For ten weeks, Yggdrasil has discussed the forces and movements that bear on the fate of European-Americans as a people and as a culture.
We finish these lessons with a call to action - a call for each of you to begin your own personal process of seceding from the multi-racial empire in which you live.
The primary vehicle for holding European Americans in their place is advertising. Avoid the products with the big TV ad budgets and you will cripple the communications network of the multi- racial empire. Why buy Coke when you can buy an identical generic cola for 40% less? You save money and you weaken the empire at the same time! Double bonus!
Only about 30% of the products in the grocery have big TV ad budgets. Just avoid them. Unlike our manipulated elections, your vote really counts in the marketplace. Broadcasters and marketers fight over tenths of a percent share of the market. A very small number of you can dictate behavior of the advertisers and the messages that advertisers convey. Use your power!
Those of you who have jobs should cancel your cable subscriptions. You pay $400 a year for basic service and you get garbage. Why bother? If you have children, they will be much better off without TV. They will read, raise their SAT scores, and interact with friends rather than becoming couch potato losers to the consumerist fantasy served up to them by Hollywood. Instead, rent videos so YOU control what you watch!
TV advertisers purchase programming with powerful homogenizing messages in the vain hope that a single set of commercials can appeal to all races and cultures. It is called "broadcasting". In contrast, radio has given up trying to appeal to all with a single message. Rather, radio stations battle for market share within a single racial category. To do this they purchase programming with real particularist bite. It is called "narrow casting". This is why you get Howard Stern in New York and Robert Morgan in Los Angeles. Listen to radio. It is a force for fragmentation. When TV stations begin to "narrow cast" programming to us, then you may renew your cable subscriptions.
People exhibit irrational economic behavior. For example, they will spend 45 minutes driving to a car wash and pay $10 for someone else to wash the car, when they could wash the car themselves in the same amount of time. Remember, the status trip of watching someone else wash your car strengthens government and weakens you.
Similarly, when a second spouse works, most of the income of the second spouse will ordinarily be used up by new expenses of clothing, daycare and automobiles. By electing to work in the transaction economy, the second spouse abandons his or her do-it -yourself activities that are non-taxable, and sells his or her labor which is taxable. Not only is much of the income of the lower-paid spouse absorbed by new expenses, but the government takes 40% right off the top in payroll taxes, plus local state and federal income tax. There isn't much left for you.
Worse still, what the spouse used to do for the family, he or she must pay others to do, generating a multiplier effect of taxable income in the larger economy beyond the family.
If couples really want two incomes, that is fine. Just remember how marginal the economic benefit may be after expenses and taxes, and how much the additional taxable income strengthens those who are attacking European-Americans. If remaining at home is boring or unfulfilling, perhaps there are other activities, like distributing copies of Yggdrasill's Ten Lessons to High- School students, that will get one spouse out of the house without generating taxable income of the kind that strengthens our enemies.
The above list sounds a lot like those homely virtues of hard work, family and thrift that Europeans have always relied upon to protect themselves. Well, those virtues are needed again.
We conclude this tenth and final lesson with some observations about the practical interests that drive modern nation-splitting and two additional readings that emphasize the universality of this process as the Twentieth Century comes to a close.
National power no longer depends on large land masses and large numbers of people. Rather, national power requires only a core of a few million people who can create the information base that powers modern weapons and modern economic services. National power also depends on having a relatively cohesive population that will not destroy economic productivity by generating unreasonable demands for wealth transfers. A nation also needs a population that is cohesive enough that it can recognize and respond in a unified manner to external threats.
The two great multi-racial empires, the United States and the Soviet Union, learned in Viet Nam and Afghanistan that you cannot extract enough at gunpoint from colonial possessions to justify the cost of having your own troops carry the guns.
The problem, of course, is that the same lessons apply to disparate racial or ethnic groups within these empires. Hostile ethnic groups within the Soviet Union and the United States are nearly as nettlesome and expensive as were the populations of occupied Viet Nam and occupied Afghanistan.
As long as a multi-racial empire defines itself and its power as dependent in some manner on holding these disparate groups together, then it is an easy blackmail target for any group that wants to stop contributing and begins to demand "reparations."
Further, the instruments of modern power such as cruise missiles have very little industrial content (aluminum and explosives) but enormous information content (program code, flight path terrain data and satellite targeting data). You can decapitate an enemy and neutralize it with information. You do not need vast land armies of soldiers.
Thus, the advent of the information age has made the multi-racial empire militarily obsolete.
The advent of free trade has stripped the multi-racial empire of its economic advantage.
The popular press describes the breakup of the former Soviet Union as the "liberation" of ethnic groups in the newly autonomous republics. In the popular press, it is as if those small ethnic republics were somehow in control. That description fails to recognize Russia's powerful motives for sponsoring the breakup. The elites in the KGB and the military recognized that the captive ethnic republics were a burden. The empire splitting process was an inevitable result of the racial conflicts between groups. The problem, of course, is that before the political representatives from these ethnic republics would go along with a Russian policy objective, they would demand concessions. Policy objectives that were clearly beneficial to Russia became the object of constant blackmail by the surreptitiously hostile republics. The hostility was never couched in overt terms. Rather, the demands were always couched in terms of "equality" for the "impoverished" areas of the Soviet Union.
In a sense, the ethnic republics learned to pull James Baldwin's "slow down". Russia sensed that it would be better off without these constant demands. In the end, it was Russia that "seceded" from the Soviet Union out of clear self interest.
In one sense, the secession was sloppy. There are many ethnic Russians "caught" in the newly independent republics living as minorities. You can expect to see Russia interfere in the affairs of these republics to protect its own interests and to protect the interests of the ethnic Russian minorities. But the trend is clear. Russia does not want to pay the costs of "owning" these Republics.
In the final quarter of the 20th century, nations want to keep the populations that are the most productive and the best equipped to master the information age technologies.
Nations say in public that they want to take care of the weak and save the poor. In private, the wealthy countries want to make the poor racial groups independent, and leave them in separate nations to fend for themselves. In a mirror image, the poor nations push their unemployed to migrate illegally to industrialized nations in an effort to reduce their own welfare costs.
The great events of the final quarter of the twentieth century have been driven by these practical interests.
It is these interests that drive the trends described in our two readings for this week. The first is a rather surprising article about the attempts by a town in South Carolina to secede from one county and join a different one. The final article describes this modern world-wide trend toward secession.
The article on the Carolina town is fascinating. You will note that a Euro-American minority recognizes its disproportionate payment of the County's costs. When European-Americans are in a clear minority, as here, the consequence is inevitable. The perceived cost is too high because the minority that pays the bills cannot control the amount, nor are they guaranteed peace in exchange. Their fate is not terribly different from European minorities in Africa. Pay a disproportionate price or leave! Once European- Americans are allowed to see this, the drive for secession is not far behind.
The second article summarizes the global economic forces that propel racial and ethnic groups toward secession.
Yggdrasil recommends that you read the following:
BY HELENE COOPER
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
HEMINGWAY, S.C.--White flight from cities to suburbs is one thing. But what happens when a predominantly white town attempts to secede from a predominantly black county?
It isn't quite civil war - though civil lawsuits have begun to fly, as have accusations of uncivil attitudes.
"The audacity of these white folks to attempt to do this," fumes Stanley Pasley, who heads a community group at a Williamsburg County hospital. "These people want to break their association with us. What's wrong with us? We're not desirable?"
Indeed, emotions have run high ever since this low-country hamlet began earnestly to press forward with a bold - and, critics say, brazenly racist - attempt to cut its legal ties with Williamsburg County. Hemingway township, population 2,500, is 80% white; Williamsburg County, population 38,000, is 65% black. Hemingway, accusing Williamsburg's government of poor delivery of services, has petitioned the state to join predominantly white Florence County to the north.
Fueling the controversy, Hemingway in recent years has been rapidly annexing predominantly white areas around it while declining to consider black ones. Hemingway residents nonchalantly admit the move is aimed at shoring up Hemingway's chances of getting the two-thirds majority it needs in an upcoming secession vote. A 1985 secession attempt failed by a mere 112 votes when Hemingway's blacks, then about 35% of the population, rejected it.
The new vote had been scheduled for January but has been postponed by a barrage of legal actions. For one, the U.S. Justice Department is investigating whether the secession, given the racial overtones of Hemingway's annexation efforts, violates the federal voting-rights act. Williamsburg's school district has sued to block the move as a segregationist ploy, as has the NAACP.
NAACP protesters, led by its president Benjamin Chavis, recently marched through Hemingway. Their chant: "Hemingway, Hemingway, have you heard? This is not Johannesburg."
The stakes are more than psychological. If Hemingway secedes, it would take 10% of the county's tax base, 546 manufacturing jobs and three of the county's best schools, displacing 1,100 students now bused in from other, mostly black county areas. For a county already the second poorest in South Carolina, the blow would be devastating.
Even some Hemingway residents who favor secession muster sympathy for the dire economic and educational impact it would bring. "I feel sorry for the people that would be left here, if we make it. This county's going to die if we leave," says Elaine Hays, a Hemingway nurse and mother. "But I don't feel like anything's ever going to change. The blacks around here feel like they can't vote for a white even if he's best, because that would be going against their kind." Before passage of the federal voting-rights act in 1965, Hemingway whites played an influential role in county government. But these days blacks control the county's major elected positions, including a state legislative seat and the county school board.
The official line in Hemingway is that the secession movement is motivated by economics, not race. With 38,000 people, the county is a hodgepodge of mostly downtrodden towns, tin- roofed shacks and potholed roads across a checkerboard of sprawling cotton and tobacco fields north of Charleston. Per capita income is $10,255 - $5,000 less than the state average. For work, residents mainly craft plastic containers at a Tupperware plant near Hemingway, scrub floors and make beds in nearby coastal resorts like Myrtle Beach, or get seasonal work picking cotton or processing tobacco leaves. Twenty-four percent of county families live below the poverty line - the state average is 11%.
Hemingway is everything Williamsburg County is not. Its roads are smooth and many of them four-lane; its tidy brick houses sport manicured lawns. With its compact but active business district, its two supermarkets and a Coachman Inn, the town has an air of prosperity.
Hemingway residents chronically complain that the township gets shortchanged on county services while paying a disproportionate amount of county taxes. One example, they say: Hemingway's only ambulance is often sent to cover Kingstree, the county seat 29 miles away, leaving Hemingway without protection.
Some residents also think property values suffer here because the county has a reputation not only of being poor, but also of being ineptly governed. "The executives who work for Tupperware will not live in Hemingway because we're associated with Williamsburg County," says Tim Harrelson, a local businessman.
The solution: an alliance with more prosperous Florence County. "Better to be on the tail end of a rich county than on the tail end of a poor county," says Jeffrey Lawrimore, Hemingway's mayor.
But it is Hemingway's three schools, now 88% black, that seem to be the real sore spot for whites here. Every weekday morning, a line of yellow school buses rumbles through town streets, bringing with them 1,067 black students. Until 1985, Hemingway's schools were predominantly white; in fact, the proposed busing of hundreds of new black students to town schools that year precipitated Hemingway's first secession effort.
Statistically, at least, the county-run system seems to be doing a credible job given modest resources: Per-pupil spending, at $4,235, is near the median for districts statewide, and is $2000 more per student than per capita spending in Florence County. While the Florence dropout rate for 1992 was 5.2%, Wllliamsburg County's dropout rate was 2.5%.
Yet white Hemingway residents paint a dire picture of Hemingway schools. "The schools here are really disappointing," says Mr. Harrelson, who sends his son to a nearby private school. The Florence County schools "at least appearance-wise, really seem to have a good, wholesome atmosphere," he adds.
Mrs. Hays, the nurse and lifelong Hemingway resident, concurs. She says buildings have fallen into disrepair, and she frets about drug abuse at the high school and about a majority black school board. She is also critical of a black school superintendent who she says "thinks he's God."
* * *
* * *
"Where would we put all those students?" he says. "They'll be taking our best facilities." School officials estimate the cost to build replacement schools would be more than $10 million - money the county doesn't have.
Over at Hemingway High, black students find the whole matter disconcerting. "Since this annexation stuff started, it's like I don't trust the white kids now," says Barvetta Singletary, a 10th-grader.
Some, in fact, have already felt the sting of white flight. Letia Cooper, a senior, says two of her best friends in elementary school were white. But in sixth grade, their parents, using a loophole in local law, sent them to a predominantly white public school in Florence county. The girls still live in Hemingway, and Miss Cooper, now 17, still sees them occasionally. But the relationship isn't the same. "We speak to each other," she says. "But we're not friends anymore."
BY BOB DAVIS
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
It's a paradox of global proportions: the closer that trade and technology bind nations together, the bolder the moves to break nations apart.
Who would have expected all this? Following World War II, many predicted that a global economy and global communications would lead to a world-wide community. Nationalism, they said, would decline as ever more people saw us all as passengers on lifeboat Earth.
But the growth of the global economy and of more powerful transnational institutions is producing the opposite effect. Instead of fading away, nationalism is flourishing, and not just in the war-ravaged Balkans. Now even tiny groups of people can contemplate breaking away from the central state and plugging into the world economy on their own. Regions nursing ancient grievances are claiming independence, or at least autonomy, confident they aren't committing economic suicide. At the same time, the big corporations and institutions shaping the world economy seem so remote that many people turn to local ethnic groups and obscure languages for their identity, furthering the world's political fragmentation.
"This is a world we didn't expect to happen and we haven't planned for," says Paul Goble, a specialist in ethnic movements at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Over time, he believes, the world may fracture into 500 states from the current 200. Others put the ultimate number lower but talk of a new kind of state - something akin to a corporate holding company - with the Central government little more than a shell and power residing in the regions.
The swirl of events is captured by Cable News Network and other global media, which bounce images and ideas from region to region. Separatists in Quebec track events in the Baltics, and Baltic leaders watch Latin America. All see a world of increasingly open, interdependent economies - and a world no longer threatened by the huge military apparatus of the former Soviet Union. The conclusion: The world is now safe for separatism.
"There's a lot of incentive to make your own deal with the world economy," says Charles Tilly, an expert on nationalism at the New School for Social Research in New York. "We've created an international structure where you can assert you're a nation, and the rest of us will recognize you have a right to political autonomy."
Belgium may foreshadow what is ahead. The Maryland-sized nation has already split into three regions - Wallonia, Flanders and Brussels - and three language groups - French, Dutch and German. The regions control trade, industry and technology, and they lobby the European Union for money. The language groups control education and culture. Brussels now is the site of the EU's government, Belgium's government, Brussels' government, Flanders' government and various language-group committees.
As complicated as all that sounds, some Israeli academics are studying Belgium as a model for power-sharing in ethnically and religiously divided Jerusalem.
In the past, separatist movements were inward-looking and chauvinistic. But the new ones see themselves as internationalists and free-traders, who count conservative economist Milton Friedman and globalist John Naisbitt as heroes. And the new nations network at every opportunity. Early this year, in the Alpine splendor of Davos, Switzerland, the prime ministers of Estonia and the Czech Republic - two nations that didn't exist five years ago - huddled with Argentina's finance minister to discuss economic strategy.
Argentina had shucked protectionism and curbed inflation, and the new nations are doing the same. In April, Czech Prime Minister Vaclav Klaus traveled to Argentina to propose a free-trade zone between the nations. This summer, Mr. Klaus and Argentina's finance minister plan to visit Estonia, which is selling off state-owned factories and farms.
In Spain, Catalonia's regional president, Jordi Pujol, is due in Montreal to meet with Quebec separatists next spring. Slovakia's deputy prime minister, Brigita Schmognerova, met with leaders from Flanders and Wallonia when she visited Belgium before taking office. She believes the breakup of Czechoslovakia shows that "if both sides agree to separation, it can be done without violence and without any especially negative effects."
But an outward orientation hardly protects against turmoil. Trade between China's southern coastal provinces and foreign nations is growing faster than in China's vast interior, widening regional disparities. In the coastal region of Guangdong, government officials have occasionally threatened poorer provinces with military action if they don't ship enough rice.
More power is likely to flow to China's regional centers, says Gerald Segal, a scholar at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies. He even raises the possibility that China could break apart, amid civil war and mass migration. "In the longer term, you can argue that China is better managed in a looser way," he says. "The difficulty is getting there without a lot of bloodletting."
The former Yugoslavia brings daily reminders of just how brutal nationalist movements can become. And even in Canada and Western Europe, where few expect the separatists to go to war, minorities in newly assertive regions complain of discrimination, and businesses consider fleeing rather than face disruption. When Quebecers first discussed independence, a slew of corporations reduced their staffs in Montreal or moved outright to Toronto. The global challenge, says Oleh Havrylyshyn of the International Monetary Fund, is to find a "satisfied nationalism" that frees regions to set their own destiny without sparking a violent breakup.
Barcelona shows how a balance can be achieved. The Mediterranean city, the capital of an independent Catalonia during the Middle Ages and in brief periods afterward, was smothered by the Franco dictatorship, with the Catalan language suppressed and the regional government disbanded. Now, with democracy and considerable autonomy restored, Barcelona remains part of Spain but looks to Europe and the global economy for its future. To finance local projects, Catalonia borrowed one billion French francs ($17 million) in Europe's capital markets. Joan Vallve, until recently Catalonia's secretary for foreign initiatives, is leading a trade mission to Indonesia and talks about Europe and North Africa replicating the North American Free Trade Agreement. Catalonia's growing autonomy has sapped the drive for full independence; the secession party polls in single digits, and Barcelona has suffered none of the violence plaguing the Basque region.
Meanwhile, the multinational companies that helped build the global economy find some regional differences a nuisance. Solvay SA, a Belgian chemical company, says that although the growth of global markets enables it to charge a single price for certain plastics anywhere in the world, it must now wrestle with a kaleidoscope of environmental rules. "Sometimes it's ridiculous," says Baron Daniel Janssen, chairman of its executive committee. "You have local, incompetent people dealing with very large problems."
Big food companies, after long catering to ethnic tastes, are well positioned to cope with greater regionalism. In Switzerland, Philip Morris Co.'s Jacobs coffee unit sells three types of coffee - to satisfy the differing tastes of the country's Italian, German and French regions. In the U.S., CPC International Inc. imports its Mexican soups to the Southwest and its Puerto Rican soups to New York City.
* * *
But Slovenia, which broke off from Yugoslavia, moved quickly to replace the lost Yugoslav market by strengthening ties with Germany and negotiating free-trade pacts with the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary. "We have to be flexible," says Mitja Gaspari, Slovenia's finance minister.
The changing face of separatism can be seen in Quebec. In the 1970s, the movement was fed by complaints of blue-collar French speakers that the best jobs were reserved for English speakers. But in recent years, separatist leaders have become more sophisticated. "The fundamental discovery of our time," says Jacques Parizeau, who heads the Parti Quebecois, is "that a small country can prosper so far as it exists within larger markets." The separatists broke with their labor supporters to back the Canadian-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 1988 and Nafta last year. The reason: Nafta offers Quebec an economically viable way out of Canada. So long as Quebec faces no tariff barriers, it can continue trading with the rest of Canada as well as with the U.S., Mexico and any other countries that eventually join the trade zone.
* * *
Until the fall of the Berlin Wall, only a few separatist movements were recognized internationally: Singapore's break from Malaysia and Bangladesh's from Pakistan.
But the Soviet Union's demise spawned more than a dozen new nations and freed others from the fear of military conquest. The peaceful reunification of Germany persuaded Slovenians that they could redraw their borders without a major war, Finance Minister Gaspari says. And expanded trade opportunities enabled them to secede without terrible economic costs. Separatists, though, may underestimate post-Cold War dangers. Regional military powers could threaten the newly fragmented, weak countries. "What happens in the future if there is a threat to the nation-state?" asks Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International. "Has it been so weakened that it can't coalesce to meet a national threat?"
That's a risk that separatists seem willing to take. More than any one region, Central Europe is a laboratory of how to split nations apart. A day's drive from the grisly Balkan breakup, the Czech Republic and Slovakia negotiated a peaceful divorce with 40 separate agreements that divided pensions, social security, the military and foreign-treaty responsibilities.
But not without cost. Even though the two new nations didn't put tariffs on each other's goods, trade between them fell 16% last year as each tried to sell more to Western Europe. The Czech Republic has been far more successful at stabilizing its currency, curbing inflation and selling off state companies than Slovakia, which is saddled with big, state-owned arms manufacturers. "We paid a high price for separation," says Ms. Schmognerova, Slovakia's deputy prime minister. "but it was a historic chance to have our own state."
In the end, the wealthier Czech Republic may be seen as the winner, having jettisoned a costly southern flank. Elsewhere, wealthier regions also may become a force for fragmentation, says Piero Gastaldo, director of the Agnelli Foundation, in Turin, Italy. Some Italians in the prosperous north favor a break from the laggard Mezzogiorno. In Spain, self- determination is on the rise in the industrial center around Barcelona: in China, it's in the booming coastal provinces.
Joining the global economy isn't automatic, however. Several states of the former Soviet Union have either bungled such efforts or found foreign markets less open than they had hoped. As a result, struggling Belarus and Russia signed a treaty that calls for a monetary union and may lead to Belarus's eventual loss of independence. Moldova may follow suit.
Both small states are agricultural producers hurt by stiff trade barriers in Western Europe. "In desperation, they're turning back" to Russia. which can offer them markets and cheap energy, says Basil Kavalsky, a World Bank adviser to former Soviet states.
But the global economy doesn't just make the world safer for many breakaway movements; it also reinforces their desire to assert regional identities. International bureaucracies don't create a sense of belonging, and many people fear ceding control to them. In India's high-tech center of Bangalore, which benefits from growing international contacts, Hindu fundamentalism is on the rise. So is the Sons of the Soil movement, which wants to reserve local jobs for local workers. Opponents of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade have organized protests by hundreds of thousands of people who see the recent trade pact as global encroachment, fear it will harm farmers and complain that any benefits won't be shared equally.
But many others see globalization as an opportunity. Tamil emigres, driven from Sri Lanka by discrimination and civil war, use the very symbol of globalization - the personal computer - to plot their future. Through the Internet system, they link up their widely dispersed community and swap ideas for organizing an autonomous region if not an independent state.
* * *
[The excerpts above are from longer articles that you may obtain from the Dow Jones News Retrieval.]
© 1996-1998 Yggdrasil. All rights reserved. Distribute texts freely.