Are Only Euro-Whites Capable of Peaceful Successionism

In this modern era, one of the ultimate litmus tests for extreme liberalism or humanism is the completely selfless permission that a state grants when it allows a part of itself to secede without starting a bloodbath.

Since the Peace of Westphalia, Europe initiated the notion of the nation-state, a brand-new concept. Before, there had only been empires at most, if that in most places. The notion of the nation-state gradually grew until the present moment, when it is unfortunately the status quo. If empires disallowed succession, nevertheless it did occur quite a bit, since empires never had much legitimacy in the first place.

The problem with the nation-state is that it has built up a nonsensical and undeserved legitimacy, even among the most liberal folks. As soon as lines are drawn on a map, they are instantly there for all time, never to be redrawn.

Except that imperialist maggots like the US and the UK, while paying lip service to the inviolability of borders, nevertheless, scumbags that they are, cynically pursue seccessionism and border violability against any states that are deemed enemies.

Look at how quickly the world recognized the states that emerged out of the USSR. While the breakup itself was testament to the USSR’s ultimate morality, its internationalism, a moral spear that split the heavens while the capitalist world wallowed in nationalist mud, the new states were only recognized by the capitalist shits because they were so eager to disaggregate their old socialist foe.

At the moment, the US cynically promotes the breakup of Iran, Venezuela and Bolivia. In the past, the US supported seccessionism in China. Kurdish secessionism in Iraq was promoted by the US and then its suppression funded by the US, depending on the whims of the day. At the moment, the US funds Kurdish secessionism in Iran while funding its crushing by the Turkish state in Turkey.

The truth is that under capitalism, imperialist states like the US have no morals whatsoever, only interests. That 90% of the US public thinks that the US state always operates according to some moral compass is an example of the success of the sickening US capitalist media machine in creating a nation of high-IQ idiots.

Anyway, let us take this as a litmus test of the ultimate in civilized behavior in 2009: a state that will peacefully allow parts of itself to secede, if they so choose.

Most states, being governed by uncivilized animals, react to secessionism with violence, often extreme violence. The legion of the primitives is vast: Russia, France, Spain, Turkey, Russia, India, China, Indonesia, Burma, Georgia, New Guinea.

No non-White state will ever allow peaceful secession. They are simply too primitive and uncivilized to allow such a thing. By White I mean European Caucasians. Caucasians outside of Europe are incapable of peaceful secession either, because they are still relatively uncivilized compared to Europeans.

Asians, despite their high IQ’s, are still primitive in some ways, and even NE Asians are incapable of dealing with peaceful seccessionism. The response of 105 IQ China is instructive. Secessionist movements in Taiwan, Turkestan and Tibet have been dealt with via repression that can only be called fascist, while similar movements in Inner Mongolia are never allowed to see the light of day.

Indonesia’s response to secessionism in East Timor, Aceh and West Papua, areas it has a weak, if any, claim to, have been characterized by horrific violence.

India has behaved criminally, even genocidally, in Kashmir. India has little legitimate claim on the entire Northeast, yet they will never let an inch of it go.

Burma has no legitimate claim on any of its territory at the moment, as a criminal state loses the legitimacy of its governance. Nevertheless it continues to commit genocide against its secessionist movements, as it has since 1947.

For the moment, Pakistan and Iran can be excused their backwardness in violently assaulting secessionism, as imperialism, Indian and US, is conspiring to break up both states.

No Black African nation will ever allow secessionism, though they may as well. Most all of them can’t even govern their own territory responsibly, so they don’t have much right to the land in the borders. Failed states revoke the right to inviolability of borders. Sudan has reacted with typical extreme brutality to the legitimate demands of Darfur and Southern Sudan for secession. The response to secessionism, typical of Arabs, was genocide. Since independence, most Arab states have reacted to secessionist demands with genocides of varying degrees.

Somalia is the ultimate failed state. There is no government, and anarchy has held sway for 15 years. Obviously, in the case of the collapse of the state and the onset of anarchy, the inviolability of borders principle is revoked. After all, a state that no longer exists can hardly invoke inviolability of borders.

Two new states, Puntland, and Somaliland, have emerged, but no one will recognize them due to the inviolability of borders crap. This is sad because these new states seem to have their shit together more than Somalia (whatever that means) does.

The nation of Georgia had no legitimacy before its birth in 1991. The day it was born, its fake borders were deemed inviolable forevermore. South Ossetia and Abkhazia have already broken away, as was their right. Georgia will never allow this transgression. Abkhazia has been de facto independent since 1991, but almost no one on Earth will recognize it, all because Georgia is a pro-Western state.

In contrast, the moment Kosovo declared independence, the West showered it with recognition, since they were splitting from Serbia, whom the West hates.

As I said earlier, Western capitalist states have no morals.

Yugoslavia did allow itself to be broken up, but violence followed. Slovenia had little violence, and Macedonia and Montenegro had none.  The Turks are not really European Whites, and Turkey’s always been the sick man of Europe. Since Ataturk, it’s been a fascist state. That’s not changing anytime soon.

In Spain, there are secessionist movements, but the Spaniards have always been fascist and backwards, and they will never allow anyone to secede.

So who will? The UK and Canada. Those are the only two states that allow secession based on a simple vote. There are movements in Scotland and Quebec, but they don’t have majority support yet. Yet still it seems by this litmus test, the UK and Canada are the most civilized states on Earth.

Czechoslovakia broke itself up soon after the fall of Communism, a great moment in human progress. Yet this was only possible due to decades of Communist internationalism and anti-nationalist propaganda. Since, then, fascist-like nationalism has set in in both new states.

The USSR allowed itself to break up. In a number of cases, idiot nationalist violence followed the breakup, but most states left peacefully. Anyway, the state did allow itself to be broken up, something almost no other state will allow. This feat of ultimate civilization only occurred in the USSR due to 78 years of internationalism.

Some of the states that broke up were part-Caucasian, part Asian in stock (some of the Stans), so they seem to be an exception to our rule that only Euro Whites will allow a state to break up, but possibly USSR internationalism overrode the racial stock. The only Asiatic or part-Asiatic states that have allowed themselves to dissolve were socialist in character.

Historically, we can see that only Whites seem to be able to secede without massacring each other like wild animals.

For instance, 100 yrs ago, 99.9% of Norwegians voted to secede from Sweden. The Swedes magnanimously accepted that.

In 1920, a plebiscite was held in Schleswig in northern Germany. The area north of Flensburg, 80% voted to go to Denmark. South of Flensburg, 80% voted to stay in Germany even though Danes were 25% of the population of Flensburg. The Allies would have loved to have given all of Schleswig to Denmark just to punish Germany, but the Danes magnanimously accepted the vote of the people.

It’s an open question whether non-Europeans will ever be civilized enough to allow secessionism without committing genocidal massacres in the name of some lines on a map. I don’t think it will happen in my lifetime.

In case you haven’t guessed, this is one more reason I think we European Whites are better than other people. We’re simply more civilized, and this is a prime example.

19 thoughts on “Are Only Euro-Whites Capable of Peaceful Successionism”

  1. In 1917, 96.2% of Åland’s adults signed a petition to secede from Finland.

    The islands are still Finnish. However, the eventual settlement between Finland and Sweden, as well as the Island’s demilitarised status, gives support to your theory.

    Your blog does tend to concentrate on what’s fucked-up in the world. Perhaps in the new year you could concentrate on what’s great with the world, where and why.

  2. What was it about the U.S. Civil War that made it an anomaly, when you consider that historically Whites will allow secession without a bloodbath?

    Are Americans, in general, less civilized than Europeans? (Some people seem to think so.)

  3. The German-Polish war started over Danzig, initiating World War II. Danzig, 95 percent German, was denied the right of self-determination.

  4. There’s nothing about “whiteness” per se(in any genetic sense) that makes someone or a some nation more civilized. Certainly not all white countries have allowed peaceful secession. That’s a cultural trait independent of race and has more to do with ideology and protocol than the contents of your DNA. It also helps if secession is a mutually beneficial solution.

    1. Well, I am starting to wonder about that. If it’s not genetic, then, is it cultural. Sure, not all White nations have allowed secession, and in some of those who did, it was not really peaceful, but has any non-White country ever even peacefully allowed secession in the first place?

      In every non-White country where the issue came to a head, the response was either to ignore the demands or fight them with violence, often really extreme, almost genocidal violence.

      Some non-White nations did break up, but only after horrific wars. Eritrea broke away from Ethiopia but only after a terrible war. East Timor broke up only after a genocidal war. I can’t even think of any more cases outside the USSR.

  5. It was once the same picture in Europe. Europe just happens to be at the forefront in social progress. Doesn’t mean other countries won’t eventually reach that threshold as well. They are just further behind. Kind of goes back that discussion we were having about corruption. Peaceful secession I’m sure correlates somewhat to countries low on the corruption index.

    1. Europe just happens to be at the forefront in social progress.

      I think you hit it on the nail there. The WN say that the reason for this is genetic, but as you note, Europe was once as backwards as anyone else, and their genes were the same then.

      Doesn’t mean other countries won’t eventually reach that threshold as well.

      This is what I hope. I would love to see a non-White country, Hell, even a Black country, peacefully dissolve if it came down to that. Wow, what a testament that would be to their civilizational abilities and to the civilizational potential of the ethnic group as a whole.

      I guess there is a part of me that worries that the WN are right when they say that the things I love about Euros are due to their genes, but as you point out, that’s dubious.

      Peaceful secession I’m sure correlates somewhat to countries low on the corruption index.

      That’s an excellent point. I’m glad you made it. They both have to do with sharing. People who share will peacefully divide their land with the Other. People who share will not turn criminal and steal all the money in the pot. People who don’t share will react with violence to a proposal to divide the land with the Other, and will try to grab all the money in the pot for themselves rather than share it with the Other.

      It probably boils down to ethnocentrism and tribalism. The less of that, probably the less corruption and the more willingness to countenance peaceful secession.

  6. Whoa. Telling that Asians are primitive and uncivilized relative to Europeans is simply wrong.

    Looking from your Eurocentric viewpoint, you completely miss the point that in the East, it is not individualism that is widespread, but collectivism – it is this collectivism which fueled generations of Asian governments to stop secession of their regions. What may seem barbaric and primitive to Europeans is just what the culture in Asia dictates and is not barbaric at all.

    If you care to remember, China was eons of years more civilized than the rest of Europe, which was before just populated by a small population of Kurgan stone dwellers who eat their meat raw.

    The ancient Chinese also thought that Caucasians were primitive because they had red hair and blue eyes and because they practiced strange rituals SUCH as having multiple sexual partners and others; again, if you regard it with an Asiacentric lens, this is barbaric but if you read it with a Eurocentric lens, you’ll know that it was part of their culture; regarding the comment about sexual thingy, it still is.

    For Asians who value collectivism, we find the Europeans and Caucasians’ appetite for sexual intercourse with numerous partners as vile, immoral, and barbaric, and yet we don’t judge you with our lens; therefore don’t apply your own Eurocentric lens to our own culture.

  7. RL: “People who don’t share will…try to grab
    all the money in the pot for themselves rather
    than share it with the Other.”

    Rather like what is happening right now?
    The financial oligarchy, or plutocracy, is busy
    grabbing all the money in the pot, at the
    expense of everyone else, to the tune of many
    trillions $U.S. It is one of the biggest thefts
    of all time, and it is nearly an all-white
    phenomenon — just like other wholesale or
    “white-collar” crime (the type of crime that
    does FAR more damage than all the little
    retail/street crime). Not to say that blacks
    and others would not behave the same way,
    if they had the same position of opportunity.

    I think we’re talking about HUMANS here,
    and human nature (and potentialities, and
    tendencies, etc.), not racial essences.

    I am neither proud, nor ashamed, of my
    white race. Race exists, but awareness of it
    does not add much that is important or
    useful to our understanding of things.

    RL: “Most states, being governed by
    uncivilized animals, react to secessionism
    with violence, often extreme violence. The
    legion of the primitives is vast: Russia,
    France, Spain, Turkey…”.

    France and Spain (white euros) are governed
    by “uncivilized animals”? I recall that among
    WNs and Nazis, southern europeans (anyone
    complected with even a slight olive cast) are
    often considered inferior to the northerns.
    It goes back, I think, to Chamberlain and the
    other proto-Nazi nordicists — late 19th century.

    PS: To echo alpha unit: the U.S. civil war
    would seem incompatible with the “whites
    allow secession without bloodbath” thesis.

    1. France and Spain have not reacted to secessionist tendencies with extreme violence, just some violence. Their counterinsurgency is about as civilized as such things get.

      I’m aware that this makes Meds out to be barbarians as opposed to Nordics, and that makes me uncomfortable. Czechs and Slovaks are Slavs, not Nordics though and they broke themselves up.

      It’s human nature to be an uncivilized animal. The West, mostly Whites, has been creating a “new man” for decades now. A new, less barbaric man in which culture modifies our savage nature.

      Sure, Whites can be barbaric, or used to be, in the case of the Civil War. But we’ve gotten much more civilized since then.

      Personally, I love Meds even though I’m a Nordic. The contempt for Meds is based on the notion that they are not pure Whites or real Whites, and yeah, that they are inferior.

    2. RL: “People who don’t share will…try to grab
      all the money in the pot for themselves rather
      than share it with the Other.”

      Rather like what is happening right now?

      Yeah, the Right has always been barbaric and anticivilizational. They justify this on the grounds that they believe in Natural Law (our savage nature as beasts) and they condemn our efforts to evolve culturally as “engineering.”

      PS: To echo alpha unit: the U.S. civil war
      would seem incompatible with the “whites
      allow secession without bloodbath” thesis.

      Only Whites are even capable of it, not that they always given in to their better impulses.

  8. Luke: “For Asians who value collectivism, we
    find the Europeans and Caucasians’ appetite
    for sexual intercourse with numerous partners
    as vile, immoral, and barbaric, and yet we don’t
    judge you with our lens”

    You find us vile, immoral and barbaric, and
    yet you don’t judge us? 😉

  9. “It’s an open question whether non-Europeans will ever be civilized enough to allow secessionism without committing genocidal massacres in the name of some lines on a map”

    Robert, this is utter nonsense. Nations are a hell of a lot more than “lines on a map.” May be it seems this way to americans because the nationhood of the US is somewhat questionable. Personally, I don’t think being ‘civilized’ all the time is all it’s cracked up to be. Example. With the current non-european influx into Europe it is possible that they could be the majority in some regions if traitor politicians have their way. Would you accept them seceding peacefully. I wouldn’t. I would be fucking brutal to them. In that case women and children would not be off limits.

    Also, I wonder what you think of Apartheid south africa’s practice of giving bantusians independence? I seems like it was probably bullshit, but it may have been better than a lot of conquered peoples get.

  10. “You confuse nations and states in the second paragraph”

    I don’t think I do. In europe most states are nation states (Exception: belgium and a couple others) This is not true in africa so the situation is different. I do think it is important though to emphasize that states and nations are different though. That is why it is possible for “the state to betray the fatherland.” (i believe Le Pen said that, but I’m not sure). I get really annoyed becasue some people seem to think nationalism is just an extreme form a patriotism. Sometimes it seems that way, but not all the time. I don’t believe Quechua nationalism and Bolivian patriotism are the same thing. English nationalism and British patriotism definitely aren’t the same thing.

    The only people I would accept seceding in europe if I was european were indigenous ones. (ex. Cornwall, Occitania, etc.) This would be good for national spirit because nations would have a greater expression of their culture and ethos. Cedeing land to foreigners is garbage. One of the most unfortunate events of the 20th century was failing of the greek Megali Idea. The loss of that much history to turkish garbage is tragic. Fuck Turkey.

      1. “What is the Megali idea?”

        The Megali Idea was a plan to join the independent greek state to the largely greek areas in western turkey (aka occupied wetern anatolia) after WWI. Unfortunately the greek military over extended itself and the young turk revolution occured. This resulted in the Greece-Turkey population exchanges where millions of greek were forcibly shipped away from their homelands in Asia minor and eastern thrace and into the european part of Greece. they were not the only greeks to suffer though. Christian Pontic Greeks were also forcibly shipped out too. I believe there are still of few muslim Pontic Greeks in turkey though. Of course we all know what the horse fucking turks did in Cyprus later in the centry.

  11. This will be the first comment in quite some time, but seeing this, I can’t help but say your conclusion is false. Why? When the Chechens tried to get independence, the Russians brutality suppressed their movement (& other Caucasus independence movements), and the Chechens responded with brutality as well – both of these are white people. The Russians also massacred and oppressed the Tatars of the Khanates they conquered back in the 16th century (both when they conquered them, and in subsequent rebellions by the Tatars & other native groups in the region), The Russians also ethnically cleansed the Circassians. Don’t forget Stalin’s genocides against the Crimean Tatars and other minority groups throughout the USSR. The Serbs also genocided the Bosnian Muslims (whites), while Croatians, Serbians, and Bosniaks have been killing each other when they got independence from the Ottoman Turks, then in World War II, and finally after the split of Yugoslavia. Bulgarians and Greeks have butchered their own fellow co-ethnics (Christian Bulgarians & Greeks vs. Muslim Bulgarians & Greeks). These have been massacred by and have massacred the Turks. Genocides took place in Iberia in the medieval period, involving Christian & Muslim Iberians, Jews, & Judeo-Muslim converts to Christianity. Ditto for the Muslims & Jews of Sicily. Keep in mind that the majority of Muslim Iberians & Sicilians by the time of Christian reconquest were locals who’s recent ancestors had converted to Islam. Usually white on white violence since the common era has religious differences in common, but in my opinion, it is just another factor feeding the already existent ethnic strife between neighboring, competing ethnicities/nations, and this is the case throughout human history, in all races. Nations like Sweden, Norway, etc. are truly exceptions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *