Wednesday, November 14, 2018

New York Magazine contemplates secession--the time for political dissolution draws nearer

Political dissolution is an idea whose time has come. Advocating it a decade ago was met with mockery even from many of those on the dissident right. No longer. A few years ago, Pat Buchanan began talking about it. Now it's entering mainstream discourse. From New York Magazine (via IHTG):

Let’s just admit that this arranged marriage isn’t really working anymore, is it? The partisan dynamic in Washington may have changed, but our dysfunctional, codependent relationship is still the same.
There is no longer any racial, religious, moral, cultural, political, linguistic, or ethnic unity in the US as it is currently defined. The last remaining bond holding the thing together, beyond inertia, is economic expediency. It's why talk of dissolution will begin in interest once the impending economic downturn hits. The Federal Reserve, with rates already under three percent, will be unable to stave it off.

It is as a nationalist that I support political dissolution. A nation requires a shared sense of the aforementioned characteristics. As currently constituted, the United States shares none of these things. It is not a nation. It is an empire comprised of several disparate nations inside of it. The empire must fall for those nations to flourish.

When the US dollar loses its status as the world's reserve currency, it will become obvious that not only are the federal government's debts unpayable--which just about everyone already assumes to be the case--but that they are no longer even serviceable. Running away from the Imperial Capital's obligations will start to sound appealing. Gubernatorial campaigns will put secession at the center of the platform and the breakup will begin.

The NYMag article takes a fairly predictable stab at what dissolution might look like, at least initially, but it would be excessively audacious to pretend to know precisely how it will play out. It may be municipalities that get the ball rolling, it may be a single state, a compact of states, an entire region, or it may manifest in some other way.

However it begins, once it has it will not take long for the cascade to occur. Imagine a Texit that includes Oklahoma and Arkansas. Rather than prevent the exit, leftists will be cheering--Congress, the presidency, and the making of the Supreme Court will forever be under Democrat control. Remaining red state America will presented with a stark choice--effectively forfeit all political power indefinitely, or bail. Many other states will follow Texas' lead and choose the latter.

Initially, the emergent states will be based on preexisting political and geographical arrangements but over time the realignment will take on distinct racial and ethnic characteristics. Savvy red states will drastically slash welfare benefits while encouraging, even aiding, low-income residents (read blacks) in relocating to Blue America where benefits are more generous. SWPLs won't stop migrants from truly foreign lands moving in now, so they're certainly not going to stop former American blacks and browns from moving in tomorrow.

The conjecture on what potentially follows dissolution is just that. Political dissolution sounds scarier than it should. That there will be any support for militarily stopping a state or compact of states from seceding is highly unlikely. The federal government could hardly get away with snuffing out the Branch Davidian complex a generation ago. In the Current Year there is no stomach for scaling that up by a factor of ten thousand. The Soviet Union's disintegration was not bloody and neither will that of the United States.

As for the concern that an emergent smaller new country or countries will be susceptible to invasion, there is no invasion of Mexico, Canada, or Cuba on the table today and those countries don't even have nukes. Let Montana purchase a few nuclear warheads and its risk of invasion will be nil.

When the topic comes up in conversation and people ask what will change from the way things are now, I answer that the money withheld from their paychecks each week for federal income taxes will no longer be withheld and whatever services the federal government provides them--if they can think of any, because I can't!--will no longer be provided to them.

The reason we're whipped into a frenzy each time a putative federal government shutdown looms ahead of a debt ceiling 'crisis' is because the Cloud People don't want the Dirt People to realize how superfluous said Cloud People are. Furlough a couple million federal government employees and nothing happens? Why didn't we scrub these parasites off sooner?

Last Spring I put together a couple of posts based on a Reuters-Ipsos poll from 2014 asking respondents whether or not they supported "the idea of your state peacefully withdrawing from the USA and the federal government". Unbeknownst to me at the time but subsequently brought to my attention by a pro-secession Faceborg group, R-I picked the poll back up a couple of years later, running it through Trump's inauguration in January of 2017.

As a consequence, we now have a sample size of 37,465 to work with--more than twice as large as the one initially used. The following graph shows the percentages of people, by selected demographics, who support peaceful secession. "Don't know" responses, constituting one-fifth of all responses, are excluded:


That the military is a bastion of pro-secessionist sentiment doesn't bode particularly well for the idea that the federal government will successfully instruct the army to turn its guns on states or compacts electing to leave the union.

Political dissolution is most strongly supported by the young and by non-whites. Boomers are strongly opposed, but from Xers on down it's hardly a radical idea. In other words, it is the country's future.

Political dissolution is a decidedly non-partisan issue. More than one-quarter of Republicans and of Democrats, and nearly one-third of independents are supportive of the idea. As support grows across the political spectrum, the possibility of a relatively amicable breakup will grow with it. Acrimony--let alone bloodshed--will be unnecessary and should be avoided. A soft landing is preferable to crashing into the mountainside for all on board.

80 comments:

Rien said...

Shortly after the USSR split up I predicted the split of the US. Though at the time I did not (of course) foresee how it would happen. But power is always bipolar, it cannot be any other way. Once the USSR fell, all that was left was a unipolar world. And just about the only way possible for a new bipolar world was either a US-China devision (which was prevented by the globalists) or a split through the US itself. The unipolar splitting to become bipolar.

Needless to say, I was laughed at by all.

The current mess can still be resolved by a US-China split, but time is running out. If china caves under the trade barriers, or china implodes, then the breakup of the US is unavoidable. But even if china does not cave or implodes and Trump manages to paint China like a kind of global enemy, the likelihood of a US split remains high.

IHTG said...

The scenario NYmag describes is not secession, it's political devolution. If the United Kingdom is any example, devolved regions won't necessarily be eager to formally secede. Why not leave well enough alone?

Anonymous said...

I would expect whites to support secession and blacks to oppose it, mainly b/c with secession whites would no longer have to support blacks, assuming the dissolution leads to whites-only areas, yet the poll does not support that. I assume that is likely due to residual white nostalgic patriotic feeling for the USA.

Anonymous said...

@IHTG
"If the United Kingdom is any example, devolved regions won't necessarily be eager to formally secede."

The government of Scotland, UK's most prominent devolved region was quite eager to secede.
And so did more than 2/5 of the Scottish voters.

Ireland shows how demands for political devolution ("home rule") ended up turning into demands for secession from UK.

Jamie said...

According to demographic and voting trends, in a few years Texas will become a blue state. From the point of view of your political orientation, what would be the point of secession?

Anonymous said...

"There is no longer any racial, religious, moral, cultural, political, linguistic, or ethnic unity in the US as it is currently defined. The last remaining bond holding the thing together, beyond inertia, is economic expediency."

No.

The Indissoluble Bond that will HOLD The Winner Takes It All is GEOGRAPHY.

Nor does the character of the enemy allow peace. Nor The History of North America.
The History of North America Sir is Manifest Destiny - which merely means look at the map.

No competent government would settle for anything less than Atlantic to Pacific.
Nothing guarantees that competent government would be White.
=========================================================================================

The Left wishes to dissolve because they have lost most of the nation's territory and indeed only win elections based on their imported electoral mercenaries; who are Latin Americans in the main with Reconquista in their eyes. We now have not only native Leftists who desire our genocide but tens of millions from a pool of half a billion in Latin America whose stated goal is conquest of North America. Both are competent in wishing to carve off territory to have a secure base but both will then use said territory to take the rest.

^This merely means they are competent and can read a map, understand basic History.^

=>You do not know how to read a map nor history.

So you would give them what they cannot take by elections nor force?
Hmmm.

You would cede vast swathes of land to avoid a fight or nasty elections?
You'll get and we'll get Wars - several Wars and decades of not fighting but terrible Wars as payment for such a shameless and false bargain.

Finally I am now wondering about your data: I'm white with 19 years of service and never have encountered this pro-secessionist sentiment in the military - not once.
Ad post hoc defenses of the Historic Confederacy yes....but not sentiment nor ever a suggestion of breaking up the USA. I'm political but I also listen to people keenly and I think at least once I would have heard such sentiments but never a hint.

However perhaps the surveys are eliciting more candor than trusted comradeship and liquor, food can summon. Still doesn't get you what you want...

But it does summon war - which suits me and the likes of me. I can't wait to work on American soil. Heaven descending to earth for guys like me... Hell's Gates torn off the hinges for the rest of you. [That may not be in your data...perhaps you should talk to some actual breathing Vets ?]

So Rock On Secesh !! Rock It !!

You can't say we didn't warn you...

IHTG said...

Anonymous: Or looking at it another way, they had an actual ethnic identity and still couldn't scrape together a majority.

Philippe le Bel said...

please, do it !

https://nsa39.casimages.com/img/2018/11/15/181115012945377453.png

akarlin said...

As an alternative to secession, what do you make of Operation Thorfinnsson?

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/military-spending-in-2017/#comment-2317916

Henry Lee said...

Read Stephen Coonts's, "Freedom's Last Stand".

Barry declares martial law and Texas secedes. It settles out pretty much as you say. I can't say much else without giving away the fun.

sykes.1 said...

While I agree that dissolution of the US is necessary for internal peace, very large population transfers between States would be necessary, and that by itself might cause civil war.

The alternative is a Pinochet-style coup d'etat with disappearances of lefties over the Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific. That would be pretty ugly, too.

However, the most likely scenario is that the US remains nominally intact with a large Southwestern territory of failed State and local governments a la Mexico and Central America. Much of the territory would be under the control of the drug cartels, and the local language and customs would be Spanish and Mexican. Federal control would be a fantasy, and the feds would be desperately trying to stem the spread of the Mexican cancer.

Jig Bohnson said...

Breaking up the country doesn't solve anything though. Any reasonably-sized subset would still be riven by social divisions.

For example AE I believe you live in Kansas. If revealed preferences in multiple elections are an indication, as an independent country it would presumably move toward being some sort of prosperity gospel evangelical theocracy. Mullah Sam Brownback and his council of Mejlis. They would probably love to import any Mayan or Tongan who signed a pledge to go to church twice a week. Would you find that any more tolerable?

As for the newly-independent South encouraging the departure of its AAs, do you think the Waffle House and Chick-fil-A CEOs will allow that?

Anonymous said...

The Anonymous comment above is, I suppose, representative of the Boomer demographic. Hold on to the recession-proof stocks, grandpa.

Anonymous said...

The geography of North America condemns us to unity.

I suggest you start planning for it to be us.

If you're going to wax geopolitical look at a map.

Not to mention neither our nature nor our human terrain support a breakup.

We won 2654 of 3141 counties in 2016 even by the Democrats count.

Sorry there's too many of us to surrender and too few of them geographically contiguous to surrender to...nor do they EVER ACCEPT SURRENDER. Their goal is our eradication.

So it's they surrender as we cannot and will not surrender to our own genocide or war to decide the ultimate victor. If foreign powers become involved then Wars plural [most likely outcome and already under way].

One may say Democracy is fickle and often...nothing compared to polling data.

What isn't fickle is Human Nature's survival instincts and our savage fighting when survival is at stake.

Anonymous said...

As for the Mexican cancer...it advances from opportunistic infection to cancer because it is untreated. If all else fails we can always resort to Radiation treatments- nuke it as it were...

The Mexicans tragic fate they bought on themselves. They're greedy, venal and stupid.
Whatever fate that is they bought it on themselves. They're actually in the position of Romania invading the Soviet Union [they sure did]. Difference being the other side has no Germans...

Hell they don't even have the Italians.

Anonymous said...

As much as I would like to agree, I am afraid this is delusional thinking. Even excluding the blatant voter fraud in AZ, FL, and GA, the 2018 elections were a devastating blow for Republicans. The newly minted felon vote in Florida will ensure that the Democrats win Florida in 2020, and Trump can't win without Florida. AZ and GA will likely go blue by 2020, and TX may go blue by 2020. Demography is destiny.

Following the 2020 election the Democrats will be firmly in control of the Presidency and the House, probably permanently. The Republicans will likely control the Senate, but the GOPe will happily concede to Democratic demands in exchange for a small tax cut for billionaires. The left will have no reason to give up territory or the taxable income of productive citizens in that territory.

There are no serious rivals to the US dollar as the world's reserve currency, at least in the lifetime of anyone reading this. As bad as the US debt problem is, the rest of the world is far worse. China is on the cusp of collapsing into a debt-drive economic death spiral. The EU is falling apart. There simply are no contenders to compete with the dollar as a reserve currency.

We are far more likely to see Medicare for All and de facto open borders than we are to see any sort of political dissolution.

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

the problem is its more like India where its more of a checkerboard type arrangement. It's more urban vs rural. So if Texas were to secede - you still have a decent chunk of the state who wouldn't be too happy with it - namely the main urban areas.

Anonymous said...

It seems plausible some groups like Muslims feel a sense of belonging to some subnational unit like NYC or Detroit instead of to the US. Are all the categories statistically significant?

216 said...

O/T

Will this meddlesome thot please exit from the scene

https://twitter.com/FaithGoldy/status/1063119088267001857

When you get 3%, no one gives a shit. When you helped almost cost Steve King his seat in Congress...

MBlanc46 said...

When I first started talking about disaggregation eight or ten years ago, I did so jokingly. Aboit five years ago, I became dead serious. It’s the only peaceful way forward. And the sooner, the better.

Anonymous said...

I was thinking about this today - if there is a second consecutive "ec misfire" - will it be a political equivalent of a dam breaking? I could see urban liberals thinking that they have been held hostage by rural conservative america. The NYT recently said that the senate is "affirmative action" for white people.

Anonymous said...

The very same immigrants who came to live in a prosperous America will probably depart for greener pastures once America's economy falls apart.

It's often noted that working class white people tend to be less mobile than other groups. Even as the economy of places like NE Ohio or Michigan have stagnated, most working class people have stayed in place. They have social and cultural bonds that tie them to the place. They are loyal to their communities and making the most of their home regions.

Immigrants, by their very nature, are not interested in staying and improving a place they deem hopeless. They are not interested in toughing it out in their ancestral homelands. They would have even less attachment to their adopted countries. It's a strictly a good weather friendship.

Feryl said...

"The Left wishes to dissolve because they have lost most of the nation's territory and indeed only win elections based on their imported electoral mercenaries; who are Latin Americans in the main with Reconquista in their eyes. We now have not only native Leftists who desire our genocide but tens of millions from a pool of half a billion in Latin America whose stated goal is conquest of North America. Both are competent in wishing to carve off territory to have a secure base but both will then use said territory to take the rest."

Put the crack pipe down. It was the GOP in the later 70's and 80's that wanted to annihilate the white and black working class, because labor had gotten progressively stronger from the 1920's-1960's. Why do we own any loyalty or respect for the Right? America has never had the crypto-fascist government or culture that you some of you people seem to crave. Most of the GOP is still invested in Kock Bros style globalism, with only the most token measures to maintain ethnic (and thus cultural) stability (e.g., making sure illegal aliens with criminal records aren't allowed to roam free, even pansy Trump, as Ron Unz points out, pedantically emphasizes the criminal nature of some illegals, with nary a word about immigrants of all kinds pushing up housing expenses, pushing down wages, and creating alienation by their very foreign nature).

Hallucinating the physical threat of illegals, and whining that they are an electoral trojan horse when survey after survey reveals that older people, richer people, and well-educated people aka white people dominate elections, is going to be counter-productive in the long run.

In summary, US conservatives tend to crave individualism and "economic freedom" (de-regulation and yuppieism), not ethnic nationalism. US liberals care more about worker dignity. Throwing in with conservatives, if you want a change of pace from the cultural chaos of post-1980 America, is a fool's errand. Better to let the GOP hit rock bottom, and eventually sober up to the reality that Millennials will not tolerate a social Darwinist free for all, then to keep pulling the lever for Republicans who, in the sum total of their actions, are going to betray you for the foreseeable future (seriously, keep voting Republican, and marvel at the fact that housing prices and middle-working class wages remain unbearable compared to what they were in the 1930's-1970's, since Reaganite Republicans don't believe that society has any obligation to protect the lower class in exchange for the rich backing off).

Periods of American history marked by lower immigration levels tend to be economically populist in nature (whether they are culturally conservative or liberal isn't entirely clear to me, but at the end of the day that doesn't matter as much as economic views). The first step to getting what we want is to accept at least some aspects of economic populism (stronger unions, progressive taxation, etc.). The period of about 1860-1920 was a period of high immigration....And also a period of high inequality and bad blood between labor and management. The period of about 1920-1980 was a low immigration period, with less elitism and better care of labor.

The 2012 and 2014 mid-terms let the GOP fool itself into thinking that the party would never end. Well, the party is ending.

Feryl said...

Does anyone realize how pathetic it sounds to complain about non-whites stealing elections when states that are over 70% white demonstrate that they wish to vote Democratic, with the actual voters being whiter still? (whether you like it or not is irrelevant). BTW, states that once were, or still are, monolithically white, have since the 1970's voted Democrat in pres. elections damn near everytime, with the exception of Reagan in 1984 (whose land slide victory was the death knell for the Progressive culture of the New Deal era).

As for Georgia and Texas.....Who gives a shit? What did the GOP of these states do during the Reaganite era to slow down the wave of demographic change? People of all generations and races aren't stupid enough to vote for the party that destroyed the working class, and eventually much of the middle class, via off-shoring, de-regulation, high immigration levels, and weakening of labor protections. I'm sure that some yuppies in Atlanta don't give a shit about what else happens as long as their taxes remain low and their assets go untouched, but ya know what.....Most normies do care about what the party of Reagan did to them. And today's Republicans are almost completely unwilling to admit that Reagan was wrong about anything.

The Midwest knows that they were sold out, and the Northeast and West Coast understand that the GOP has chosen to totally isolate itself from the concerns of large layers of the population who don't work in agribusiness, oil, or the military.

Feryl said...

"Shortly after the USSR split up I predicted the split of the US. Though at the time I did not (of course) foresee how it would happen. But power is always bipolar, it cannot be any other way. Once the USSR fell, all that was left was a unipolar world. And just about the only way possible for a new bipolar world was either a US-China devision (which was prevented by the globalists) or a split through the US itself. The unipolar splitting to become bipolar."

You're generally right, although I personally think that America would've gone further downhill even if the USSR had stayed alive longer. It's just that the dissolution of the Soviet Union caused the neo-liberal paradigm throughout much of the world to spread a lot faster. In the 1950's-early 80's, there was fear throughout the first world capitalist countries that capitalism might be thwarted at some point by socialism/communism. Once that fear diminished in the 90's, more and more countries started getting exploited by the worst forms of cronyist/Neo-liberal capitalism (w/ people who joined the workforce after 1990 being in much worse shape than older generations).

Jim Bowery said...

From TFA: "The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress must approve establishment of any compact claiming authority that previously resided with the federal government."

And the Supreme Court has ruled that the Federal government has all kinds of authority never granted by the Constitution except under nonsense doctrines like "the penumbra" and "compelling state interest" and "general welfare". Such arrogation of power by the Federal government was anticipated by the founders and its remedy, short of a 2nd Amendment revolution, was State or, penultimately, jury nullification. Unfortunately, States permitted this arrogation to go on so long -- catastrophically with the war to abolish slavery -- that the States are de facto agents of the Federal government and the courts have vigorously enforced ignorance of jury nullification.

There will be blood, unless:

1) Someone with power finally realizes how Satanically evil centralization of social policy is
2) Someone with power finally realizes that centralized policy needs a unified social model based on lossless compression of a wide range of longitudinal social data, or
3) Brilliant Light Power comes out with and massively deploys their SunCell fast

I'm seeing blood approaching faster than 1 or 2.

3 is the only "realistic" hope to avoid bloodshed given the ignorance of 1 and 2 in high places -- and the consensus among The Great and The Good is that it is totally fraudulent.

I'd place more stock in the hypothesis that BrLP is a fraud were it not for the fact that none of The Great and The Good are acting rationally with respect to the interval during which it was being relatively open about what it was doing. For instance, one can argue that GE Capital -- investing a hundred billion $ a year or more in energy -- needn't bother discounting the possibility that BrLP will make them write all that off -- discount it by the simple expedient of having one of their engineers take a long lunch while visiting Princeton University, drive over to BrLP with an IR meter and see if the on-demand purported >100x coefficient of performance doesn't so much as break 1.0. That argument on behalf of GE Capital's rationality relies on making the case that Pascal's Wager imposes such severe irrationality on the human psyche that we should ignore probabilities that are less than 1 in a hundred or so -- and that among all Great and Good Physicists, it is _known_ that BrLP's Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics is bunk. However, such apologetics invoking Pascal's Wager is essentially an argument that capital accumulations beyond those present in the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (ie Paleolithic) should be barred by public policy.

No, The Great and The Good are idiots, including the Great and Good Physicists.

Anonymous said...

So why do still 100 million normies vote red?
The Democrats don't defend worker values nor national culture enough. And just like tax cuts don't do it for Republicans, more bureaucracy and immigrants don't do it for Democrats. Plus, if polls are to be believed, independents are still split or even leaning R in places, at least for now. Which means that whites did not mass reverse to Dems from two years ago. Looking at the Senate composition shows that.

Guess in your ideal world the FDR Democrats would still be alive and kicking. The problem is that, they are not. Reagan didn't kill them; LBJ (worst of old left), Carter (worst of new left), and whoever shot JFK did (btw Kennedy passed a slight tax cut that kinda helped make the early 60s the most prosperous time ever; before, it helped having a huge profitable war that US won and had little to rebuild from, not to mention Europeans did repay their Marshall Plan money - unlike others).

Trure, the dreams of libertarians and Reaganites are dead too by now, as even Trumpian Republicans (or cryptofascists, whatever you want) are usually more statist, or rather less laissez faire (I usually advocate bottom-to-top corporatism, yeah small shopkeeper catholic fash, whatev). The wall is an infrastructure project,a juicy one at that. That the Democrats as the supposed American working class party aren't jumping all over it, shows a lot.

And true, the million Florida felons plus the scared-by-media npc suburban whites will vote Dems in for a while after 2020. But again, while these Dems might make Medicare for all (where they will get the 30 trillion without mass inflation and/or heavy loss of investments due to tax burden, idk), but they will pull open the borders even faster, and that will have quite more impact than any policy choice. After all, Hispanic countries copy and paste their (successive) constitutions from whatever is en vogue in the current bureaucrat's mind (for example, most have universal healthcare, felon voting even in jail, no death penalty because catholics, and shorter prison sentences than the US), and yet their progress is slower than America's. Living in Miami and born and raised even further south, I can attest to that.

So life will change, and a realignment will occur. And no, I don't see secession happening, due not only to everyone wanting to avoid wars for resources (extra coastline, access to the gulf) but also to the demographic checkerboard pattern mentioned above by another commenter. However, the realignment will occur, and will turn politics into extremes so much that third parties will irrupt in the scene (even more so if ethnic and racial diversity increases). Some more minorities (again, according to grain-of-salted poll data) are turning red or at least independent, to show an example. If you think there's stark unsolvable divides and mutually unacceptable arguments between Trumpites and Obamaites, wait until you have to choose between Lula types and Bolsonaro* types, or Allende types and Pinochet types... bienvenidos a la realidad, gringos.

*Bolsonaro got half the nonwhite vote and 60% of the white vote, for what it's worth it shows minorities can go right; that said, minorities over there are more mixed in and thus less separatist (poor browns and rich whites live apart already over there, even more unequal than here), while to win their vote Bolsonaro had to state (if not promise) he was gonna cleanse all the criminals... and yeah cleanse is probably his word. So yeah, you may eventually have to turn rightwards again anyway... and maybe turn harder than any way grandpa Reagan dreamt of.

Audacious Epigone said...

Rien,

What if China rockets ahead? There are obvious demographic challenges and their productive economy is significantly tied to America's consumption economy such that the US sinking will submerge all boats to some extent. Otoh, we hear about 200 IQ babies and we wonder.

IHTG,

Right, and maybe full secession doesn't occur, we just get some sort of devolution back towards the tenth amendment. My guess is that once the pendulum finally starts swinging the other direction after a century of moving towards globalism, though, the momentum is going to be too much to stop.

Anon,

As Z-Man is fond of saying, black identity in the US is a negative one. Everything is whitey's fault. Sure, many of them know at some level that they need whitey. But they hate him, too, and hatred is a powerful emotion. If Bantus were rational, would they murder Boers on their farms?

Jamie,

Touche. Texas is running out of time. Its GOP politicians know this, too. Ted Cruz is about as hardline on illegal immigration as it gets in the Senate.

Anon vet,

Here is the relevant data all teed up. Granted the sample size of active duty and their families is only 407 which isn't huge but is just a bit under what a lot of election polling is based on.

Switzerland doesn't have ocean access and it does just fine. Same with Austria and Hungary, two of the most based nations in Europe.

Speaking of never having actually talked to someone in the military who supports secession--have you ever talked to someone who opposes it, either, or is just not a subject that comes up much?--we see lots of virtual talk about blazes of glory but we never, ever see them.

We're in a slow boil as things currently are. Invaders flood into blue sanctuaries--literally!--and then disperse from there throughout the country. States that used to be solidly Republican like Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Texas, and Kansas get less and less red each election cycle. White Americans don't have children at replacement, our TFR continues to tick down even farther, and when we do have kids we have them later. At what point do we say "enough"?

Audacious Epigone said...

Anatoly,

I've heard truecons and libertarians jawbone back and forth about whether a constitutional convention would be positive (reclinating back towards the limited original intent) or negative (huge increase in federal government power) but haven't heard articulated nor personally thought about the potential that reality hits middle Americans in the face when they have to deal with Aztlan and Baltimore face to face. Let a thousand flowers of dissolution bloom!

sykes,

If that's the future--and it seems plausible to me--it's another argument for dissolution yesterday. As for how exactly it would play out, grace periods would help a lot. For people who care most about politics--people with means--moving a couple of states over is no big deal. Millions of third worlders are able to move across continents. Americans will be able to move a few hundred miles.

Jig,

The perfect isn't the enemy of the good. Brownback was thoroughly rejected by the state. It's a major reason Kobach lost, even though Kobach has never worn his religion on his sleeve anything like Brownback did (and still does). Even the godly cuck belt has secularized a lot in the last generation. God is dead just about everywhere in America except for the South now.

One almost indisputable benefit--no more world bestriding military monster. Political dissolution would kill the warfare state like nothing else could.

Anon,

Trump most certainly can win without Florida. If he would've lost Florida in 2016 he still would've won the electoral college rather comfortably, 275-256.

Anon,

All but the Muslim category. The sample size there is only 229 so make of it what you will.

MBlanc46,

Agree. While I wouldn't say I was joking about it a decade ago, I have to admit that it seemed like little more than rhetorical ploy, yet here we are. Things move fast.

Anon,

Unless one is truly a supremacist, it's difficult to argue in favor of forcing this thing together when it wants to break into several pieces.

lhtness said...

It's my understanding that a lot of things done by state governments are funded via federal income tax. (i.e. the courts have decided that--for all practical purposes--the 16th amendment nullified the 10th amendment. While the feds can't tell states what to do, they can take a bunch of money from their citizens and then only give it to the states if the states do what the feds tell them.)

snorlax said...

Continuing the discussion from this thread here for visibility.

Gabriel (1/3) -

I just heard Spencer complain that the alt right hasn't done enough to make clear that it is not a conservative movement.

That's sort of my point. One of the several salutary effects of that terminology is the counterproductive elements will voluntarily self-segregate from the rest.

I have been unable to get a clear explanation of WTF urbit is, let alone whether it is a good idea.

It defies any terse explanation, especially to the layman. The best oversimplified one-sentence description I can come up with is that it's intended to replace the World Wide Web.

A more jargony description, without getting into the many unorthodox aspects of its design, is it combines 1) an application layer, namespaced, P2P protocol on top of 2) a VPN, an operating system implemented as 3) a userspace on top of, instead of a traditional kernel, 4) a VM which interprets 5) a combinatory calculus as a bytecode, ...

snorlax said...

(2/3) -

... 6) a programming language, 7) an IDE, 8) a shell and (to monetize it) 9) a cryptocurrency.

As to whether it is a good idea, it's a whole lot of interesting and often useful ideas, combined into a single rococo, extremely overengineered (or rather underengineered) mess.

For a very long time I figured that I was just too dense, lazy or lacked enough theoretical compsci knowledge to understand Urbit, but, given the brilliance and clearsightedness of its creator, it must be the earthshattering breakthrough it's billed at. But now that I've looked into it more deeply, minimizing my preconceptions, it reads as the IQ 160, software engineering equivalent of Time Cube.

Yarvin's forgotten more about software engineering than I've ever known, which makes it all the more puzzling that he's paid no mind to one of the most fundamental principles of software architecture, modularity.

Ideally, you would keep each piece of useful functionality in your software separate, in "modules," which don't depend on the internal implementation details of other modules they interact with, only their documented interfaces and behaviors. A well-designed module can be extracted from one codebase and reused in others that require similar functionality. Within a codebase, a module can be substantially rewritten or replaced (even for example in a different programming language) so long as the documented interfaces and behaviors remain the same.

The interesting or useful concepts from Urbit could almost all have been implemented on a standalone basis. But instead, each of the nine functionalities I identified above depend on some or all of the other 8 being present. Urbit is an all-or-nothing proposition, and very brittle, since any major change to the architecture is tantamount to a complete rewrite from scratch.

This is a particularly major problem because in practice the more exotic and experimental features, on which all the other features depend, make it too difficult to use and too slow to be usable. Right now Urbit is a glorified chat client, and not a very good one. The extraordinary scope and feature creep makes it nigh-on impossible to complete a usable final product in a timely fashion.

Looking at the Urbit source, I assume you'll agree it's borderline incomprehensible—the code equivalent of Time Cube. And that's written in a normal programming language, C. The parts written in Urbit's language Hoon are more like the Voynich Manuscript.

As with many things, in software the more effective solution usually also looks and feels the most elegant. Software can be extremely complex, and some codebases are far larger than any single person could ever understand, but even then the sign of quality is that the code is readable and clear. Here are some examples, from Linux, Firefox and Doom. I can read these and almost immediately get a good sense of the what and how. I expect you wouldn't, but you can probably tell they're much more comprehensible than the Urbit code.

snorlax said...

(3/3) -

Urbit is undeniably the work of a brilliant mind. To create such an incredibly ambitious design and actually implement it, however underwhelming the final product, is downright superhuman. To either design or implement just one of the nine functionalities I listed would be well beyond the abilities of most senior developers at any blue chip tech company. To make sense of such a large and incomprehensible code base, even one you wrote, is likewise an amazing feat.

It's like John Nash's cryptanalysis of the secret Soviet messages being sent through his radio. Brilliant, but nuts. It's typical to miss the warning signs in such cases; you naturally assume the reason it doesn't make sense is because it's beyond your pay grade, when in fact it truly doesn't make sense.

I now have to comment under an (another, quite obvious I think) alias at Cochran after getting banned

Haha, what for?

Kakistocracy - a bit whiney, no?

Sure, but justifiably so I think. I can see how US-specific whining might be kinda dull reading from a non-US perspective.

As to Bannon and the Claremont guys - I think you're in serious danger of getting deradicalised :)

They're careful with what they say in public, but they're very much redpilled.

The sense I get is that circa 2008 a lot of very intelligent people were getting interested in a lot of very right-wing ideas. I can't believe that's still true.

The SJW lynch mobs really changed things. Back in ye olde days of 2008, you could have whatever political opinions you wanted in a personal capacity and you wouldn't be fired. Nobody's willing to risk it nowadays, and certainly nobody would be as cavalier with their real-life identities as the early outer right crowd. It's amazing (and more than a little scary) to me what I used to post *under my real name* just a few years ago. Thankfully, mostly on sites which have since deleted their comments sections.

For me, it was the Trayvon Martin affair and I'm sure this is the case for a lot of other people too

I was already partially redpilled at that point but l'affaire Trayvon certainly helped things along.

Thanks for the blog recs.

AE -

You're several cuts above Liddle or Johnson in both intelligence and "brow." Anyway, I'll echo that you can be intelligent at any level of brow.

While it isn't strictly necessary, it helps as a reader of your blog to have a working knowledge of statistical analysis and sampling. That gives something of an intellectual flair, IMHO.

the truth is Heartiste has influenced way more people than both of those guys--plus Greg Johnson and Colin Liddle--combined have.

And Rush Limbaugh has influenced a thousand times more. So what?

What are your thoughts on ZMan?

I check his blog intermittently; he has a lot of interesting insights but they can at times be sandwiched between a lot of lower-quality material. Also, sort of like reading Playboy for the articles, I tend to read blogs as much for the comments as the posts themselves, and I find that his comment section is rarely worth reading.

Stodgy White Guy said...

Tbh, the overlords of the late USSR were probably less vindictive than the ones in charge here. Still, political dissolution will probably be the only way forward for the US that doesn’t end in neo-Brazil. Hopefully the Senate can be held by Republicans for the foreseeable future, since the other constituents of the empire might be more inclined to go along with secession or partition if the alternative is perpetual gridlock.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

I've spent a lot of time in the cuck belt and it isn't anything like what people think it is outside of the cuck belt. Jesus Camp was almost 15 years ago. Evangelical Christianity has become fully feminized and there is a depressing amount of families where there is a biological child and another two or three more adopted children from Africa. A lot of "we're all god's children" so therefore borders need to remain as open as possible. Ever notice that one of the biggest ways to import more third worlders is not just open borders but refugee programs run by churches?

I'm skeptical that a dissolution or balkanization will work because it will still be deep blue urbanites mobilizing hostile minorities against the rural and suburban communities. The poz is spread too wide and goes too deep. We would essentially be back at square one without the marginal benefits we get with a United States.

I'm guessing the outcome of America will be an anarcho-tyranny state with brief moments of right wing strong men like Bolsonaro or Duterte who show up for a few years and crack down on the degeneracy until the public forgets just how bad things are and start electing leftists again. Rinse and repeat until the end of time. The best case scenario would be a Singaporean-style system where you have a powerful autocrat like Lee Kuan Yew who has to keep a tight lid on all of the various factions. America is probably too judaized to really go down this route but it is probably the best case scenario when you have so many undesirables but you still want a functioning society.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

...and Donald Trump is not that strongman, by the way. He has spent more time talking about criminal justice reform than he has about taking on antifa, following through on his EO about birthright citizenship, or even building the wall. I suspect it will be one of the young white men under 30 who are cognizant of how messed up things really are without the boomercon sentimentality that Trump possesses to an unfortunate degree.

vok3 said...

@Anon 4:24

" I can't wait to work on American soil."

Same way you've worked Afghanistan and the sandbox for the past 20 years? Maybe you'll understand if that's not a particularly impressive threat. Maybe you'll also understand if it gets pointed out that threatening your countrymen isn't a great way to persuade them. Treating you with the respect due your occupation isn't remotely the same thing as being afraid of you.

AE:
"God is dead just about everywhere in America except for the South now."

What I'm seeing complained about in the explicitly Christian blogosphere is that the South is just as godless as everywhere else, it just takes the trouble to put on the act, still.

Regarding geography: the county-by-county voting patterns are the interesting ones. They result in maps that look just like Bosnia. Hard blue cities, hard red rural. That pattern holds across much of the country, and is particularly pronounced when you look at just the white vote. (Bracken's CW2 cube is spot on.) When you look at what the two sides are doing on a local level - or at least, what I've seen - blue is loudly proclaiming that of course their values and objectives are natural and good, and red is keeping its mouth tightly shut and focusing on the day job. The conclusion to draw is that blue doesn't understand or believe in the extent of opposition, nor of the very real personal danger to them, while red has already decided that talking gets nowhere and to keep the powder dry until the moment it's needed - being certain it will be needed.

I would love a peaceful devolution/secession instead of the alternative. I don't see it happening.

216 said...

O/T

An interesting example of how the establishment manages to stay on in power. Its been two months since Sweden voted, but no coalition has formed. But there is one thing the system parties did manage to agree on, putting more cash in the pockets of Silent/Boomer retirees. Despite the elder generations being the least foreign by demographics, they typically don't vote for nationalist parties as much as the GenX bracket does. It would be interesting to estimate how many Third Worlders could have been paid to leave with this money.

https://www.reuters.com/article/sweden-budget/update-1-swedish-caretaker-govt-cuts-pensioner-taxes-in-autumn-budget-idUSL8N1XQ1MW

Anonymous said...

Splitting up would only last like 5 months until red state refugees would clamor ro get into Blue states.

Red states have lower incomes are net tax consumers have high murder rates lower educational attainment and generally kind of suck

Jim Bowery said...

Anonymous says: "red state refugees would clamor ro get into Blue states"

Forget about States and look at urban vs rural voting patterns. Then look at the relative vulnerability to disruptions of physical infrastructure such as electricity and water.

aNanyMouse said...

@ Stodgy

"the overlords of the late USSR were probably less vindictive than the ones in charge here."
Quite true. Virtually none of them actually believed in Leninism enough, to resent those who didn't believe, enough to kill them.
The brass there mostly just used Leninist lip-service, to pad their wallets.

Here, the brass really do despise the rabble, maybe even enough to kill us, if it's not too hard to do so.

aNanyMouse said...

Our best hope of avoiding a bloodbath is probably that of the hopes of Sundance and Jim Kunstler, that Trump is now free to launch "The Big Ugly" (the declassification of the mass evidence of the Obamaists' criminality, incl. their plot to frame Trump for "colluding" with Russia).

In Kunstler's post today, he guesses, that the impending doom of T. May's coalition in the U.K. will enable Trump to resist Deep State pressure, to continue to cover for MI6's role in this frame job, esp. the Steele Dossier BS, the trap they sought to set for Papadopoulos, etc.
My fear is that, if Trump can't move on this until after the Dems get to run the House in Jan. 2019, he'll likely be too hounded by their subpoenas (for "incriminating" documents), to be able to powerfully fight the Deep State efforts to hide The Big Ugly.

If Trump can launch The Big Ugly, enough of his most powerful foes may decide to emulate the 1991 Soviet brass by prioritizing covering for themselves, over continuing to work together for (in the present case) white extinction, etc.
If enough of his foes head to the tall grass, or are prosecuted for their role in The Big Ugly, this may start a cascade of flight by others, from the front lines of their war against him, and the Deplorables who he is seen as defending.

Stodgy White Guy said...

The “Red State Refugees” would be disproportionately Blue voters.

Stodgy White Guy said...

One interesting conjecture is how dissolution would alter politics in the newly formed states. There is an often an implicit assumption that their politics would remain the same as they were in America as a whole. But this seems unlikely to me: political alignments exist in a context, and when the context changes, alignments also change. The South isn’t some bastion of economic libertarianism, for example, as indicated by Southerners’ willingness to enthusiastically support FDR.

Wrt immigration, I could see, for example, Hispanics in the hypothetical Independent Republic of California suddenly being very selective about who they let in. I definitely think they would object to letting in masses of poor blacks from the Dixie Confederation, and possibly even other Hispanics who see their fortunes turn. As ethnic disaggregation resolves, my guess is that White Republicans in their splinter states would become less attached to economic libertarianism, although that is a trend already happening. When most of their fellow citizens are of similar racial and ethnic character, universal government healthcare will suddenly seem a much easier pill to swallow. I think that The (((Usual Suspects))) will continue doing more or less what they do now, although their effective territory would be reduced to the Independent City State of New Zion (fmrly New York, fmrly New Amsterdam). They might develop more immigration skepticism, and they would probably get over their aversion to Israelis being icky xenophobes and form a strong alliance over their shared ethnic roots.

Feryl said...

"So why do still 100 million normies vote red?"

People born in the later 1950's and 1960's lean heavily toward the GOP, and they've dominated elections in the 2000's and early 2010's, because older people vote way more often than younger people do. As a general rule, people born in the 40's lean fairly far to the Left, but support for the GOP rises as you get later into the baby boom, and early Gen X-ers are pretty far Right too.Starting with those born around 1973, there's a shift to the Dems that gets stronger as you go later into the 1970's Gen X cohort . And people born in the 80's lean even further to the Left than later Gen X-ers. The media hypes up young voters because they think (with good reasons) that young people lean further to the Left before becoming more conservative with age; yet this never materializes into a massive wave of young voters. Elections are decided by middle aged and elderly people, not kids. That being said, the political tendencies of a cohort will not generally be apparent until they are into middle age, which is when that cohort will began voting heavily. The political preferences of people born in the late 50's and 60's were not apparent until the late 90's, when the GOP really began to dominate. It seems likely that the mid-late 2010's will be the period in which later Gen X-ers and Millennials start to exert a lot of influence, which will cause a shift to the Left after about 20 years of late Boomers and early Gen X-ers propping up the GOP (seriously, just based on anecdotal experience, we all have parents/uncles etc. born in the 50's and 60's who bitch endlessly about government waste and people on welfare, but this cohort can't dominate our political scene and voting booths forever).

Feryl said...

"The Democrats don't defend worker values nor national culture enough. And just like tax cuts don't do it for Republicans, more bureaucracy and immigrants don't do it for Democrats. Plus, if polls are to be believed, independents are still split or even leaning R in places, at least for now. Which means that whites did not mass reverse to Dems from two years ago. Looking at the Senate composition shows that."

Both parties still suck big time, but as I alluded to above the GOP will only go for economic populism (protectionism) if they can use it as a club against a foreign enemy (e.g., going after Chinese imports). On the issue of immigration some GOP'ers will attack the lowliest class of immigrants (those with criminal records and those who are too hapless to get a green card or a visa. And failure to fully complete the naturalization process after the issuance and subsequent expiration of said ID happens with many immigrants (even John Derbyshire admits that he was technically in America illegally for years) and the government does nothing unless the alien commits a crime. None of this even touches on the refugee racket, which most of the establishment is too gutless to call out as being a waste of generosity at a time when this country's finances are a wreck.

The GOP totally owns the economic structure of this country that's existed since the mid-80's, no matter how fucked up it's become (and the deficit just went higher, while we are on the verge of a massive economic crisis due to an unwillingness to resolve basic structural problems that have been getting worse for 30+ years). The Dems are much better positioned to be voted in and enact economic reforms (The Dems of the early Obama era, who failed to enact major reforms in 2008, are gradually fading away and being replaced by populists more willing to take a swipe at corporations and rich people), since the GOP is never going to fully renounce the winner take all culture that led to the GOP being increasingly popular ideologically in the 80's, 90's, and 2000's. Trump won an election by saying something besides tax cuts and de-regulation, but even he succumbed to the dominant ideology within the GOP, which is social Darwinism (as Vok3 has pointed out, literally the night that Trump won the election massive swathes of text on his website pertaining to economic justice were wiped off, and these ideas have rarely surfaced in Trump's tweets since then. Trump was a legit rebel, but the powers within his party would've impeached him if he'd actually gone through with anti-corporate reforms.

Feryl said...

"Guess in your ideal world the FDR Democrats would still be alive and kicking. The problem is that, they are not. Reagan didn't kill them; LBJ (worst of old left), Carter (worst of new left), and whoever shot JFK did (btw Kennedy passed a slight tax cut that kinda helped make the early 60s the most prosperous time ever; before, it helped having a huge profitable war that US won and had little to rebuild from, not to mention Europeans did repay their Marshall Plan money - unlike others)."

It doesn't matter how much you bitch about the 1960's and 1970's, they still were a much better time for America, from the basic standpoint of our leaders having goals besides glorifying rich people and credentialism (not until 1980 did the number of woman getting college degrees reach parity with men getting degrees, a sign of rising attempts to gain higher status). Housing, healthcare, protections for the poor and unemployed, etc., all had a much more populist tinge to them (e.g., they were more affordable and accessible to the average American) back then. The de-regulation and higher immigration levels of the 80's and 90's led to massive levels of financial speculation and concentration of more and more assets in fewer and fewer hands, as well as the two essential elements of popular expenditure (housing and healthcare) being increasingly expensive and inaccessible.

LBJ was disliked over Vietnam, primarily (not so much Civil Rights, which even Eisenhower helped promote), not to mention the fact that he was probably the biggest jerk to ever be president, which really started to grate on people during the Vietnam fiasco (similarly, nobody cared that Trump was an ego-maniac when he promised to make common sense reforms, but now that he's proven almost worthless it's a lot easier to jab him). LBJ's Vietnam ramp-up is hardly "Leftist", but rather, was evidence of his devotion to the ample military industry of the South, from which LBJ came. The Deep South fled the Dems in the late 60's, over Civil Rights. Once that happened, the GOP, alreadly fairly hawkish because of the Western US, became even more hawkish.

Carter got elected because he was an outsider (ala Trump), then got frozen out to a pretty big degree by his own party, since Carter lacked the temperament and insider knowledge that makes it possible to hit it off with people in D.C. circles. Carter flailed around, becoming a (pretty public) nuisance to his own party, who were put off by Carter's attempts to take the ideological reins before he'd built up the persuasion abilities and social capital to do so. By the final stages of Carter's admin, Carter was reduced to sulking ineffectually and he was the butt of everyone's jokes. By contrast, during the much more stable political environment of the 80's and 90's, Reagan had already built up a massive wing of support which wanted to kill off the Northeastern moderate wing of the GOP, which he used skillfully to get the nom. And their was enough party muscle behind Reagan's ideas that they were implemented with full GOP support in the 80's. Bill Clinton, not being an idealist or a bozo, was then able to successfully ride the Reagan wave with only a few alterations (less military spending but w/ fags in the military).

It's interesting that Carter chose, perhaps consciously, to sulk about being mostly unwelcome in the late 70's Dem party instead of flip-flopping to everything that the 1970's Dems wanted, whereas Trump has chosen to gleefully be the mouthpiece of most legs of the Reaganite GOP stool (although after Trump's infamous Corinthians gaffe, it looks like Trump and his handlers have opted to reduce the phony piety that the GOP has stood for since the 80's).

AB.Prosper said...

I live in a Blue State , California and no Right Wing person would be clamoring to get in here. Its all 3rd world types and wealthy Leftists that want in.

That said no way can the Right allow strategic for valuable land to be the hands of enemies and the Left will be thinking this as well. At most partition will be buying time before the continent wide war

Worse even if the left and foreigners /non complaints are expelled partition will be complicated by very different strains of Conservatism. I'm not interested nor will I tolerate a Neo Liberal economy if I have just fought to be rid of a liberal tyranny. Its just substituting State for Corporation

I also don't want would be theocrats , Deus Volt types deciding on laws I live under either.

This means either a lot of negotiation or a lot of strife

Its is still a better outcome than the Commies but its not easy, more of a last ditch effort to prevent hundreds of millions dead.

Feryl said...

"And true, the million Florida felons plus the scared-by-media npc suburban whites will vote Dems in for a while after 2020. But again, while these Dems might make Medicare for all (where they will get the 30 trillion without mass inflation and/or heavy loss of investments due to tax burden, idk), but they will pull open the borders even faster, and that will have quite more impact than any policy choice. After all, Hispanic countries copy and paste their (successive) constitutions from whatever is en vogue in the current bureaucrat's mind (for example, most have universal healthcare, felon voting even in jail, no death penalty because catholics, and shorter prison sentences than the US), and yet their progress is slower than America's. Living in Miami and born and raised even further south, I can attest to that."

Whether it's the crypto-fascist Right or communist New Left, it's certainly apparent that younger generations will bring massive changes to society, it's just a matter of what kind of changes happen, and to how large a degree they are ramped up.

There's no law that says changes have to be better, or worse, than what came before. But it is true that historical cycles eventually lead to crisis periods, because the older generations and the system they stood for become sclerotic, and more and more people want to flush it down the drain, because things just don't work the way they used to.

Also, America is not Latin America, and never will be. Just to show you the importance of national character (which is not the same thing as race, have you ever dealt with African immigrants as opposed to black Americans?), the colonies founded by Brits and Dutch have done best, and the ones founded by Conquistadors have done the worst, with French ones somewhere between.

Feryl said...

An interesting example of how the establishment manages to stay on in power. Its been two months since Sweden voted, but no coalition has formed. But there is one thing the system parties did manage to agree on, putting more cash in the pockets of Silent/Boomer retirees. Despite the elder generations being the least foreign by demographics, they typically don't vote for nationalist parties as much as the GenX bracket does. It would be interesting to estimate how many Third Worlders could have been paid to leave with this money.

Cripes, Silents and early Boomers are on death's door step and it's still all about them. They are going to their graves being flagrantly callous of the future. BTW, one thing uniting today's eldest generations is that they have a lot of money, and anything that ensures that they hang onto it or get even more money will be politically palatable until such time that late Gen X-ers and Millennials can team up to fully reform the system away from the Me Generation. As for early X-ers, a lot of them have Boomer siblings and friends, so a lot of early X-ers have been poisoned and we may never be able to win some of them over. Besides, It isn't until you get to X-ers born in the mid -70's that you start to see a real awareness of how destructive Boomers have been, because in the lifetimes of those under 45 the Boomers have largely dominated our culture and politics (the 1960's and early 70's were heavily Silent in their culture).

216 said...

Feryl,

How does it square that Boomers have proven generationally callous, but at the same time came of age during the environmental movement? Perhaps it is because Boomer environmentalism has a quasi-religious element of "reducing footprints" rather than demanding systemic changes like banning single-use plastics.

As GenX is numerically smaller than the Millenials, is it likely that they will be drowned out by them? (Doing my part here) It does seem within the GOP that GenX Ryan wussed out rather than making the case for "full cuck". But the GOP has proven useless at attracting younger candidates (NRCC wants self-funders). The youngest GOP in Congress, Stefanik, is a neocon. Otoh, a school acquittance actually ran for legislature at 23 as a Dem, LARPing as Ralph Nader, then BTFO'd by the GOP Boomer incumbent.

Anonymous said...

Demographically speaking they'll give this up the second the mestizo inflow allows them to steal southern states. Why split the nation when you control everything?

You're counting on whites to leave a progressively more radical and more anti-white democrat party for their opposition the GOP to remain electorally viable, which is plausible. But the GOP hardening and becoming pro-white doesn't seem half as likely to me.

Feryl said...

A lot of genuine environmental issues were rearing their head in the 1960's ( esp. industry and government using and overusing heavy chemicals, and not effectively containing them from dispersion into the air, soil, and water). But also, Gaia worship was intended to be an affront to the technocratic GIs, whose culture of progress and industry came under heavy attack.

As we got a better handle of controlling pollution, and as the pressure to build up and pad an impressive career resume grew by the late 70's, a lot of Boomers sold out. Oh, sure, there's token concern for environmental issues, but it generally only goes to a superficial level (the warnings about the limits to growth, and population over-shoot, that GIs and Silents wrote about in the early 70's have all been completely forgotten by 90% of Boomers).

"With few exceptions, economics as a discipline has been dominated by a perception of living in an unlimited world, where resource and pollution problems in one area were solved by moving resources or people to other parts. The very hint of any global limitation as suggested in the report The Limits to Growth was met with disbelief and rejection by businesses and most economists. However, this conclusion was mostly based on false premises."

The whole neo-liberal she-bang is premised on resource abundance. The Market is supposed to provide everything that the population, presumed to be of "rational actors", wants and needs. And this is so in the absence of government control/guidance/oversight/regulation.

In practice, neo-liberalism leads to cronyism, the hoarding of whatever resources there are by an ever narrower range of elites (who spit on those beneath them as sore losers if they dare question elites), and a lack of responsible safeguards that stop the store from being robbed at the expense of many things, but perhaps most of all, the future.

Interestingly, during the peak of popular acceptance of neo-liberalism (the 1990's), reviews of The Limits to Growth were the harshest yet....Only for reviewers to soften in later decades.

Feryl said...

"Christian Parenti, writing in 2012, sees parallels between the reception of LTG and the contemporary climate debate, "That said, The Limits to Growth was a scientifically rigorous and credible warning that was actively rejected by the intellectual watchdogs of powerful economic interests. A similar story is playing out now around climate science."[32] "

Hmmm. It seems that the holistic accounting of The Limits to Growth, which sprang from the intellectually sophisticated and honest elites of the early 1970's, was repurposed (bastardized) into a politically correct variant which would ask no great sacrifices of the Jet-Set or the Tech companies, and was aimed the most at the GOP leaning fossil fuel industry. The OG warning, Limits to Growth, has been largely forgotten by the powers that be, while global warming hysteria has grown in tandem with neo-liberal excess. The cloud people (as Aud. calls the modern jet-set) can keep partying hard, instead of having a come-to-Jesus moment that their worship of a "woke" but still market worshiping ideology variant was a betrayal of the government (and scrupulous elite) driven movement to be wise in our use of resources, which prevailed from the 1930's-early 1970's).

I saw in an interview with Silent Sci-Fi author Harlan Ellison (and Sci-fi peaked in popularity in the 1950's-early 1970's), where he complained (in the late 70's) that TV was getting more and more dumbed down, lest anyone be so intellectually intimidated that they change the channel and deny the broadcasters their ad revenue. That's a "heavy" subject; at what point did our elites start feeding us bullshit to send us the message to just keep "partying on"? Probably the later 70's. It's evidently just too tempting to make money and collect shiny objects, and tell ourselves that everything will be ok, instead of reckoning with the consequences of living beyond our means.

Anonymous said...

yeah, the whole idea makes no sense, since the left will be in total control, and why on earth would they allow anybody to leave? the only people who will want to leave are productive european men, and they're the only thing holding things together. it makes no sense at all to allow them to leave. so they won't be allowed. european men will be used like mules. to do all the work, pay all the tax money, deliver all the technical knowledge to build new stuff for the leftists and their vibrant parasite citizens.

look at south africa. europeans are outnumbered about 10 to 1 by africans, yet they are, barely, able to keep things sputtering along.

even if by ABSOLUTE MIRACLE a state votes to leave the union, the central government will block that move. and even if by a double rainbow type second miracle, they actually do manage to leave the union, they'll have to set up literal war conditions border patrol and diplomatic ties with the dozens of leftist controlled states around them. millions and millions of leftists and 'new american' third wolders will demand to be let in, so they can turn that free state into a dump like all the other states. and the free state will have to remain on a literal war footing, permanently. there won't be a single day where they can have normal diplomatic relations with the leftists states or not guard their borders with literally thousands of troops everywhere.

there's no scenario where europeans escape the united states except thru force.

exact same scenario as being behind the iron curtain in the cold war. exact same scenario. people want to leave. the government makes sure they can't.

Anonymous said...

this feryl idiot makes reading and commenting here nearly impossible. limit this moron to 1 post per topic.

216 said...

https://twitter.com/PatrickCaseyIE/status/1063524050352377856

I'm questioning this narrative here. Anarcho-communists have not targeted a Trump rally during the midterm campaign, while there was violence during the '16 campaign, it occurred in two blue cities (San Jose, Chicago) and the violence was coming from loosely organized POC mobs, rather than the NLG (white, Jewish) disciplined an-coms.

What the an-coms have targeted has been rallies held on college campuses by third-parties, and demonstrations held by explicit WNs. I always advise against having a demonstration where the locality has indicated they clearly don't want you there. The DC courts threw out the charges on DisruptJ20, and the juries would trend towards nullification. And if you really believe in the precepts of Mein Kampf, street demonstrations are not the logical answer, Hezbollah is more up your alley.

There is a serious lack of humility in these movements, and a surprising sense of demanding "fair play" from the establishment.

The average person cares not one whit if "troublemakers" are banned from social media platforms. We live in a victimhood culture, and you never want to be appearing as the bully. Particularly the peer generations of the alt-righters have long since lost the illusion that this is just some gleeful chan-culture.

When BLM associated shooters started killing cops, tolerance for their movement collapsed, and ordinary conservatives were cheering on BLM highway blockers being run over by motorists. In that same vein, "liberals" don't care about our "free speech" rights, because we have real life fatalities from people associated with our movements.

BLM subsequently ceased to function, replaced with the Womens March. Its most notable supporter these days is a washed up athlete, now enriched via WokeCapital. But support for the *positions* of BLM is now almost unanimous amongst the Dems, and a GOP Congress is about to go "soft on crime".

I think we can learn something here, though I'm not sure of what exactly.

Anonymous said...

216,

Yes. The alt-right is facing establishment ire on par with what communists in the US dealt with decades ago.

It's good, because it means we're a serious threat. Bad, because it can actually stymie the movement as all but the ideological diehards leave it. Whites still have too much to lose.

The GOP IS turning our way, it's just not doing it fast enough.

216 said...

Anon,

Using the example of the breakup of the USSR as reference: post-1991 there was a significant movement of ethnic Russians out of the "stans", along with tremendous population decline. The economy collapsed until the revival of oil prices. Ethnic Russians in the Baltics largely remained.

Mass migration of Central Asians into Russia only occurred when the oil gusher allowed the Russian government to start rebuilding infrastructure. The feared migration of Chinese didn't occur, not surprising considering that China's Northeastern provinces (what we call Manchuria, and the Chinese definitely don't call it) were where the one child policy was most strictly enforced, in addition to being the first part of China to industrialize and leave behind agrarian birth rates.

So we could presume that in a breakup of the US, that GOP voters in prosperous blue states (Baltics) would stay around, rather than leave. GOP voters would likely flee the Southwestern states, and possibly the Deep South if Gillum/Jones/Abrams types are in power. Timing of the breakup is significant, a breakup by 2040 would probably prove a failure. A breakup in 2000 would have been frictionless.

There is no clear counterpart to Chicago-Illinois in the USSR. The very existence of Illinois itself is a perversion of the republican form of government. The Plains/Mountain states and the Midwest may not end up in the same country. Maintaining a single "Blue Country" on two coasts is unviable, and even in the case where the Sun Belt is a black/brown ethnostate there would eventually be tensions with the white/jewish/Asian coasts.

Back to the fear that they will demand to be let back in. A landlocked Plains/Mountain/Midwest/Appalachia is on a straight track to Ukraine levels of GDP. People will be fleeing *out* of it, as education and welfare spending is slashed and society adopts conscription to maintain the borders. The Central Asians came into Russia thanks to oil money and alcoholism destroying Russian lifespans and work ethic. Should the opioid issue remain in a partitioned America, neo-cucks could arise to demand guest workers. Increased automation may obviate the labor issue.


Feryl said...

"this feryl idiot makes reading and commenting here nearly impossible. limit this moron to 1 post per topic."

You're more than welcome to have a user name to track who you actually are.

And I'm not interested in writing fan-fic for neo-liberals, wannabe fascists who think that they'll be just fine after a Junta is instilled as our leadership, or global communists who want to eliminate all ethnic differences. Realistically, I think we'd be best off with a culture of economic populism and heavy government regulation of elite behavior and the markets (which is essentially how the US was run from the 1930's-1970's). But I'm not going to act as if that will actually happen, when corruption, ineptitude, and generational factors could conspire to give us a monstrous political order, or complete anarchy (the latter of which seems to the direction in we're headed, given that today's Western elites largely want no restrictions on markets and immigration).

216 said...

https://twitter.com/NickJFuentes/status/1063562846842339328

Again, a bad take. The administration was just thrashed in the polls, in part because of the backlash to "kids in cages". Starting a government shutdown, which almost always fails for the initiator, furthers the narrative that Trump is emotionally rash.

The unpopular take is that the administration needs to triangulate. Complaints about "prison reform" are misguided. *If* crime goes up, it benefits the "law and order" party. Will it get more black votes, probably not. Will it gain back moderates in one swoop, no. As a pattern of centrism, will it tone down the fear-mongering from the left, yes. While we are at it, rejoining the Paris Accord (but basically not enforcing it) is also a good idea.

Our goal has to be both triangulating against the Dems, and playing on the divisions in the Dem caucus. The golden dream is a leftist splinter party in 2020, which if mirrored at the Congressional level would give us an Orban-level majority. That probably won't happen. But there's a lot of egos in this new Congress, and many want to run for President. Think of the damage that Michelle Bachmann caused in 2012.

Feryl said...

"When BLM associated shooters started killing cops, tolerance for their movement collapsed, and ordinary conservatives were cheering on BLM highway blockers being run over by motorists. In that same vein, "liberals" don't care about our "free speech" rights, because we have real life fatalities from people associated with our movements."

The impression I get is that the election of Trump was considered a "defeat" of the electoral and emotional utility of "black identity extremists" (as the FBI once said), because black mob violence is so terrifying as to be counterproductive to national Dem candidates. Inflaming the emotions of volatile young black males, by having Left political leaders and marketers constantly dwelling on an alleged campaign to hunt down random blacks (at a time when people of all races are fed up with fascistic police militarization and a lack of accountability applied to elites), is just too destructive. And didn't Sailer or somebody point out that basically calling for black mob violence is one sorry way to try and harness the support of blacks, given that it's likely to alienate tons of other voters?

Feryl said...

"Our goal has to be both triangulating against the Dems, and playing on the divisions in the Dem caucus. The golden dream is a leftist splinter party in 2020, which if mirrored at the Congressional level would give us an Orban-level majority. That probably won't happen. But there's a lot of egos in this new Congress, and many want to run for President. Think of the damage that Michelle Bachmann caused in 2012."

Crazy Michelle was kinda the last desperate gasp of the Religious Right, huh? Back in the 2000's there were a lot of memes about her paranoia and ignorance. When Ted Cruz tried to keep the torch lit bright in 2015-16, people had so moved on from the Religious Right that a lot of his religious goofiness was met with shrugs, because everybody knew that would-be theocrats were a dwindling group (an ideology tends to only have any power for about 30-40 years, after which people find it stale or useless).

216 said...

Feryl,

IIRC, it was Sailer who noticed that a lot of BLM leaders were gay. Black men, particularly younger black men turned out at lower rates and a higher GOP percentage in '16. BLM tried to fuse with Hillary by calling themselves "Mothers of the movement", and the nominal hashtag was started by women.

What Trump did by attacking Kapernick (a man that could pass as an Arab, with an Arab girlfriend) and the other sportsballers, was much worse. By using "son of a bitch", he inverted the older failed BLM dynamic, unknowingly saying realtalk that black male dysfunction is a product of single mothers.

Comparatively, I see little interest in "police militarization" anymore, the rapid appearance of body cameras also seems to have made an impact. The Russia collusion conspiracy has also brought about a 180 in left-wing attitudes towards intelligence/law enforcement. I'm not even sure the Trump era has seen a "controversial shooting of unarmed black male" sparking riots. The narrative has been about mass shootings and neonazi terrorists.

Mr. Rational said...

I saw in an interview with Silent Sci-Fi author Harlan Ellison (and Sci-fi peaked in popularity in the 1950's-early 1970's), where he complained (in the late 70's) that TV was getting more and more dumbed down, lest anyone be so intellectually intimidated that they change the channel

Note that Ellison's essays on television were published as two books, "The Glass Teat" and "The Other Glass Teat".  He wasn't wrong.

Anonymous said...

216,

In such a case I think the neo-cucks would be laughed out of the room. By 2050 there will be so many examples of whites becoming a minority leading to objectively bad things that our case on race will be argued for us.

I'm more concerned with still having a white area of the US to call their own more than anything else. Myself and others are just not interested in living next to blacks or mestizos. Been there, done that, nearly acquired the bullet holes to prove it.

"Muh Economy" is a losing issue. Paul Ryan just proved that to any GOP retards that were in denial.

Culture wars are back in vogue, and that's what we're all about.

James Scott said...

I think its far more likely that White Americans will keep waking up and start voting as a block. If this happens in time we will control the governments in the USA. We can then stop all immigration strip the anchor babies of citizenship and deport them and their parents. Deport all legal immigrants that are not citizens and tell non white citizens to shut up or leave.

The jew mob will probably set this in motion. There is a good chance they already have and that's why we got Trump. The people who own the media have to know they are full of shit and that most people with a room temperature IQ also know. They seem to be riling up the non whites to the point whites are saying enough is enough. Even white women are turning against them out of fear for their children. The jew mob is realizing that mestizo politicians don't care about anyone who is not a mestizo. Here in CA all mestizo politicians are one trick ponies. They want more things for their people and more of their people here. They never talk about anything but their people. They also could care less about the hollowco$t and will not recoil in horror if given facts questioning the jews narrative. This cannot be allowed and I think Trump may be the jews solution to this very real problem for them.

Anonymous said...

@AE,

"Speaking of never having actually talked to someone in the military who supports secession--have you ever talked to someone who opposes it, either, or is just not a subject that comes up much?--we see lots of virtual talk about blazes of glory but we never, ever see them."

The Subject of Secession has come up NEVER over decades.
Moreover if it did pointing out the map would end the discussion.
It isn't possible whatever it's merits or levels of support.

This is my main point: Secession isn't possible given geography, nor our human terrain.

Secession would only be a springboard to a series of wars of unity AND invite foreign involvement by the new states - thereby making Civil War 2 a new 30 Years War.
The attempt to cede territory in exchange for peace isn't real: Just a fantastic setup for exponentially worse war.

Note I am saying secession because that was the subject of the discussion.
Political Devolution is an entirely different matter. Fully seceded sovereign states have sovereignty over their foreign policy and hence can and absolutely would take the fatal step of forming foreign alliances to merely survive - or gain advantage over their instant and be assured far more bitter rivals.

So if you want to discuss secession I have answered again: look at the map.
If you mean political devolution say so instead. The problem is SOVEREIGNTY ...or not.

Threat? What Threat? I wasn't threatening you I was both thanking you and warning you what you were in for.


On "I can't wait to work on American Soil." That's not a threat. It's the truth.
There would for instance be no rules of engagement crippling us.

I preceded that with explaining your inviting far greater wars than one civil war that way.
Having explained that I then openly admit: YES. ROCK ON. It's time to settle this...
and some of us have business with the elites who betrayed us. Also we want things too..and starting a war where we don't need a plane ride to get home is the most direct and decisive path to get what we want [see below].

So no it's not a threat it's merely the truth...and many vets would agree.
One we have unfinished business...and it will for us be FUN and benefit us directly.
Watch the Movie The Hurt Locker...there are very many of the adrenaline junky main protagonist in real life.

PS no I'm not backing down off a threat...cuz I never made one.
I have nothing against anyone here...why?
Why? You're making my dream world come true.
Our Dream World come True.

I wasn't threatening you I was both thanking you and warning you what you were in for.

We Vets go from being ordinary to having Superpowers [I don't know how else to relate this to you...] we become Happy Warriors...

There's ONE MORE THING: We can form stable families.





Anon Vet

Anonymous said...

Cont'd: benefits of Wars that would follow Secession;

Again: we can form stable families. Under the conditions you are helping to bring about the man is again master of his own home - if he mans up.

Again Again: in wartime America the Man will be a Man again and he can form a stable family, the woman will have neither the power nor the incentive to leave him.

So for reasons both: 1] bad side; yes DO secede..you'll make Vets dreams come true...
2] and good side; we can now directly and by FORCE restore tradition and Fatherhood and be assured reverse the demographic trend against us decisively.

Now you all might not want to fight for America.

Would you fight to become men and fathers who need fear no wife nor school, nor evil fat stupid government woman...nor anyone who isn't willing to pick up the sword?
Nor endure having to grit your teeth and run from diversity yet again?


So again and now directly: THANK YOU, PLEASE CONTINUE.

Not just because it makes our duty possible to achieve...it makes personal goals across the board especially being Men again - Father doesn't just know best, he's our very survival - being Men again and having our own home and homeland. The Shortest and surest path is war, and indeed probably the only path. Peace is death, war is life..a life actually worth having as we'll be men in our own houses and own nation.

Anon Vet

Anonymous said...

Family Law is silent in the midst of arms.

She'll be silent too.

Think about that.

Secede on Brothers!

This is the fastest path to War and hence the shortest path to Survival, Power and restoring a life worth living or dying for; Secede away.

vok3 said...

All right, if I misunderstood your original meaning I apologize. I see little to disagree with in your latest comments except for the geographical certainties. Borders have been built on less in the past.

But we will see what happens.

Corvinus said...

AE...

The United States is not going to break up in our lifetime. It is your OPINION that "there is no longer any racial, religious, moral, cultural, political, linguistic, or ethnic unity in the US as it is currently defined". You could be right, but you could also be wrong.

Of course, the author buried several ledes (as Jews normally do, right?)--He noted when nations fractured in the 20th century, there were always deep underlying fault lines of language, religion, or ethnicity. He noted there is no substantial groundswell of support for shrinking the United States. He noted policy wonks across the spectrum are simply entertaining secession, but are not actively promoting the cause. He noted even with this fatalism among some people, there is not an obvious way to dissolve our union, and that rewriting our Constitution requires levels of political coordination far beyond the country’s existing leadership.

Besides, if you look at the history of nation-states, partisan homogeneity is a feature, not a bug, and thus does not require a "divorce". The normies want to make reforms within the system, not blow it up.

"Political dissolution is a decidedly non-partisan issue...Political dissolution is most strongly supported by the young and by non-whites."

A sample size of 37,465 hardly reflects the national tenor. Besides, the devil is in the details. For example, ask those same respondents:

"How in the world would the people 'hammer out details' when we have difficulty getting things done now?"
"How would rights be delineated?"
"How would trade deals with foreign nations be reconstituted?"
"How would our national debt be dealt with?"
"How would we address legal decisions made by the Supreme Court"?
"Would you be willing to move from your current place of residence to achieve such a goal?"
"Would you support efforts made by your new government to coerce or force people to move?"
"How would you respond if people forced you to move merely due to your ideology?"

And those who support dissolution are foolish to believe this arrangement would remain peaceful. Refer to the break-up of the Soviet Union. Some parts of the old empire are more powerful than others despite keeping the balance of power in mind. Then the greatest remaining State constantly conspires against the weaker states surrounding it. Perhaps a "New Confederacy" and "Midwest Republic" would get along, but they would find themselves being mauled by the East Coast and West coast blocs which have the concentration of ports and financial institutions. Furthermore, powers from other continents would have their proxy machinations in the divided states of America. They would more likely support the Coastal Regions since their myriad of investments are located in its urban areas and since the people living there are acolytes of the Global Empire.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Audacious Epigone said...

snorlax,

Because Heartiste is an HBD realist and Limbaugh is not.

Anon,

Perfect. You get rid of us and then with full political control you can leave us to our own devices. Everybody wins! You have to take all our blacks you claim to love so much, though.

216,

It's partly a generational thing. This is a great recruitment tool/stunt even though it has Xers, Boomers, and even many millennial sympathizers wincing or rolling their eyes.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Feryl is a long-time reader and commenter. He generally withholds his extended comment posts until after a day or two of the thread's beginning, anyway. I'm definitely not restricting him.

Anonymous said...

Peace is a delusion. The left is already violent and getting bloodthirsty. They are losing. The election day cheating should show that. They are always impatient but the Right gaining and Trump winning have made them escalate and keep doubling down. The Failed State already has killed millions overseas. The left dreams of pogroms and death on you and yours.
War is the normal. Geography is a zero sum game. They are now openly letting invaders in to squeeze you out. Its a war already. The cuckservatives and enemy agents CONSTANTLY tell you NOT TO FIGHT. THEY WANT YOU DEAD.
Fight and you can have it back. Not some but all. Cowardice, whether by guilt or inaction will bring you DEATH. They NEED you to be peaceful. The dirty little secret they try SO HARD TO HIDE. THEY ARE NOT UNITED. Even if outnumbered, you have the possibility of cohesion, they DO NOT. Their ragtag crazy quilt WILL NOT STAY TOGETHER. Like that movie Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, their forces are NOT UNIFORM or COHESIVE. They are separate in race, language and culture. In this case, "diversity" is REALLY OUR STRENGTH. THEIRS not OURS.

Ja D said...

An idea whose time has come.

MichiganWave said...

One of the most obvious conclusions:
The groups who Least want to allow secession, decentralization, partition, devolution etc. are the groups who want to Dominate or exploit the status quo.
These groups profit by dominating the current American Managerial Class.
You can't negotiate with a vampire squid.

Audacious Epigone said...

Centauri,

"Their diversity is our strength"

Gold.

MichiganWave,

Can't beat it or negotiate with it? Then walk away from it.

Anonymous said...

This NY MAG makes perfect sense if you don't believe in the actual geographical map.
I love how she breaks us down by Masters degrees BTW.

Also how PA is neutral territory, etc...

We get most of the prisoners and half the Dindus BTW.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/maybe-its-time-for-america-to-split-up.html

Anonymous said...

"Their diversity is our strength".

Gold indeed. Platinum. Palladium.

av