With the final destruction of the farce of the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ), at the hands of a small force comprised of armed US policemen, that was more a squatter eviction than a battle; we are forced to wonder about the future of such attempts to create autonomous zones within existing states.
The creation of the CHAZ in Eastern Seattle was always something of a LARP by local anarchists and Antifa rather than a serious attempt to ‘fight the system’ by seceding from it.
This idea of complete secession is often viewed as key to the modern idea of autonomous zones and it has come up many times in the past in the attempts to create such zones, as was seen in the Paris Commune of 1871 as well as in the revolt of the Silesian Weavers in 1844 and the more general rising of German and Austrian workers in 1848 on which Karl Marx famously wrote ‘Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Germany’.
Yet this idea of complete secession has routinely failed and is actually the riskier view of secession from a state and the creation of autonomous zones. More practical is the view that to create autonomous zones requires far less of the political and ideological grandstanding that we saw in the CHAZ, as well as in many other such commune-based projects. Rather what is required is the creation of de facto autonomous zones that are ostensibly de jure within the state itself. Thus they do not overtly challenge the sovereignty of the state and force the state to act against them in defence of that sovereignty.
This then decreases the likelihood of using its police and military forces to try and enforce its will in these de facto autonomous zones, and if it attempts to do so it requires a far greater deployment of state assets in order to achieve the same results as were previously used.
This will sound impractical to some but only because our race has forgotten its evolutionary right to assert its dominance and will over its own destiny, as well as the lesser races that inhabit this planet.
Consider for a moment the ‘No Go’ zones that are now a fact of life in many European cities with the most famous being in the French capital of Paris. Are these not in fact de facto autonomous zones but yet maintain a de jure status within the state itself?
The cost of exerting the will of the state by using state assets is simply too great, so the state has quietly withdrawn its forces in the face of determined and violent resistance by the population that is largely composed of sub-humans. This is not to say the French or any other European government could not re-take these de facto autonomous zones, but rather that the governments simply don’t have the political will to do so. Since the jews and their liberal-left Shabbos goyim have no desire to have an urban battle break out that will undoubtedly result in many sub-human corpses littering the streets and result in a fresh political scandal because… well… brown lives matter.
Conversely if Aryans attempted to do the same as the sub-humans in the suburban slums of Paris then there would be little indecision on the matter and the tanks of the French army would roll in within hours with orders to ‘shoot to kill’ because… well… white lives don’t matter.
This means that we cannot enforce our political will in creating a de facto autonomous zones by force as the sub-humans have done, because the state hates us because of our race and its liberal supporters will cheer and thirst for more blood as the state’s mercenaries bayonet our babies.
Instead we are forced to evolve our struggle against our jew-dominated state by creating de facto autonomous zones within the ostensible bounds of the law to prevent the state physically assaulting our homes as active ‘enemies of the state’. This forces the state to either violate its own laws – and therefore break its own social contract with its citizens and create a legal precedent that the state itself does not want – or to tacitly recognize the de facto autonomous zone that is operating de jure within its own borders.
This isn’t a pipedream either given that just this has been achieved in several ‘National Liberated Zones’ within Germany – which has far more oppressive and heavily enforced anti-nationalist laws than anywhere else in the world – with the most success being seen in the village of Jamel in northern Germany. Where nearly all the village is owned by (and let) to nationalist families and there is very little the occupation government of Germany can do about it without detonating a nuclear device under its own legal system.
I mean what are they going to do? Rule that nationalists cannot own property?
Sure it is possible, but very unlikely, because that would in effect trigger armed resistance and destroy whatever remains of the government’s claim to be a ‘democracy’.
Attempts to do this by nationalists elsewhere – such as in the township of Leith in North Dakota – have failed due to both the size of the settlement (i.e. the greater the size it the harder it is to do [such as vague proclamations to settle the Pacific North West in the US]) and in the case of Leith the fact that the zone’s main exponent Craig Cobb was openly proclaiming his intention to create such a zone and was actively prevented from doing thus by the interference of the state. The failure in Leith was simply a case of an insufficient source of willing participants with some kind of discipline and actively seeking publicity for the endeavour.
In practice it is easy for a group of nationalists who know and trust each other independently of any official organizations to create de facto autonomous zones by gradually buying up property in villages and small towns, which can then be let out to other nationalist families who the group knows and can vouch for and so on.
It simply requires discipline and the willingness to put your money where your mouth is.
The advantage of creating such de facto autonomous zones is obvious enough in that it provides nationalist-dominated or completely nationalist-run local governments and infrastructure with few people able to complain to the state about the ‘evil Nazis’ who are ‘taking over their town’ because it has become an accomplished fact, much as in Jamel.
These zones also provide much needed socio-economic infrastructure for the nationalist movement as well as local bases of support that can in time be used to grow and expand nationalist influence to surrounding areas by leading by example in creating the kind of communities that will come to dominate the Fourth Reich.
This also enables the creation and tacit enforcement of nationalist law – which as long as it doesn’t overtly violate the state’s law is not likely to be challenged by the state itself (i.e. don’t start creating posses to go hunt down the local jigaboo population and the like) – and because the property belongs to many different nationalists rather than one umbrella group it cannot easily be confiscated in a contrived law suit as happened to Aryan Nations when its security guards opened fire on a lost family of niggers driving towards their compound.
Nor is this pie in the sky given that this is precisely how the Mormons created and have kept hold of power in Utah while having their church operate as a form of shadow government. Another good example is the effective takeover of the town of St. Mary’s in Kansas by the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) in recent years.
It is true that nationalists have greater obstacles and enemies ranged against them than any other group but it can and should be done, because with de facto autonomous zones that operate de jure within the state, then we can at last largely free ourselves from state interference and begin to build the Fourth Reich one community at a time.