Sunday, October 23, 2016

Texas could destroy the United States

Many people mistakenly but understandably believe that the State's most powerful weapon against its subjects is its superior firepower. While that firepower is obviously important, it's not the State's most powerful weapon.

The State's most powerful weapon is its putative legitimacy. As long as the State is perceived as legitimate, it can do anything it wants to. Once a regime loses its legitimacy, however, its downfall becomes not a question of "if", but a question of "when".

The state department is conceding things in negotiations with other countries to influence the outcome of the presidential election. Thousands of illegal voter registrations have occurred in places like Indiana and Virginia. There are millions of dead people on voter rolls and registered in multiple states--and voter fraud is relatively easy to detect. Electoral fraud--the fraud that takes place during the counting process--is even more difficult for those on the outside to trace and definitively track.

With wildly divergent polls providing cover, an professional media backing Hillary more overwhelmingly than self-identified Democrats are, and a bipartisan political apparatus that demands Trump lose, even the discovery of blatant irregularities and outright fraud won't reverse a Hillary win if it occurs.

Trump's refusal to offer a blanket acceptance of next month's election results was the most significant blow he's landed on the Establishment in the last 18 months, and that's saying a lot.

Speaking of, I'd be remiss if I didn't propose a toast to the host who can boast the most roast:



If Hillary wins, she'll enter office with an approval rating below 50% and it probably will not, through the course of her presidency, ever crack 50%. The majority of white Americans will be faced with the stark reality that they haven't chosen a president for over a decade, and rather than being an aberration, such an outcome is the new normal.

Not just white Republicans, either, but white Democrats as well. White Democrats wanted Hillary in 2008 but got Obama instead. White Democrats wanted Bernie in 2016 and got Hillary instead. A minority of a minority of whites now pick the president.

Wealth inequality will continue to grow, the number of adults out of the workforce will as well, and another recession similar to the one that began in 2008 will hit. Nullification and secession will continue to move from the fringe of political thought into the realm of not just the possible, but the desirable.

And if something like Texit happens, the United States as a political entity is over. If Texas leaves, the electoral college immediately becomes utterly and irrevocably impossible for Republicans to win. Movements in the remaining red states to follow suit start springing up everywhere and the perceived legitimacy of the federal government, already on a decades-long downward trajectory, plummets through the floor.

15 comments:

IHTG said...

This secession stuff is a bit fantastic, isn't it? You'll sooner see the adaptation of some sort of Roman consul-type system where you have de-facto co-presidents of the blue and red states. Probably in the form of a Democratic president appointing a Republican vice president to quell unrest.

Anonymous said...

The establishment would order the invasion of Texas before they let it leave the union. These people are completely ruthless.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

I think the splitting up of the United States is inevitable regardless of who wins. Hillary is an accelerationist: she wants Obama's policies to continue except she wants it done faster and harder. If Trump gets everything he wants, secession is still inevitable as long as white birth rates are still dismal. The US won't last as it is unless we have some type of strongman that can keep the ethnic blocs in line, which is how things are done in the Middle East. So we'd need an American equivalent of Gaddafi or Hussein to keep disparate groups together. The only real solution to save the US as it is is to deport most of the post 1965 immigrants and that is a pipe dream. It's not going to happen.

The US breaking up into multiple rump states seems feasible and not as bad as some people can imagine. You would have Texas, a Hispanic majority SW United States (or just get annexed into Mexico), Cascadia, Deseret, and likely a white ethnonationalist rump state that stretches from Idaho down to the deep south that would still be considered the United States. The only question is New England and Mid Atlantic, which could break on their own in order to finally be able to emulate Western Europe or Canada. Any supposed losses from California's "economy" will be offset by not having to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in social programs for Hispanics. Silicon Valley will just move to North Carolina and keep humming along as if nothing happened.

Seems crazy to suggest but if you told people 50 years ago that major US cities will turn into the third world and that the US will be less than 50% white sometime in the 2030s, they'd call you crazy too. If the Democrats want to push the pedal to the floor to accelerate globalism, they might be in for a surprise.

M said...

If you did get a divided US though, you might have to still be careful what you wish for, as you could get this scenario:

United States divides->Separate states form->NAFTA becomes more powerful, brokering trade between the states->NAFTA becomes a de facto European Union of North America (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union)

Once you've got a lot of divided states, it's relatively easy for an economic union and trade organisation involving the biggest few to play small states off against each other, and to isolate small states with tariffs and trade war, then to take away their sovereignty piece by piece. See Brexit for one look at how this is going, and the kind of threats and power politics involved. "Without us, you'll be powerless against China, and without us you'll be poor and backwards".

That would be a pretty bad outcome, losing all the benefits of the current US union, as a real state, for a form of union that's much worse in all ways. Those benefits may look slim today, dominated by the post-truth politics of lying and manipulation, but the US at least has a democratic government in some form, that could provide at least some nationalist check on globalist elites, and not a bunch of Soviet esque unaccountable technocrats and an unaccountable parliament.

Legitimacy wouldn't matter. No one thinks the EU is legitimate. They just think it's able to control the economics, and that it's the representative of an inevitable economic order.

Audacious Epigone said...

IHTG,

We're past that point. From Caesar onward consuls were appointed. Often times one of them was the emperor himself, other times not. But the emperor had all the control and everyone knew it.

Anon,

I don't think so. For one thing, we sell it to leftists as getting rid of the racist backwards hillbillies in Texas and the presidency forever, a win-win! For another, there will be a huge number of military defections--or worse--if ordered to start putting down the expressed will of states and their populations. The US military's enlisted forces are still substantially comprised of salt-of-the-earth types. And there are similar things happening all over the West.

Random Dude,

Well put. What is the compelling reason, other than economic expediency, to bind together through coercion a population that is as ethnically, religiously, culturally, politically, economically, geographically, and racially diverse?

M,

NAFTA is unpopular and becoming more so. It's getting to the point now where support for free trade agreements is politically suicidal. I suspect opposition to it will be strong, certainly it will be in red states. It's a little known fact that Republican voters tend to be more hostile to free trade that Democrat voters are, despite that not being the case among the 'leadership'.

M said...

AE: On the short cycle, that's the politics at the moment, you're right. Just bear in mind we're talking on a longer cycle, the US economy is really, really integrated, and "free trade" and a single market between US regions is pretty critical, and is key to the wealth and power of the USA and your ability to field the most advanced military on the planet. So if you separate into different nation states, then an organization or entity can stand to gain a lot of power by brokering continuation of that economic integration and defensive military integration in place of the US government. If they do, whoever they are, they may not be that democratic and may well be fully in thrall to globalist integration. That's all I have to say about that right now.

Anonymous said...

"For one thing, we sell it to leftists as getting rid of the racist backwards hillbillies in Texas and the presidency forever" - The democrats can see the demographic writing on the wall, just a few more election cycles and they win by default on that front. but that may well spark a larger legitimacy crisis.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

It needs to be pointed out that as the numbers of non-whites increase, the kkkrazy glue that keeps the non-whites together will struggle to hold together. Hispanic interests are very different than black interests which are different than LGBT interests and so on. These groups were all able to be banded together at first when they were just 10-15 percent of the population but a one party state is not destined to last long if they are now 40-45 percent of the population. Hispanics will begin to show stronger independence and may even form their own political party themselves. If Hispanics really are the future, they reason, why do they need to share power with blacks and Asians? I really think a one party state may be able to hold it together for maybe one or two Presidential cycles but not more than that.

Joshua Sinistar said...

Oh its far more easy and simple than that. Unplug from Uncle Sham. Stop accepting the Fed's Play Money. They can't tax anything but Monopoly Money from Felon Yellen. No Dollars, no taxes. The Fake Federal Government run by the Fed Den of Thieves will go belly up in a week to ten days. The brown will either run, starve or enter straight into your line of fire.

Audacious Epigone said...

M,

That military footprint is a bug rather than a feature. A state militia plus nuclear weapons are sufficient for the legitimate defense needs of a healthy republic. The political dissolution of the United States would be the end of the empire and its nation-building.

Random Dude,

You articulate my sentiments better than I can.

Joshua,

Nullification, secession, and sound money against which the dollar floats. These are ideas whose times are coming.

Anonymous said...

I'm reasonably certain secession's been tried before. It made the government stronger, not weaker; "these United States" became "the United States". You could make arguments about the wimpy current masters of the universe compared to the yanks of yesteryear, but the toughest Texan of 2016 looks pretty effete next to his forebears too.

Great nations rise and fall in ten generations, invariably. Who knows what's next, but it ain't going to be pretty.

The Exile said...

I'd happily cross enemy lines to live in Texas. The last time that I was in Dallas, the guys brought me out drinking an made me an "Honorary Redneck" because this boy from Minnesota fit in so well. I'll bring my own guns.

Random Dude has an excellent point: ALL leftist movements end in them fighting and killing each other. Always.

I've been saying it for years: Split the country at the Mississippi. The Leftists take their beloved east, we take the west. When their Socialist system collapses - as they always do - we take the east back. The Leftists can go to Canada - or Hell, for that matter. We'll take their non-ideological slaves, but the true-believers will be sent into exile. North Korea would be fitting.

Anonymous said...

The real threat is when Texas goes blue, which it will soon do. That will end any pretense that the Republicans are a viable political party at the national level and that "conservatism" has any chance of winning. Voting Republican will be a protest vote only.

the kkkrazy glue that keeps the non-whites together will struggle to hold together.

Well, so what? You'll still be living in an occupied country as a serf. And that country will be a third-world dump. What's more, these groups will still be looking to sponge off of you and blame you for their failures. Look at South Africa, blacks have total power bur are still pretending their failure is the fault of white privilege. The KKKrazy glue won't end because of the stark reality of what whites have accomplished and what blacks and browns haven't. It would mean admitting some type of racial inferiority.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

The Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire that followed both broke up. In the late 18th century our forebearers tried to secede--and did. It can be done. Hispanics in California and SWPLs in Vermont aren't going to clamor for the federal government to keep Texas from leaving.

The Exile,

I'm easily able to base out of the Dallas area professionally. We'd seriously consider making the move it Texit looked like it could happen.

Anon,

That will have a similar effect. Red states will realize that we'd be into one-party territory at the national level. Heritage America won't even get lip service anymore. The breakup of the US will happen in our lifetimes.

mikestreetstation said...

You don't need Texit to lose Texas. It's happening already due to demographics. Trump is barely ahead there, and he should be ahead by double digits. But the long term population replacement project is reaping it's rewards. This may be the last Presidential election in which Texas is a red state.