John Savage - 02 May 2008 12:06 PM

OK, I hope I’m not changing the subject too much, but…

I had understood Kinism to be “neo-Confederate”—which I suppose isn’t an awfully precise term to begin with, but seems to imply a desire to have the South secede again. Yet it seems from what I read here that actual Kinists aren’t especially concentrated in the South. Do Kinists want to all gather in the South, and then secede? Or is the idea just to break up the United States into a multitude of racially homogeneous states? So a Kinist living in New England, for example, might advocate for New England secession—or maybe secession of just the white parts of New England?

Also, assuming the South did secede, are Kinists unanimous on what to do about its black population? It seems like there are several different ideas that are floating around among white nationalists: send the blacks all back to Africa, create a separate state for them on American soil, or keep them around while bringing back segregation and making them non-citizens.

Is there agreement on these questions?

I concur with Kinswoman here; while Kinism is, by its very nature, a secessionist movement; exactly where secession takes place is very much an item for discussion. Frequently, I believe, Kinism starts with a secession of the heart, rather than a physical secession.

Many of us have families to support and jobs that allow us to support them but only in certain types of cities/towns etc., so for some of us, secession of the heart may be all that can be accomplished for a very long time. Others have made decisions to move to various locales either soon or someday; which locale(s) are still very much up in the air.

I’ve posted several good references on these forums for determining kinist-compatible towns and cities. My personal belief is that it’s good to go to a place which doesn’t require all that much alteration to be like my own family. But that’s down the road a piece.

Ethnic separation, well, I will defer to others who might have more defined views regarding what’s called repatriation, separation by state, or reinstating segregation. I do believe that positive steps can be taken in our own lives that will have positive consequences for our people later on.

God bless,
Laurel

I like this “fall back to the Blue Ridge” idea. West Virginia is historically Southern too, and defensible.

Man is a social being*, so there’s need of communities, which would need to remain homogeneous despite Civil Rights laws. Only force could be used to prevent, say, the selling of a house to an alien or other hostile type.

*Clinton’s African proverb: “It takes a village to raise a child” comes to mind…

===

Also for reference, here’s the Francis alternative plan: Separation, as proposed in the previous issue, would not work but there is a better solution [Eurocentrism.] Demographics will soon make his strategy impossible to implement. An Obama candidacy could help improve the political environment, but outside such an improvement the Francis plan doesn’t appear possible.

Another Francis article, An Infantile Disorder (regarding secession.)

Francis wrote:

I do not believe that secessionism will prosper as a serious political movement, but I do worry that it will prosper to the point of becoming a serious political distraction—a distraction from the imperative that Middle Americans now face of constructing their own autonomous political movement that can take back their nation rather than assisting the new underclass and the globalist ruling class in breaking it up.

Frank - 03 May 2008 02:53 AM

I like this “fall back to the Blue Ridge” idea. West Virginia is historically Southern too, and defensible.

Also for reference, here’s the Francis alternative plan: Separation, as proposed in the previous issue, would not work but there is a better solution [Eurocentrism.] Demographics will soon make his strategy impossible to implement. An Obama candidacy could help improve the political environment, but outside such an improvement the Francis plan doesn’t appear possible.

From Sam Francis’ 1995 article cited here:

My own view is that the advances in transportation technology tend to render geographical isolation almost impossible, and certainly they have immensely facilitated immigration into Europe and North America.

Precisely what I have thought many times. Advancements in transportation bring the world closer together, for better and for worse.

Racial separatism, then, does not impress me as a realistic strategy for the survival, let alone the flourishing, of the white race and any civilization it would be likely to build, at least at the present time. To summarize, it fails to identify any physical area for the relocation of either race; it fails to anticipate the likely pressures for recombination of the races; it relies almost entirely on a supposititious white racial consciousness that has no historical precedent and would be inadequate by itself, even if it existed, to sustain a real society, culture, or government; and it involves the deliberate surrender of part of a territory, political order, and civilization that were created by whites and remain theirs. Until the advocates of separatism can provide answers for these objections, I cannot see that what they advocate is anything more than a desperate and fantastic effort to avoid grappling with the real roots of our racial and cultural decline.

I disagree. Sometimes a people will have to retrench and build strength again. I think it will take smaller forms, however, not like Wyoming is a White state, Michigan is Black.

Reconquest

The answer is, quite simply, the reconquest of the United States. This reconquest does not involve any restoration of white supremacy in the political and legal sense that obtained under slavery or segregation, and there is no reason why nonwhites who reside in the United States could not enjoy equality of legal rights. But a white reconquest of the United States would mean the supremacy of whites in a cultural sense, or in the sense of what is nowadays called “Eurocentrism.” There are essentially three things that whites must do in order to carry out this reconquest of the nation and culture they have almost lost:

(1) Whites must formulate a white racial consciousness that identifies racial and biological endowments as important and relevant to social behavior, and their own racial endowments as essential to the continuing existence of Euro-American civilization. The formation of a white racial consciousness does not mean that whites should think of themselves only as whites, to the exclusion of ethnic, national, religious, regional, class, or other identities, nor that individuality should yield to the collective category of race. It means merely that we recognize racial realities, that we recognize that racial-biological endowments are necessary to certain kinds of human behavior (e.g., the political and civic behavior appropriate to stable self-government, the work habits and life-styles appropriate to a dynamic economy; the intellectual behavior that is necessary for science and scholarship, etc.) and that because these endowments are largely unique to whites, the behavior they make possible cannot be replicated by most nonwhites.

Nor does the formation of white racial consciousness mean that we should conceive of ourselves only as biological beings to the exclusion of religious or metaphysical identities. Racial consciousness means that we add recognition of biological and racial factors to our traditional concepts of human nature and modify both our biological and non-biological conceptions of what man is, as evidence and reason dictate. It may be true that some traditional religious and metaphysical conceptions would not survive recognition of the scientific realities of race, just as some did not survive earlier scientific discoveries in astronomy, geology, and biology.

But the formation of white racial consciousness does mean that whites would recognize themselves as a race and their racially based behavior as legitimate, and hence it would mean the end of tolerance for nonwhite assaults on white people and the norms of white civilization. Whites would simply no longer countenance nonwhite aggression and insults or the idolization of nonwhite heroes, icons, and culture; white children would be raised in accordance with what is proper to being white, and norms openly recognized as appropriate to whites would be the legitimizing and dominant norms of American society as they were prior to the 1960s. Racial guilt and truckling would end.

(2) Based on this racial consciousness, whites must counter the demographic threat they face from immigration and nonwhite fertility and whites’ own infertility. This means (a) an absolute halt to all future legal immigration into the United States, deployment of the armed forces on the appropriate borders to cut off illegal immigration, and deportation of all illegal immigrants (and perhaps many recent legal immigrants); (b) the end of subsidies for the nonwhite birth rate through welfare programs, obligatory use of contraception by welfare recipients, and encouragement of its use among nonwhites, and (c) encouragement of increases in white fertility.

(3) Whites must correct the political and legal order to end the political power of nonwhite minorities and their white anti-white allies. This political effort would involve a radical dismantling of all affirmative action and civil rights legislation as well as a good part of the federal governmental superstructure that entrenches minority power. It also would require recovering an understanding of constitutional law that permits local and state governments to govern, and private institutions to function independently of government.

Most of the points covered in (2) are logical and rational for any society that wishes to survive as a defined people. The contraception issue I have ethical concerns about. I believe #3 is almost unachievable at this point, but remain hopeful.

It seems the war Sam Francis wanted fought was more culture...reconquer the culture as a whole. I do indeed wonder if this is practical at this time. Perhaps we do well to simply work on “reconquering” our own little bits of community. The bigger picture is down the road a piece, I think.

God bless,
Laurel

John Savage - 04 May 2008 12:12 PM

Frank, thanks for the links. In those articles, Francis does not appear the firebrand I am used to seeing him as. In particular, as Laurel says, he does not think that whites can learn their lesson about having nonwhites among them. He just takes it as a given that whites will always demand that some nonwhites be around to do menial jobs.

So...when do I get my housekeeper? and gardener?

*looks in mirror*

Oh, yeah, they’re White because they’re ME…

God bless,
Laurel

John Savage - 04 May 2008 12:12 PM

Frank, thanks for the links. In those articles, Francis does not appear the firebrand I am used to seeing him as. In particular, as Laurel says, he does not think that whites can learn their lesson about having nonwhites among them. He just takes it as a given that whites will always demand that some nonwhites be around to do menial jobs.

He wanted to maintain US territorial integrity and seemed to believe that if we establish separate states that we’ll be on the retreat and would slowly give up state after state as each allowed in immigrants.

No one questions that an immense amount of effort would need to be taken in ensuring any sort of future white state remains white. As I see it: its very ethnic identity would need to revolve around how this new state, this last of America, last perhaps of the whites, would never again allow nonwhites entry. The history books, core ethnic fables and songs etc. would need to tell of great nations that fell due to mixing. Plato’s Atlantis as well as obvious history could be told. Perhaps an idea of aliens on native soil being an outrage would be necessary and certainly a strong tie to soil and cultural particularities would be necessary. A traditional command from the founders might be passed down that it’s the duty of all to oppose, readily with violence if necessary, any aliens who enter, as well as an expectation that there will be periods of corruption during which invasion must be guarded against and a restoration pursued of social morality, faith, ethnic identity, ancestral traditions, hard work, reduced economic disparity, and cultural vibrancy - or whatever else the corruption might be.

I was just pointing out the idea of white supremacy: that whites take back the American government and use its power to reduce and eventually eliminate nonwhite populations. Francis wanted to use government power to restore whites in the US.

I think Francis said or Francis quoted of Burnham that civilisations are either rising or falling - a rising civilisation does not necessarily need to be expanding territorially. A corrupt arm of a civilisation can be surrendered to allow for a healthy core to restore itself, but it must reassert itself as vibrant and alive. His fear seemed to be that if we were healthy we’d reassert our claim on our native American soil and refuse to surrender an inch without a fight. We’re dominant demographically, monetarily, and politically still in this country. It’s still possible.

In other words: there is a defined American soil, and if we’re to remain an American nation we must maintain our ties to it. To form smaller separate states would be to seek to establish new nations. And nations are extremely difficult to found. A healthy nation then perhaps wouldn’t willingly give up any of its territory.

---

In all honesty, I don’t know what to think on the matter. I do know that establishing separate white communities, cultural nexuses, and/or schools is beneficial no matter which of the two the ideal is. Healthy white communities could produce future leaders and/or inspire other communities.

Francis’s point of dividing Americans over the issue of secession is very good I think. Perhaps if distinct, separate, healthy communities were established then they’d be justified in calling for secession, but outside such there is seemingly a lot more Middle Americans have in common. Politically, calling for secession probably is counterproductive and divisive. In Vermont, they have weak ethnic identity, and in the South we have an overwhelming black population. It’d be extraordinarily difficult to circumvent a transformation-into-Brazil in a separate South Carolina or in a separate Vermont, I suspect (I’ve never even been to Vermont actually.)

My Brothers Keeper - 24 September 2007 11:14 PM

It will be a frigid, wet day in Hell before I leave Dixie.

Running is not the answer. We run North, build something beautiful, they follow, demand a share and destroy it all. Stand our ground and fight. That’s what we’ve been missing. Those savages feed on retreat and that’s why we’re in the mess we’re in.

I don’t know about you all, but my family has been a part of beloved Caroline for close to 400 years, as the good Miss Loflund can testify. My blood and sweat is in the soil. My sons will inherit the labors of my fathers, and reap every bit of the fruit of such if I have to die with rifle in hand. This run-away attitude breaks my heart.

If my boots are the last to stand on the banks of the Cape Fear, planted by a defiant Christian man in defense of his fathers’ home, then I will die in these boots, whistlin’ Dixie as I fall.

Exodus. Migration. Relocation. I call these things retreat and an insult to our people.

Damn Straight. A move to Arkansas or Kentucky for me would be a northwest migration