Secession from the US?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Notwithstanding the likelyhood of it occuring in the first place, what is your position on states seceding? Would you support the breakaway state, or would you rather they remain a part of the US?

I'm not so sure myself.

[MarxSchmarx]

Notwithstanding the likelyhood of it occuring in the first place, what is your position on states seceding? Would you support the breakaway state, or would you rather they remain a part of the US?Honestly, what's the point? Many state laws are virtually identical to federal laws anyway, and it will be a huge hassle viz. immigration and rights to work, family members scattered across different states. The American states are effectively what the rest of the world calls "provinces" and in practice US federalism isn't that different from basically every other industrialized country. Although it's true many states are considerably less repressive viz. personal freedoms than the federal gov't, the reason the federal gov't is so regressive in the first place is in part because even more regressive states, such as texas. These states have considerable influence on the national level. Thus, it seems the solution is to change teh political culture in places like texas rather than have places like New Hampshire or Colorado declare independence.

[New Tet]

Whereas one of the principal objectives of socialism is the abolition of the political state and thus the abolition of all representation based on geographic boundaries, the question of secession as presented is irrelevant and a dangerous distraction from the more important socialist question of working class secession from capitalism and its political adjuncts.

IOW, socialist must encourage unity among the working classes of all regions for the purpose of their own collective emancipation from capitalism; [mere] political and regional secession cannot help [] accomplish this goal.

[Dimentio]

Notwithstanding the likelyhood of it occuring in the first place, what is your position on states seceding? Would you support the breakaway state, or would you rather they remain a part of the US?

I'm not so sure myself.

I'm not a US citizen, but I guess it depends on the ideology of the revolutionaries. If they are anarchists, democratic socialists or fight for autonomy against a more and more centralised and authoritarian federal state, they have my support. If they are nazis, they could go and burn in hell.

[JohannGE]

Like yourself I am not sure about states seceding.

I definatly think UK should though.

[jake williams]

I hate how often I cite Chomsky, but he did make an interesting point about how the downloading of authority to U.S. states makes it much easier for even relatively small business to exert control on the government. Of course in broad sweeps capitalists control the state anyway, but there are democratic counter-tendencies even within a capitalist state. It's a tricky question how much we want these counter-tendencies to be part of our political strategy.

[New Tet]

Like yourself I am not sure about states seceding.

I definatly think UK should though.

"Should" what? Secede? From whom?

[jake williams]

"Should" what? Secede? From whom?
The EU?

[New Tet]

I hate how often I cite Chomsky, but he did make an interesting point about how the downloading of authority to U.S. states makes it much easier for even relatively small business to exert control on the government. Of course in broad sweeps capitalists control the state anyway, but there are democratic counter-tendencies even within a capitalist state. It's a tricky question how much we want these counter-tendencies to be part of our political strategy.

Your caution is warranted.

At first glance, there seems nothing revolutionary about the type of secession we're talking about here. On second glance it looks downright reactionary.

[New Tet]

The EU?

In that case you* have nothing to secede from. Last I checked the UK was so completely in the thrall of U.S. imperialism that it did not join the EU. Am I wrong?

* Sorry, I thought I was responding to the comrade who posed the question.

[JohannGE]

I hate how often I cite Chomsky, but he did make an interesting point about how the downloading of authority to U.S. states makes it much easier for even relatively small business to exert control on the government. Of course in broad sweeps capitalists control the state anyway, but there are democratic counter-tendencies even within a capitalist state. It's a tricky question how much we want these counter-tendencies to be part of our political strategy.

Good point. Similarly in the UK I find the chink between local and national government can be vulnerable.

Apart from making minor problems for them and the satisfaction that gives, it's still just revisionist, and as you say, local buisness is most likely to take most advantage.

[JohannGE]

"Should" what? Secede? From whom?

My apologies for being facetious. I was actualy refering to your own point "the UK was so completely in the thrall of U.S. imperialism"

[kharacter]

Ideally the group of people looking for separation should be trying to gain the right of governing themselves instead of creating another national entity, but I would nevertheless support a movement if the aforementioned group is being repressed and have positive plans to curve that, or there is a similarly justifiable situation. As Dimentio said, I would hold sentiments below sympathy for a new country-like union created under right-wing ambitions/precepts.

So then I must state that this should be inspected in a case-by-case basis.

[kharacter]

I am aware that the likelyhood of a particular movement in the US being enlightened enough to strive towards progression is low, but I am not ready to say no under any circumstance

EDIT: this and the post below were written in response to Irrel, a sorry being, but his posts have since been deleted and he has been banned.

[kharacter]

If a province was being repressed by the larger community because they were more forward-thinking and hence they wanted to separate, but they were not revolutionary so they did not realize to turn their eyes to nationless sovereignty.

That is a case of the kind I am referring to. I then believe we should not be condemning the movement, though we know it is not ideal.

...and yes, i do not think state or national liberation is ideal or anything of considerable goodness.

It's like the Palestinian cause is not perfect, but one supports it anyway over the oppresive Israel regime.

[New Tet]

If indeed a particular movement was 'enlightened enough' then they would recognize the reactionary nature of a movement which strives for socialism in one state and which has ,as its precondition for socialism, national 'independence' (in the US, of all countries). Sorry, but communism is international. And for that it requires international class war, not the building of 'socialist strongholds' in the heart of the USA, which is so absurd it begs belief.

As far as I know, no one in what passes for the Left in the U.S. is calling for the formation of 'socialist strongholds' in the U.S. Even, mild, reformist socialists and liberals openly recognize the supremacy and need for internationalism.

Read how part of the world looked like when regionalism was its 'unifying' ideology:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/peasant-war-germany/index.htm

[kharacter]

When Wells left Lenin said in disgust, "What a narrow-minded petite-bourgeois."

When Irrel left as a result of banning, kharacter was reminded of Lenin's sentiment

[Robert]

No way, José.

Instead of secession, there will be governmental and social collapse at the state and federal level, concurrently, because the bureaucracies and finances and laws of the two are so entertwined and interdependent.

After the fall? I smell Road Warrior.

[Jazzratt]

When Wells left Lenin said in disgust, "What a narrow-minded petite-bourgeois."

When Irrel left as a result of banning, kharacter was reminded of Lenin's sentiment

Irrel raised cogent points though. Why should an anarchist be taking sides in bourgeois and statist struggles, such as national "liberation" and national seperatism. They are not part of revolutionary class struggle, they are at their very base the support of one ruling class over another, it's just senseless.


If a province was being repressed by the larger community because they were more forward-thinking and hence they wanted to separate, but they were not revolutionary so they did not realize to turn their eyes to nationless sovereignty.

Where does this leave the working class of the larger community? It serves surely to divide them further, surely? Not very "forward-thinking" is it?


It's like the Palestinian cause is not perfect, but one supports it anyway over the oppresive Israel regime.

I don't support it. It is just another struggle of rulers which gets workers killed and there is no need for leftists to pick a side - we already have one in the form of our class.

Incidentally how does "one" (you in this case) support the Palestinians? Is it through rhetoric and impotent cheerleading or what?

[Dr Mindbender]

well i for one am a lukewarm supporter of Scottish and Welsh Nationalism, purely on the basis that i think independent Scotland and Wales would represent greater centres of leftist sentiment and that a 'stripped down' UK would undermine it's claim over Northern Ireland. Culturally, Northern Irish protestants are closer to the Scottish, not the English.

[Richard Nixon]

No I wouldn't. Indeed I'd join the Second Army in the drive to Honolulu or Manchester or Charleston or wherever.

[Dimentio]

No I wouldn't. Indeed I'd join the Second Army in the drive to Honolulu or Manchester or Charleston or wherever.

If the state(s) in question revolts against a fascist military junta then?

[Richard Nixon]

If the state(s) in question revolts against a fascist military junta then?

There's no such possiblity in the US.

[Dr Mindbender]

There's no such possiblity in the US.
Wrong, there is such a possibility in any country.

One of the things that angers me about the arrogance of the american centre-right is their naive deluded perception of immunity from any threat from the far-right.

[New Tet]

Wrong, there is such a possibility in any country.

One of the things that angers me about the arrogance of the american centre-right is their naive deluded perception of immunity from any threat from the far-right.

There is evidence that the "center-right" may not be as naive as you think.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/04/worldnetdaily-gaining-inf_n_277769.html

They just seem naive because they express more often a greater fear of the working class than of their own extreme elements.

Liberalism is dying a thousand deaths lately; that's the way of the coward, I believe.

[kharacter]

Irrel raised cogent points though
Such as "Stalin said that too" and "you're a hack"


Why should an anarchist be taking sides in bourgeois and statist struggles, such as national "liberation" and national seperatism. They are not part of revolutionary class struggle, they are at their very base the support of one ruling class over another, it's just senseless.
The thing I'm doing most is not condemning them, because it is blind to think that the world will instantly fall in line with all of our beliefs. It's the same reason one supports healthcare reform.



Where does this leave the working class of the larger community? It serves surely to divide them further, surely? Not very "forward-thinking" is it?

I don't support it. It is just another struggle of rulers which gets workers killed and there is no need for leftists to pick a side - we already have one in the form of our class.

Please realize that revolution will not arise in all places at once. One area must take the first step, then others will follow, so this early unity can be sacrificed in the name of advancement


Incidentally how does "one" (you in this case) support the Palestinians? Is it through rhetoric and impotent cheerleading or what?
How does "one" (us in this case) support the revolutionary struggle? Well, we educate, organize and agitate. For sole entities such as myself, the first one is the weapon of choice. The same for support of the Palestinian cause.

Just for you, I will review my ideas regarding accepting some movements. I have the time today anyway. I'd appreciate it if you did the same.

[Comrade B]

Absolutely I would support a leftist succession in my state, but of course, as Dimentio said, only if it is progressive.
The state could also manage its self quite well, I would think, we have nuclear power, hydro power, and wind power (which is sent to California), produce lumber, wheat, onions, barley, grapes, wine, and seafood, and we have some major ports, and both a major airbase and naval base... and a chemical weapon depot...

[Jazzratt]

Such as "Stalin said that too" and "you're a hack"

An "anarcho" communist raising stalinist arguments legitimising nationalism despite it running contrary to anarchist ideas does smack of hackery. Although I don't think you are necessarily a hack I can understand why Irrel called you one.


The thing I'm doing most is not condemning them, because it is blind to think that the world will instantly fall in line with all of our beliefs. It's the same reason one supports healthcare reform.

Why support healthcare reform? Reform is not our aim, leave that to the bourgeois organs. Getting involved in liberal politics will not bring us any closer to our goals.


Please realize that revolution will not arise in all places at once. One area must take the first step, then others will follow, so this early unity can be sacrificed in the name of advancement

Socialism in one country has worked fucking wonders in the past hasn't it? Without an international class consciousness we're just creating further states which will simply devolve into bereaucracy. It's happened to every isolationist revolution in the past and it will happen again, mark my words.


How does "one" (us in this case) support the revolutionary struggle? Well, we educate, organize and agitate. For sole entities such as myself, the first one is the weapon of choice. The same for support of the Palestinian cause.

Why do that though? You're agitating on behalf of the Palestinian ruling class! Why not educate the very same people you are educating about Palestine with the much more important lessons of class struggle?


Just for you, I will review my ideas regarding accepting some movements. I have the time today anyway. I'd appreciate it if you did the same.

I will, but I doubt my opinions will change. I used to argue for national liberation but mainly because I had an insanely romantic view of the whole thing. I've since learned that all nationalism boils down to the same basic and well known formula of throwing workers into the mincer and perpetuating opression through violence and intimidation.

[Revy]

Notwithstanding the likelyhood of it occuring in the first place, what is your position on states seceding? Would you support the breakaway state, or would you rather they remain a part of the US?

I'm not so sure myself.

It depends on the politics of such a movement. I think it is naive to think the biggest imperialist power in the world would even let a small state like Vermont become independent. If the UK could fight like that over the Falklands, so can the US....

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It depends on the politics of such a movement. I think it is naive to think the biggest imperialist power in the world would even let a small state like Vermont become independent. If the UK could fight like that over the Falklands, so can the US....

Except that to my knowledge, the Falklanders weren't interested in becoming part of Argentina. Whereas a hypothetical secession could have massive popular support within the seceding state and maybe even outside it, especially if other states were considering seceding also.

The thought occurs that in order for a secession to be successful, the federal government would have to be significantly weakened. Perhaps the end of the US as a political entity will involve breaking up into a number of smaller successor states.

[kharacter]

An "anarcho" communist raising stalinist arguments legitimising nationalism despite it running contrary to anarchist ideas does smack of hackery. Although I don't think you are necessarily a hack I can understand why Irrel called you one.
Saying "Stalin said that" to contradict me is like saying "Stalin called himself a communist" to dismiss communists




Why support healthcare reform? Reform is not our aim, leave that to the bourgeois organs. Getting involved in liberal politics will not bring us any closer to our goals. Because it will make it better for people suffering in the meanwhile. To be so stuck with principles that you ignore everything else is close-minded to say the least. This is why I'm often fond of Platformists; they look at current issues and not just dismiss everything but revolution.



Socialism in one country has worked fucking wonders in the past hasn't it? Without an international class consciousness we're just creating further states which will simply devolve into bereaucracy. It's happened to every isolationist revolution in the past and it will happen again, mark my words.I completely agree with that, when did it appear otherwise? I said it must. in succession, happen in other areas as well, just as it happened following Russia's radicalization. Otherwise (and I believe this now just as before) we are doomed.


Why do that though? You're agitating on behalf of the Palestinian ruling class! Why not educate the very same people you are educating about Palestine with the much more important lessons of class struggle?
I do include class struggle in my arguments, because I converse with people; I'm not merely writing a fancy line on a poster here. And it's not about supporting the Palestinian upper class, it's about negating Israel's continuation of atrocities. The Palestinian worker class want freedom.




I will, but I doubt my opinions will change. I used to argue for national liberation but mainly because I had an insanely romantic view of the whole thing. I've since learned that all nationalism boils down to the same basic and well known formula of throwing workers into the mincer and perpetuating opression through violence and intimidation.I must reiterate I've never advocated throwing workers to the mincer in secession. If it does happen in a national liberation movement, you still look at issues on a case-by-case basis, because being an absolutist is ignorant.
I say this because I am not an absolutist, and would only support secessions in some cases.

[Blackscare]

I don't know if "support" is the right word, but I'd be happy to see the US gov fragment and weaken, lessening its hegemonic, imperialist role in world politics.

[Richard Nixon]

I don't know if "support" is the right word, but I'd be happy to see the US gov fragment and weaken, lessening its hegemonic, imperialist role in world politics.

So you are a governmental sadist eh? So you wouldn't mind the US falling into civil war and half it's population dying.

[Dr Mindbender]

So you are a governmental sadist eh? So you wouldn't mind the US falling into civil war and half it's population dying.

I dont think he actually said that, but moreover the US goverment and its majority population dont seem particularly bothered about its own atrocities outside the US.

[Blackscare]

So you are a governmental sadist eh? So you wouldn't mind the US falling into civil war and half it's population dying.
Nice way to put words in my mouth, dick. Keyboard is broken so I don't have the patience for a long reply atm. You're off the mark though.

[Ele'ill]

I would like to see a zombie invasion but I don't think this applies to the conversation.


I think the United States breaking up is a fairly accurate prediction on how things will go down. Although you know what they say about the phrase 'go down'. Its a step away from 'god own'.

Edit: I actually just made that up (about go down being like god own.) Just wanted to clarify before the commie cubs try to buy ownership of it. Or I guess commies are against intellectual property rights.

[#FF0000]

Wrong, there is such a possibility in any country.

No he's right. There's no such possibility in the US.

[Jazzratt]

Saying "Stalin said that" to contradict me is like saying "Stalin called himself a communist" to dismiss communists

I disagree, I don't think that pointing out that your politics are similar to Stalin's on this issue are a reason to dismiss them but the fact does cast doubt on your assertion of being an anarchist which is what I think she was getting at.


Because it will make it better for people suffering in the meanwhile. To be so stuck with principles that you ignore everything else is close-minded to say the least. This is why I'm often fond of Platformists; they look at current issues and not just dismiss everything but revolution.

If I wanted to "look at current issues" with a view to reform I would join a pack of bourgeois stooges like the fabians. We have liberals enough already and we are fading because instead of sticking to our guns we get caught up in supporting lesser evils. Asking for reform in capitalism is ignoring the elephant in the room.


I completely agree with that, when did it appear otherwise? I said it must. in succession, happen in other areas as well, just as it happened following Russia's radicalization. Otherwise (and I believe this now just as before) we are doomed.

You cannot radicalise surrounding areas by splitting from them and balkanising the area. You throw up an unecessary artificial wall between yourself and your neighbours and in so doing are more likely to create division. It's better to have a minority of radicals in an area where they can further radicalise the populace than simply split off, as your original proposal seemed to suggest.


I do include class struggle in my arguments, because I converse with people; I'm not merely writing a fancy line on a poster here. And it's not about supporting the Palestinian upper class, it's about negating Israel's continuation of atrocities. The Palestinian worker class want freedom.

Do you honestly think that the palestinian nationalists have any interest in actually freeing the workers? Will Hamas bring worker control of the means of production?



I must reiterate I've never advocated throwing workers to the mincer in secession. If it does happen in a national liberation movement, you still look at issues on a case-by-case basis, because being an absolutist is ignorant.
I say this because I am not an absolutist, and would only support secessions in some cases.

Isn't "being an absolutist is ignorant" an absolute statement? It's also a bare assertion, what makes absolutism ignorant? There are many things that it is important to have an absolute position on: it is absolutely wrong for the bourgeoisie to own the means of production instead of the workers, it is absolutely wrong to kill someone for the sole reason of their skin colour, it is absolutely wrong to sacrifice workers in a struggle that has no true relation to class war and so on. Simply dismissing a refusal to abandon any hint of principles as "ignorant" or "closed minded" seems rather arse backward to me.

[kharacter]

I disagree, I don't think that pointing out that your politics are similar to Stalin's on this issue are a reason to dismiss them but the fact does cast doubt on your assertion of being an anarchist which is what I think she was getting at
If you want I'll make a poll asking anarchists if they'd never support a national liberation movement, which will hopefully make you realize supporting under very special circumstances is not against anarchist ideas.




If I wanted to "look at current issues" with a view to reform I would join a pack of bourgeois stooges like the fabians. We have liberals enough already and we are fading because instead of sticking to our guns we get caught up in supporting lesser evils. Asking for reform in capitalism is ignoring the elephant in the room. I agree reformism can only get you so far, but it can get you somewhere. You must realize we will not even be alive for the revolution, and we need to make more immediate changes




You cannot radicalise surrounding areas by splitting from them and balkanising the area. You throw up an unecessary artificial wall between yourself and your neighbours and in so doing are more likely to create division. It's better to have a minority of radicals in an area where they can further radicalise the populace than simply split off, as your original proposal seemed to suggest.We're talking about preventing harm to radicals here, I believe, even if it was hindering to a movement which I do not think it is, this is worth fighting for.




Do you honestly think that the palestinian nationalists have any interest in actually freeing the workers? Will Hamas bring worker control of the means of production?
I do not support Hamas, and I do not support Islamic organizations, but we address each issue one at a time. The same way, religion and vegetarianism will not become crucial until after the revolution




Isn't "being an absolutist is ignorant" an absolute statement? It's also a bare assertion, what makes absolutism ignorant? There are many things that it is important to have an absolute position on: it is absolutely wrong for the bourgeoisie to own the means of production instead of the workers, it is absolutely wrong to kill someone for the sole reason of their skin colour, it is absolutely wrong to sacrifice workers in a struggle that has no true relation to class war and so on. Simply dismissing a refusal to abandon any hint of principles as "ignorant" or "closed minded" seems rather arse backward to me.Supporting the statement "Nazis are evil" doesn't make you an absolutist, even if the statement is absolutist. My argument is that this is something that must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, not with absolute determination. It's like murder with courts ids dealt with case-by-case...sometimes you even support the murderer when it's self-defense.

Can we now truce this?
It has become endless.
Let's just leave it at looking at the results of the poll: http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchists-would-you-t116941/index.html?t=116941
If all anarchists say they would never support it, then I admit defeat.

[Ele'ill]

As an anarchist I'd like to say hooray - welcome kharacter.

I enjoyed your posts.

[Jazzratt]

Can we now truce this?
It has become endless.

Fine. Although Asking that sort of means there was no point in making the rest of the post, surely?


Let's just leave it at looking at the results of the poll: http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchists-would-you-t116941/index.html?t=116941
If all anarchists say they would never support it, then I admit defeat.

Two things: 1) The poll results are not public, so there is no way of knowing how many non-anarchists are voting. I can reset the poll with this in mind if you want.
2) h0m0 pretty much has it covered for me in that thread. I must admit I do not honsetly think I could articulate the argument better than he at the minute so don't expect too much posting there on my part.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So you are a governmental sadist eh? So you wouldn't mind the US falling into civil war and half it's population dying.

"Never mind the victims of imperialism, you hate America!"

[Dimentio]

There's no such possiblity in the US.

Not today perhaps. But in ten years, or in twenty and so on. Most governments eventually turn authoritarian. And I think that the 21st century risks being marked by environmental and social collapses in a lot of countries and regions. Most likely in Africa and southern Asia, but also in Europe and North America.

[Patchd]

Notwithstanding the likelyhood of it occuring in the first place, what is your position on states seceding? Would you support the breakaway state, or would you rather they remain a part of the US?

I'm not so sure myself.
Surely this should depend on your position on National 'liberation' as some states certainly share more characteristics in culture, language (or colloquial language) and ethnic identity than other established nations in the world already do.

I personally wouldn't support it, it runs counter to my goal of breaking down these abstract national boundaries.

[Richard Nixon]

Not today perhaps. But in ten years, or in twenty and so on. Most governments eventually turn authoritarian. And I think that the 21st century risks being marked by environmental and social collapses in a lot of countries and regions. Most likely in Africa and southern Asia, but also in Europe and North America.

No, a rule of thumb I have is if a country has been democratic for more then 50 years it's unlikely to become authortiarian.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No, a rule of thumb I have is if a country has been democratic for more then 50 years it's unlikely to become authortiarian.

This rule of thumb is based on... what, exactly?

[Richard Nixon]

This rule of thumb is based on... what, exactly?

On History.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

On History.

Really. So all those empires falling and revolutions and civil wars I read about were fiction?

[Richard Nixon]

Really. So all those empires falling and revolutions and civil wars I read about were fiction?

None of them were democracies except for Athens and Rome which were limited democracies.

[Comrade B]

None of them were democracies except for Athens and Rome which were limited democracies.
How about the Wehrmacht Republik? Based around the US.
Or Spain
Or Honduras

You right wingers have an interesting way of destroying your oh, so loved system.

[Richard Nixon]

How about the Wehrmacht Republik? Based around the US.
Or Spain
Or Honduras

You right wingers have an interesting way of destroying your oh, so loved system.

They didn't last for fifty years which I explicitly stated!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

None of them were democracies except for Athens and Rome which were limited democracies.

What makes democracies so special?

[Comrade B]

They didn't last for fifty years which I explicitly stated!
People could have said the same thing about the Soviet Union a few years ago.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

People could have said the same thing about the Soviet Union a few years ago.

"But that wasn't a democracy!"

[ellipsis]

I am a Vermont secessionist but most of the vermont secession movement is a bunch of bourgeois liberal intellectuals who don't even have a real platform other than anti-federalism but seem to want to establish a sovereign welfare state.

I believe that the revolution has to start somewhere and it might as well be my home mountains.

[ellipsis]

It depends on the politics of such a movement. I think it is naive to think the biggest imperialist power in the world would even let a small state like Vermont become independent. If the UK could fight like that over the Falklands, so can the US....

...and I will be ready with my AK to defend green mountain socialism and give my blood back to the earth from which I was born.

[Dean]

Notwithstanding the likelyhood of it occuring in the first place, what is your position on states seceding? Would you support the breakaway state, or would you rather they remain a part of the US?

I'm not so sure myself.

I love the idea :)

[Crurkean]

As a Far Rightist White Nationalist my primary foe is the Status Quo.

Luckily things can change very quickly. My hope is the United States government will collapse similar to how the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia did. :cool: This has happened before, people!!! When that happens all the 'rednecks with guns' you like to denigrate (remember, we are the ones that are HEAVILY armed!) are going to come out in swarms and institute a White Nationalist Entity. :thumbup:

I would support any and all Succesionist movements based on the notion:

1.) it would weaken the status quo

2.) it would further strengthen White Nationalism. ("they got their seccesionist state, so we should get one as well!")

Here is a short list of movements I support:

Ethnic Hawaiins wanting an autonomous zone in Hawaii (this has actually come up for a vote in Congress!)

Vermont Republic

State of Jefferson (North California, South Oregon forming a new state)

Mestizo Aztlan (let them have the south-west for their own Mestizo Racial State, then Whites can have their own Northwest Imperative)

Ecotopia (Pacific Northwest enviromentalist utopia)

[Havet]

As a Far Rightist White Nationalist my primary foe is the Status Quo.

Luckily things can change very quickly. My hope is the United States government will collapse similar to how the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia did. :cool: This has happened before, people!!! When that happens all the 'rednecks with guns' you like to denigrate (remember, we are the ones that are HEAVILY armed!) are going to come out in swarms and institute a White Nationalist Entity. :thumbup:

I would support any and all Succesionist movements based on the notion:

1.) it would weaken the status quo

2.) it would further strengthen White Nationalism. ("they got their seccesionist state, so we should get one as well!")

Here is a short list of movements I support:

Ethnic Hawaiins wanting an autonomous zone in Hawaii (this has actually come up for a vote in Congress!)

Vermont Republic

State of Jefferson (North California, South Oregon forming a new state)

Mestizo Aztlan (let them have the south-west for their own Mestizo Racial State, then Whites can have their own Northwest Imperative)

Ecotopia (Pacific Northwest enviromentalist utopia)

Seriously, what's with the obsession on "preserving one's "race" "? The whole concept of race is a social construct (notice i said race, not morphological traits), and even if it weren't, why should you judge someone on genetic conditions instead of their actual actions?

[Devrim]

In that case you* have nothing to secede from. Last I checked the UK was so completely in the thrall of U.S. imperialism that it did not join the EU. Am I wrong?

Unless the last time that you checked was before 1973 when the UK joined the EEC (now the EU), yes you are wrong.

Devrim