these systems and the submersion of the ruling racial caste into the lower levels of the pyramid. To our south we see the legacy of such a prospect, from the Rio Grande to Tierra del Fuego. What made the Anglo settler colonies successful in the first place was their high degree of racial unity.
So no, we cannot “keep” places where every other person or more isn’t White. It is completely foolish to think we can or should retain lands where we are a minority, implement some kind of neo-Jim Crow, and call it a day. We know where that leads to. There will certainly be places where a small number minorities are present, such as port cities or major metro areas, but we cannot have entire regions annexed to the ethnostate which are nearly devoid of Amerikaners. We don’t have the birthrates to take these places back and are barely maintaining the White interior. If anything, the Amerikaner Free State will need White migration from the “lost territories” to strengthen its internal demographics, as I have suggested earlier. Administering foreign-majority territories outright would have the opposite effect, mongrelizing the Amerikaner Free State’s demographics.
Even if President Trump were to establish a nationalist deep state, it would only buy us time and allies in the government, not Make America White Again. We have to think on a much larger timescale to succeed than four-year intervals.
We need a state where Amerikaners are the unquestionable majority and the undisputed governing elite. We need to regroup, we need to revitalize, and we need to reconstruct a tribal identity in a society where we aren’t plagued with a rising tide of color. We need a state where the entire national habitat is ours and we aren’t being encroached upon. Ultimately the exact borders are not important; what is important is that borders exist between the Amerikaners and the outlanders. This should be done in the most peaceful way possible, because our goal is to ameliorate racial conflict. And so we cannot under any circumstances recreate the conditions that led to our current predicament.
The Eternal Struggle in Context
The American Empire is being overtaken by outgroups and we no longer have the will to maintain our authority over it along ethnocentric lines or even to maintain ourselves as the majority. Our elites hire foreign mercenaries to staff even the most basic jobs in our society while our own fertility and cultural expression is suppressed. Our children are a minority.
Within this context, for some it is dishonorable and rage-inducing to think we may have to lose swathes of this country to other tribes when it has been ours for centuries. Additionally insulting is that we haven’t even lost it through war; did the rest of the world invade the United States and impose settlement in our cities? No, they were let in. But much like the sprinkling of Muslim populations across the Balkans is a legacy of the Ottoman Empire, it would seem as if a ((((foreign conqueror)))) had ruled and colonized the American Empire at some point. How else did all these foreign enclaves get here?
Globalization has been a demographic disaster. (((1965))) was a disaster. There is thus a bitter taste to the very idea of secession from what was once almost entirely ours, a gut reaction that it is injustice. Many White nationalists feel this way, but they are outnumbered by some 100 million non-whites living in what we call the United States and their liberal White allies.
We shouldn’t see the perceived territorial loss that would come with independence as the end. First of all, that is an imperial perspective, and the Empire is not ours. Moreover, if one thing is certain in the historical time that peoples and empires occur in, it is the eternal struggle. Triumphs are grand, but grandeur ends up in a museum if it is not fought for. Temporary victories can be declared periodically as contests for mastery are won, but the idea of a total Victory, the end of struggle and the creation of a utopian order, is pure nonsense. Our difficulties do not end with the establishment of an ethnostate, and our grandeur does not end with the United States. They will never end, because life itself is the struggle for existence. No people or system can insulate themselves from this reality, for so long as life exists, the living must fight for it.
The loss of White mastery over the North American continent is not a permanent reversal of fortunes. Like victories, defeats are too periodical, though of course there can be a final Defeat of one’s identity group—being reduced from biology to history. In fact, that is the only way to end the eternal struggle, to cease struggling for survival altogether. The end of the United States, as with the end of any Empire, is the culmination of defeats into one grand Defeat. We are not obligated to go down with the ship. We must take on an active and collective role during its demise if we want to be masters of our own domain the day after tomorrow. The future belongs to men against time.
In my writings on partition and secession I try to balance my LARPy visions with what I honestly find to be the most plausible. And I think our multi-ethnic empire cannot survive and that identity-based secessionism will be what succeeds it in the event of a government collapse, either from a loss of will, ability to project power and enforce authority, etc. It would be short-sighted to imagine that a White ethnostate will be the perpetual end product of such collapse, however. For those who believe in an White right to North America as imperium there is perhaps a silver lining. Similar things have happened in the past. In particular, I look to the Spanish Reconquista for inspiration as to how the distant future may unfold.
In the early eighth century, Visigothic Spain—which had succeeded Rome as the indigenous European power in Iberia—was conquered by the invading “Moors,” an amalgamation of Muslim Arabs and Berbers from North Africa. Well, most of it. Beyond the mountains of northern Spain, a small European principality—the Kingdom of Asturias—emerged under the banner of Pelagius, whose army defeated the Umayyads in a skirmish. The Visigoths and Hispano-Romans had lost control of their country and retrenched into a toehold of Iberia, a White enclave surrounded by hostile occupiers. That was the only notable holdout against the foreign hordes and their (((coincidental collaborators))).
But it wasn’t Asturias that reconquered Iberia, and Asturias wasn’t the end of White Europeans in Iberia. The Whites who retook the peninsula came not as Visigoths or Hispano-Romans. They were Castilians, Catalans, Leonese, Galicians, Portuguese—finally amalgamated into Spaniards.
The Reconquista was a seven hundred year process. Similarly, I think our race will survive on this continent through the existence of an Amerikaner ethnostate, even if it would be a vestigial remnant of the United States. This ethnostate would incubate the future of our race and produce a much more tribalistic, ethnocentric, and biologically fit people.
Should our successors wage their own Reconquista, they will likely not go as we are now. Their customs, manners and languages can and will shift in ways we cannot control. History has vindicated many such transformations—it wasn’t the Visigoths with their Roman serfs that mustered enough strength to destroy Islam in Iberia and drive it back into Africa and to expel the traitorous Hebrews, it was Spain. As Whites currently stand in the United States, I see no immediate evidence that we have the culture and customs needed to revitalize at a high enough level. We will have to stop being Romans and start being Spaniards.
So to those looking at secession as surrender, I don’t think it’s that clear cut. The loss of territory also allows for a much needed retrenchment and rebuilding of national and racial solidarity. That in turn enables a Reconquista, something we are unable to mobilize for in our current state of decline and decadence. It’s something that may even be lifetimes away. There is a process to go through here. Hard times will create strong men.
And don't get too caught up in wondering about the borders of this future state. We can't settle these questions yet. Just get used to the idea that it will be smaller than the United States. I don't know how much of the South is going to be triracialized, or how much of New York will spill over into the surrounding states, or how degenerate the Pacific Northwest will become. But the ethnostate will be superior Weimerica, because we will have our own legend cycles to fulfill. We will have a national project to fulfill. We will have abolished the politics of passive suicide and embraced higher-order values.
An Amerikaner ethnostate could be our Asturias, though perhaps this is a dire case scenario. The White ethnostate that succeeds the American Empire could just as well be more analogous to the independence of Turkey from the Ottoman Empire—a regional power rather than a total rump state. We have the numbers and enough contiguous territory to pull that off and our descendants would still be in a position to launch a hypothetical reconquest if they desired such. Ultimately two things are certain: that we cannot know the future with certainty and that it will not happen overnight. And of course, the struggle for survival continues whether we want it to or not.
And so the ethnostate will come, regardless of whether we live to witness it. Let us work towards it.
Also published at Atlantic Centurion.