49. Just Say Yes

 Secession. Can it really happen? Most Americans would say “no”.

But I say “yes”.  

Because secession is happening. It’s happening all over the world. As the universalism of the Global Luciferian Revolution begins to bite, nationalism is biting back. Examples of nationalist movements abound: Jobbik in Hungary; the Catalonian and Basque separatist movements in Spain; Lega Nord, advocating a Padania independent of Italy;  the powerful Flemish and Waloon separatists of Belgium; South Africa’s Volkstaat and Cape Republic advocates; and many more,  on every inhabited continent of the world. Here in North America, secessionist and nationalist groups have appeared as well, from Quebec to Puerto Rico, from Hawaii to Vermont, and everywhere in between.

Among the most advanced of these new nationalist movements — and, for us Whites in America, perhaps the most relevant — is the nationalist movement of Scotland.

Scotland, as everyone knows, is part of the United Kingdom. But the UK is growing less united year by year. Independence and nationalist movements have arisen across Britain, from Cornwall to Yorkshire and from Wales to Essex. Among them, however, the Scottish nationalist movement stands as the greatest and most successful.

Scotland, an independent nation from time immemorial, was united to England by concurrent acts of the English and the Scottish parliaments in 1706 and 1707 respectively. These Acts of Union led to the integration of the two national parliaments and made Scotland a part of the unitary state known today as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

But today, thanks to decades of political effort by the Scottish National Party (SNP) and other groups, this union of three hundred years may be nearing its end. Since 1998, Scotland has had  its own parliament in Edinburgh, which has over the past fifteen years assumed from the UK certain national powers —  a process called “devolution”.

Now Scotland’s nationalist movement is moving toward its endgame. In January 2012 the Scottish government announced a referendum to be held in the fall of 2014. This referendum will propose two courses of action with regard to Scottish nationalism: a “devo max” proposition, taking the devolution process to its limit while keeping Scotland within the UK; and a proposition for full independence.  According to the Scottish Government, a “double yes” majority vote in this referendum will obligate the Scottish and UK parliaments to “act on the expressed will of the Scottish people”, presumably by dissolving the Act of the Union of 1707 and creating an independent Scottish state.

In May 2012, the SNP launched a publicity campaign to garner widespread support for a majority “double yes” vote in this referendum. This campaign, called Yes Scotland, is centered upon obtaining the signatures of one million Scots upon the Yes Declaration, a statement of principles underlying a “yes” vote in the 2014 referendum.

The Yes Declaration states:

I believe it is fundamentally better for us all, if decisions about Scotland's future are taken by the people who care most about Scotland, that is, by the people of Scotland. 

Being independent means Scotland's future will be in Scotland's hands. 

There is no doubt that Scotland has great potential. We are blessed with talent, resources and creativity. We have the opportunity to make our nation a better place to live, for this and future generations. We can build a greener, fairer and more prosperous society that is stronger and more successful than it is today. 

I want a Scotland that speaks with her own voice and makes her own unique contribution to the world: a Scotland that stands alongside the other nations on these isles, as an independent nation.

Yes Scotland reports that over 100,000 Scots have signed the Yes Declaration as of September 2012.

What lessons can we learn from the Scottish example?

The first is that nationalism can succeed only when centered upon an actual nation — a society within defined and recognized borders and a populace united by a national identity (ties of ethnicity, language, and culture).

As a White nationalist, I advocate for the establishment of an explicitly and constitutionally White ethnostate here in America.  I recognize, however, that the odds of this state being realized within the near future are small. White identity in America has been lost; until it can be rediscovered, most White Americans’ primary loyalty will remain with the state which they call home, not with the White Diaspora in America.

Bearing this in mind, I hold that a constitutionally White ethnostate will not be possible in the near term. Any secession from the federal entity will be in terms of the extant fifty American states, or some combination of same.

Among the fifty states, four — Hawaii, Texas, Vermont, and Alaska — boast active and vital nationalist movements, with Hawaii’s being perhaps the most advanced among these. Puerto Rico, while not a state, also has a large and powerful independence movement. But the primary candidate for secession from the federal entity is that loose union of states once known as the Confederate States of America.

With their defeat and physical conquest by the forces of the federal Union in the War Between the States, the states of the southern Confederacy were forcibly re-incorporated into the United States of America. Yet, despite armed conquest, decades of occupation, the destruction of traditional manual agriculture, the forced integration of her White and Black populations, and the homogenization of culture and lifestyles by means of highways, capitalism, and the mass media, the South never really ceased to exist. Millions of people identify as Southerners, Rebels, and Confederates to this day. The Confederate battle flag still flies from state houses to front porches across the South. And the unique culture of the South, from home cookin’ to the various dialects of Southern English, testify to the enduring existence of the Confederacy as a living entity.

But does the continuing existence of the South qualify it as a true nation? And, if so, might this nation somehow move toward a new, independent Confederacy — a Republic of Dixie?

I believe the answer to both of these questions is “yes”.  By the definition of “nation” I have outlined above, Dixie is certainly a nation. It is a society within defined and recognized borders — the borders of the former C.S.A.. It is united by a national identity: European ethnicity, the English language, and Christian culture. All Dixie lacks is its independence, and a government of some kind. One assumes that  a government along the lines of that enjoyed by the former Confederate States of America could be established in a fairly straightforward manner should circumstances permit.

What the South needs, then, is independence. How to get it?

I believe the Scottish model could be a useful means toward this end.

The first step towards an independent Dixie would be to set up a credible Southern political movement, independent of all other parties and struggling for the reconstitution of the South as an independent and sovereign state. Whether this new Southern state is to be called the Confederate States of America, the Republic of Dixie, or by some other name is irrelevant at the outset. The primary goal of the Dixie nationalist movement is to establish a Southern identity among the people of the nation — that is, to dis-alienate and raise the consciousness of the people of the South.

I believe that this step is well under way. The League of the South and other groups have done yeoman work in raising national consciousness among Southerners over the past decade. Now, with the ever-increasing centralization of government by the federal entity, and with the increasing demographic and electoral dominance of non-Whites and non-Southerners, more and more residents of Dixie will be driven to the realization that they are part of a separate nation — a nation with interests the federal entity will not protect.Once ten percent or so of the people of the Southland come to this realization, the second step can be taken.

The second step that should be taken is the establishment of a Southern nationalist party. Like the Scottish National Party, this group (call it the Dixie National Party, or DNP) would be legally incorporated and would run candidates for state and local elective offices on an explicitly pro-Dixie platform. No mention of outright independence should be made in the early days of this process; the objective should be to put pro-Southern candidates into positions of political influence at the state and local level. The ultimate goal would be to elect DNP majorities in Southern state legislatures, and to put DNP governors in state capitols.

All this done well, the penultimate step of the Scottish process could begin: devolution. This would take the form of a strong State Rights movement at the national level. The DNP would run candidates in national elections, with the goal of electing DNP congressmen. Over time, the DNP would gradually leech traditionalist conservatives and covert pro-Whites from the ranks of the Republican Party and establish itself as a viable third party within the federal entity. These pro-Southern Congressmen would then push through State Rights legislation at the federal level. This would have the effect of “devolving” power to the states, and thus to the Dixian cause.

At this point the final step would be taken: an open move towards political independence. A “Yes Dixie” campaign would begin in the Southern States. Its aim would be to establish a provisional Southern government by means of state plebiscites. On a given day of a given year, each Southern state would hold a yes-or-no plebiscite proposing that state’s participation in a national confederation of Southern states. Assuming success in this effort, a new Confederate Congress would tthen be formed and seated. Its first order of business would be the submission to the member states of an act of secession from the federal Union and a declaration of independence from same.

Of course, this is an idealized plan. No one with eyes to see and ears to hear believes that the federal entity is going to sit back and watch as the South rises again. To be a “neo-Confederate” is already to be under suspicion by the federal entity and its various private watchdog groups. Should any serious Southern nationalist movement arise, the Disingenuous White Liberal (DWL) propaganda machine will go to full throttle, promoting Dixie nationalism from the status of mere fringe kookery to full-blown terrorism. Black Run America (BRA) is no more likely to let us walk away from their “indissoluble Union” than the Communist Party was to let Ukraine and Belarus walk away from their “unbreakable Union”.

But the power of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union was not without limit. Once the inescapable collapse of the Soviet economic and political regime reduced the power of the Kremlin below the level necessary to keep the USSR together by force, Ukraine, Belarus, and the others simply presented their independence to Moscow as a fait accompli.

The ability of the DWL power structure and its minority clients to dominate the United States is similarly limited. Once the inescapable collapse of the American economic and political regime reduces the power of BRA to the point where it can no longer hold the federal union together by force, the Confederate States of America, Texas, Hawaii, and the rest will simply walk away.

Our job is to survive until then, to build our identity and our strength, and to establish provisional political and economic structures to be activated as BRA’s grip upon our throats is lost. Like the Scots, we must create a vigorous and broadly-based political movement upon which to base these structures.

To this end, I recommend the establishment of a working group comprised of delegates from all the leading state rights, pro-Southern, and neo-Confederate organizations. Its purpose: to establish the Dixie National Party, and to enable the promulgation by this party of a Yes Dixie campaign for the promotion of Southern national identity and solidarity.

Its first goal: to get a million Southerners to sign the Dixie Declaration:

I believe it is fundamentally better for us all, if decisions about Dixie’s future are taken by the people who care most about Dixie, that is, by the people of Dixie 

Being independent means Dixie’s future will be in the hands of the people of the South.
There is no doubt that Dixie has great potential. We are blessed with talent, resources and creativity. We have the opportunity to make our nation a better place to live, for this and future generations. We can build a more free and more prosperous society, a society that reflects our culture and our ways, a society that is a stronger and more successful advocate of our interests than it is today. 

I want a Southland that speaks with her own voice and makes her own unique contribution to the world: a Southland that stands alongside the other nations on this continent, as an independent nation.

I myself am a supporter of the Texas nationalist cause. I believe that Texans constitute a true nation, one which deserves to be embodied as an independent state. But Texas was once part of the Confederacy, and I also believe that the fortunes of the Lone Star State are tied to those of her former Confederate fellows. Texans and the people of Dixie must make common cause of we are to break free of the cold grip of godless tyranny.

And we can. All over the world, nationalist groups are struggling to free themselves from the rule of people who live far away from them and who share a different culture from their own. The Ukrainians and the Belarusians did it. The Scots have almost done it. The Catalans and the Basques are doing it.

And we can do it, too – if we just say yes.