Rhodesia and Texas Nationalism

I have finished reading "A Line in the Sand" by Dennis Miller who is head of The Texas Nationalist Movement.  I also wrote up eleven pages of typed notes, and have complied them into subject groups.

Some elitist academic scholars might mock the book for using quotes from science fiction characters, but this would just demonstrate that the scholars themselves have elitist attitudes. Science fictions compromise the mythologies of today and the literature of today.

The book for the purpose for which Miller wrote the book, the creation of a reactionary white Texas nationalism generally utilizes all the means nationalists use for promote a national identity. It doesn't have a bibliographic guide for the readers for books on Texas history and culture which is a significant omission for a nationalist effort.

I am not saying I endorse the book, nor am I saying the book is well written, I certainly don't agree with the claims made within the book, and not the goals either. What I am saying is that as an effort to promote a nationalist separatist agenda, the book generally does the necessary things.

What puzzled me was how Dennis Miller really expected his plan to have a Texas secessionist movement work. He does give a plan for a referendum and how to get that done, but how he expects a majority of Texans to support Texas secession either for getting the state legislature to approve having a referendum on secession and then having a majority of the voters to vote for secession is a puzzle.

I don't think African Americans, Hispanics, nor other minorities which have gotten civil rights and voting rights from the Federal government in opposition to the Texas government are likely to support secession. Miller wants to repeal the 14th Amendment which gave African Americans citizenship and also gives anyone born in the United States citizenship. Miller's discussion of Texas country  music in opposition to Nashville Country music as well as discussing other identifiers of being Texan certainly shows that his idea of who Texans are is a small fraction even of white Texans.

It is true that Miller wants to assimilate non-whites to his idea of Texas identity, and I am sure that there are minority members in Texas who would like to be that token.

The one reason for secession which Miller repeats over and over again is that the United States isn't the ultra-reactionary nation that he wants and that Texas would be that nation. It is doubtful that a majority of Texans want his reactionary Texas nation even if it was independent or support secession  if they knew that was the end goal of Texas secession. So the question comes up how he thinks this might be done.

Miller is quite aware of secession movements occurring globally. He has done his homework. What he doesn't mention in his book is the secession of Rhodesia from Britain, though it is hard to believe that he is not aware of it, though he might not be aware of it. Rhodesia is now known as Zimbabwe.

The secession of Rhodesia shows how a reactionary Texas secessionist might get the reactionary Texas they want.

During the 1960s the British were dismantling what remained of their empire and was implementing independence to former bodies in the empire. The British were implementing a transition to a black majority rule democratic government in Rhodesia. The Rhodesian government declared independence and implemented a system of white rule excluding blacks. This led to a long guerrilla war and now dictatorship by a particularly bad and incompetent dictator.

To get a reactionary independent Texas exclusion of persons from voting would be a necessary step.

The Texas Nationalist Movement has already rejected Supreme Court rulings against voter suppression.

https://www.facebook.com/texasnatmov/photos/a.173131556058689.33236.123857614319417/1123615867676915/?type=3&theater


The Texas Nationalist Movement surely realizes that the ongoing demographic shifts in Texas will soon preclude the realization of his reactionary Texas nation or even a conservative Texas state.  Young people in Texas don't support reactionary agendas. Minorities don't support them. It is the older generation in Texas that strongly support Trump. Persons moving to Texas don't support this reactionary agenda.

By 2020 there is talk of Texas being a democratic state.

However, if you can find some mechanism to exclude those voters who don't support you can still create a "majority" out of those who remain.

So you find one reason or another to exclude groups of voters that tend to have more of your opponents than supporters. Maybe they can't have been late in paying taxes in the last ten years, or unpaid parking tickets, or have received public assistance now or in the last ten years, or a criminal record in the past, or didn't pay property taxes, or didn't go through a lengthy and expensive voter registration, or don't own property in Texas.  Maybe they haven't lived at a fixed residence for 2 years which would tend to exclude those who rent. Maybe they have to have lived in Texas for 5 or 10 years.

There must be a million ways to do this. It all can be done under the guise of avoiding voter fraud or having voters committed to their locality or some rationalization.

Rhodesia was able to implement its unilateral declaration of independence by having a military which backed it up. That is to say they did it by force and the threat of violence.

Miller in his book doesn't call for violence or illegal means. He asks for a referendum. However, given his Facebook posting on the Federal Courts throwing out the Texas state government's efforts for voter suppression, it has to be asked if it is just his general opposition to the Federal government or is it that he is conscious that voter suppression is necessary to his plan?

My original thought that the election of Donald Trump to be president would be largely the end of the  prospects of the Texas Nationalist movement since their potential base would see Donald Trump as realizing an agenda to address their discontents. If Hillary Clinton is elected I think the Texas Nationalist movement would really surge in support as some reactionaries decide their agenda is hopeless in the United States.

However, with Trump, voting rights might be trampled. The country might also be in disorder. So at some point when Trump isn't president or during some general disorder a vote of a restricted set of voters might be feasible in Texas.

But back to the title of this blog.

The working concept behind how to achieve an independent Texas I think is really Rhodesia.

Below is the Facebook page dedicated to opposing Texas secession.

https://www.facebook.com/TexansTruetotheUnion/