Posted by Guest Blogger on Friday, July 13, 2012 at 07:37 PM
James Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform proposes separatism through free choice, as people may “vote with their feet” to establish human ecologies through controlled experimentation. The control would be established through freedom from association—that is, the freedom to not associate with others. However, under the current circumstances, efforts to instantiate these deliberately organized “human ecologies” are best conducted in an implicit manner. Indeed, under the circumstances, they must be largely implicit (see Note 1 below). Bowery suggests promoting abstract terms such as “our valuation of freedom of choice”. Later, the communities would be able to enforce explicit freedom of and from association. Rather than state-sized units, county-sized political units are apparently optimal—the sheriff and county being the most viable and manageable scale of organization in defense against the nation-state apparatus in its death throes.
The right of dwelling, association and doing business within a county is granted by the consent of the people established in that particular county. Members would have the prerogative to deny association with anybody they deem unwanted. People who tried to impose themselves on that group, and insisted upon violating their non-consent, could be treated as serious criminal offenders.
This freedom from association is corollary to individual freedom of choice and association. Bowery argues that strong valuation of freedom of choice is a distinctly White characteristic and therefore precious. I concur. He elaborates farther that it is imperative to maintain the unique human ecologies that evolved with this White characteristic of individual freedom of choice. I concur as well.
This freely and deliberately chosen state/county human ecology is very different from the deeply situated, naturally evolving human ecologies of Europe and Russia, where our people have evolved over tens of thousands of years in relation to particular habitats. It is surely critical for us to maintain these ecologies as well. We would not want to be without either the freely chosen White state/county-sized ecologies derived by choice within a lifespan, nor without the truly deep, historical ecologies of our European and Russian nations. These are both goods that we would want to maintain, and yet they are very different concerns. This focuses White Nationalism on the task of coordination.
We would not really want to give up either, but how to coordinate these two goods? This is where a Euro-DNA-based nation begins to look like a potential means of coordination, allowing for various expressions of our native Europeans while never losing sight of their essence.
There is a third crucial matter to coordinate. If a White nation is to have an economy big enough to fund a space program and other large projects, it is likely to need a size larger than the average state (let alone county) to provide for a sufficient economy; and if, as Conner adds, a White nation is to hold up to the growing power of China, it will need to be large.
Thesis: The Indigenous Euro-DNA Nation would provide a means for coordinating smaller White States/Counties, both freely chosen and those of deep, historical evolution, while providing the means for pursuing its larger manifestation as well.
Given the anti-White hegemony that Whites are up against from above, along with the turmoil and throngs of anti-Whites that they are up against on all fronts, an endogenous approach is the most practical for the coordination of White separatism.
By endogenous here, we mean from the inside out. That is, in proposing a White separatist nation, we should begin with those who would like to be a part of it first—begin by focusing on what we can do as opposed to what we cannot do. It is endogenous also in that the nation is corporeal, literally of the people—their native European DNA being the prime criterion for inclusion. That would be in contrast, though not in opposition, to other White nation building efforts using an exogenous (from the outside-in) approach, such as the Northwest Front.
There are clear practical advantages of a native Euro-DNA Nation that begins as a formal declaration of a wish as confirmed by voluntary signatories. Firstly, signing-up would only mean that one is expressing a wish to be a part of White separatism. It does not require relinquishing one’s current citizenship.
The indigenous Euro-DNA Nation focuses from the start on our most precious concern, our DNA, while not encumbering us with present obstacles to land-situated nations. The Euro-DNA Nation would be non-situated in the beginning (and to some extent always).
However, DNA without land, without habitat indefinitely, would be problematic for a number of reasons. Therefore, it must be an objective of the Euro-DNA Nation to establish sacrosanct Euro-DNA Nation “lands” eventually; the plurality of lands is a deliberate usage. In fact, more safety and resources would be provided if these lands are non-contiguous and disbursed throughout the world. Naturally, The White nation would seek to re-establish its traditional territories as White, particularly those in Europe, but also North America, South America, Russia, Australia and New Zealand. Nevertheless, in not being strictly contingent on obtaining land, the nation is rendered more flexible and more practical so that it can start with land claims of any size, even small claims.
Once coordinated as such, its ultimate viability may strive to cover the largest land-masses possible. Thinking about these issues first as a means of coordination with Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform, and in line with that, the DNA Nation being freely chosen would allow people to select various native European sub-categories (if they match), some distinct, some perhaps blended in various ways and degrees. Considering the problem secondly in terms of how to coordinate a White nation of the largest possible size, it also provides a highly practical means to instantiate a goal for protracted expanse, as it is highly flexible in its ability to cover territory.
The DNA Nation is also practical in that it does not require unnecessary risk and engagement on the part of participants. Signing-up does not render one complicit with illegal activity of any kind. It only means an expressed wish for separatism from non-native Europeans, and to be with persons of indigenous European extraction.
Separatism is a first step, Separatism is the ultimate aim, and Separatism is always possible.
If you wish to express a wish that you might one day be a part of this separate Euro-DNA Nation, you may sign up; and specify particular categories as you wish. DNA proof will ultimately be required for consideration of membership.
The Native European-DNA Nation sign-up along with its subcategories will be provided.
Note 1: The freedom of and from association promoted by the Laboratory of The States/Counties is conceived by Bowery to be an implicit choice. In his estimation, explicit Whiteness does not work. Taking the example of the draconian legal constraints placed on American realtors regarding the mere mention of race to buyers or sellers provides a salient example of how hazardous explicitness can be. However, the explicitness of the DNA registry does not contradict the implicitness strategy due to its being voluntary and not representing a legal status, but rather an expression of a wish. Discretion is nonetheless advised.