Rabbi Mayer Schiller on Secession and Separation By Chris Knight

I have been researching secessionism, the breakup of nations, something proposed on a universal scale by Leopold Kohr, in The Breakdown of Nations (1957). Kohr came at this thesis as a “philosophical anarchist,” rejecting the “cult of bigness.” This led him to see nations as vastly too big to be sustainable, and he thought that a breakup into smaller units would be desrirable. However, while I do not have the book, I recall that he had a chapter assessing the likelihood of this happening by voluntary action, and in a chapter with a sentence length reply said: it is not going to happen short of a total collapse. Men will go on destroying each other right until the end. He influenced less pessimistic “small is beautiful” thinkers, such as the ever-readable E. F. Schumacher, author of Small is Beautiful (1973), and Kirkpatrick Sale, all who argued for the need to return to human scale. I consider this the sensible wing of environmentalism.

Others come at secession from an ethno-racial perspective, and this brings us close to the political arguments developing in a limited number of circle today, with the likely end of Republicans ever obtaining the presidency again, in the America of open borders and anti-white racism.

Back in February 1995, Rabbi Mayer Schiller wrote on this, and after rejecting ideas such as return to Europe (Europe has the same problem), proposed separation:

https://www.amren.com/news/2010/10/separation_is_t/

“What then remains? Separation. Whites should enter into serious dialogue with black and Hispanic nationalists who seek to establish racially based nations within the territory of the United States.

Opposition to this idea is most likely to come from whites. Many blacks and Hispanics already have a firmly developed racial consciousness, whether instinctual or sophisticated. Many have no interest in the study or practice of European culture, and this is neither wrong nor surprising. What remains to be achieved is a large-scale awakening of racial consciousness among whites, without which no serious dialogue can begin about the mechanics of separation.

Those who are daunted by the prospect of separation should once again consider the alternatives. Current trends will ineluctably reduce whites to minority status, and there is every sign that hostility to whites and to their culture only grows as nonwhites gain numbers and influence. Aside from emigration, the probable outcomes are some kind of violent resolution of racial conflicts or the reduction of whites to a persecuted minority in an increasingly lawless, third-world society. The former would be horrible for all people and the latter would be intolerable for the people whose ancestors built this nation.

At present, the idea of dividing the nation into racial zones seems impossible. (For fairness sake, in the interests of those who wish to continue the grand experiment, there could be a multiracial area. It would be interesting to see how many white liberals would want to live there.) However, there are still large parts of the country that are predominantly white. They could secede. This seems a wild prospect today, but as we move into the next century the burden of racial redistribution of wealth will become increasingly unbearable, and the spectacle of city after city following the path of Detroit and Washington will continue. Who is to say what the citizens of Montana or North Dakota may decide to do?

Indeed, it need not be whole states that secede. Groups of counties could declare independence from Washington. If these efforts were coordinated to occur at the same time their effect could be very powerful. How would the central government react? Given the size of the country and the notorious mismanagement of third world governments, it may not matter how it reacts.

Of course, none of this can happen without profound change in the hearts of whites and this does not now seem likely. Nevertheless, there is simmering unrest in the land. Given clear thinking and courageous leaders we may be able to move beyond the clichés that now govern us.

Cultural Secession Comes First

In order to lay the groundwork for political separation there must first be a recognition that the present government, media, schools and courts are at war with the beliefs and values of this civilization — indeed, with its very identity. Many Americans already feel this way, though not many have an articulate sense of the racial dimension of the problem. Some see the problem primarily in religious or cultural terms. They are nevertheless allies of any American who wishes for the survival of Western Civilization on this continent.

Taken all together, Americans who feel that the nation derailed after the 1950s are a significant percentage. They may even be a majority. Only for so long will they fail to see the racial aspect of the crisis. They may soon awake — but for now they sleep.

Furthermore, so much of our civilization’s crisis goes beyond race. As Fr. Tacelli wondered in the previous issue of American Renaissance, even if whites were to separate from nonwhites would their culture then consist of the likes of Madonna?

In fact, our unwillingness to defend racial identity is linked to a severing of ties to our total civilizational identity as it manifests itself in religion, culture, family, and the norms and manners that Russell Kirk aptly termed, “the unbought graces of life.” These graces once imbued us with a sense of honor, dignity, courtesy, and piety. As these were abandoned in post-World War II America, we lost a clear sense of who we are and how we should live. It was this breakdown that led to a weakening of racial awareness.

Until Western Man recovers his ability courageously to assert his own identity, with all that this affirmation would entail, there will be no racial defense. This will involve a personal, familial and eventually communal immersion in the faiths, culture, rituals and manners of the West. It will demand that we shun the vast cultural apparatus of our decadent times in all its manifestations. The first stage of a counter-revolution then, is to believe, live, and teach as men of the West.

As one who has long felt a deep attachment to the various forms of Western faith, culture, and race, the need for a program of peaceful, dignified racial separation seems axiomatic. At the very least one must secede personally from the current chaos of mind and soul, while encouraging communal and eventually political secession as well.”

The first step then is psychological separation, recognising that we live in an alien land, and are dispossessed. That was perhaps difficult for Trump voters to do, while they thought that their man ruled the roost, but in the Biden/Harris era of tyranny it will become easier. A separation of red states and blue is probably even more urgent than addressing race issues, since this is something of an emergency. Until the happy time of separation, what I call “’the Great Divorce,” we could perhaps embrace Titus Quintius’ “Fifth Political Theory,” of living in a diaspora: “You cannot bring a corpse back to life. . . That’s the premise of the Fifth Political Theory (5PT) with regard to ethnic nationalism. The way forward is not to cling to the nation-state or to try to carve one out of a multi-ethnic imperial state. It is to reorient ourselves towards a diaspora model. The West is becoming de-nationalized. . . If we are to become a minority in what is becoming someone else’s country, and we want to continue our Western heritage, we will need to embrace the ur-identity, that of the tribe. Because we are a tribe inside a vast, multi-ethnic superstate that is increasingly foreign to us (and us foreign to it), we are also a diaspora.”

All of this is necessary to begin the long journey, of moving away, for the sake of survival. Outside of the ethno-racial issues, patriot universalists, opposed to the New World Order, also seek to rebuild, in one case, the American redoubt by James Wesley, Rawles, involving conservative Christians moving to the states of Idaho, Montana Wyoming, and adjoining portions of eastern Oregon, and eastern Washington:

https://survivalblog.com/redoubt/

“Sociologist Albert O. Hirschman in his book Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, identifies the growing libertarian trend of “Exit” strategies, all the way from the individual level up to the level of nation states.

Giordano Bruno identified a trend that has been developing informally for many years: A conscious retrenchment into safe haven states. I strongly recommend this amalgamation, and that it be formalized. I’m calling it The American Redoubt. I further recommend Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, eastern Oregon, and eastern Washington for the réduit.

Some might call it a conglomeration, but I like to call it an amalgamation, since that evokes silver. And it will be a Biblically sound and Constitutionally sound silver local currency that will give it unity.”

All of his is a step in the right direction, which is, moving away from those who would destroy us, to be free!

https://www.amren.com/news/2019/09/white-separatism-richard-mcculloch-racial-segregation/