"Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized." Daniel H. Burnham.
No one is going to fight to live on a reservation in Idaho. At least not now. The plan that has power to move men's minds is White America. Ian Jobling is titling his new site that. All 3rd worlders go back to their countries to live with their people and make them better with what they learned here. Destroying America is not noble for them and not noble for us to allow to happen. Their going back to make their countries better and we getting our country back are noble purposes for both groups.
When Africa decolonized, it was to get the whites out. They had little plan beyond that. But that was enough.
The SPLC and the Left understand this. They realize that retaking our entire country is the real vision that will get the obese people out of the Hispanic McDonald's.
To assume that the country will divide left/right at the Mississippi river is inane. Missouri and Iowa have absolutely nothing in common with California, so why would they join with California in such a split up of the country and against Illinois and Wisconsin? This is nuts.
In terms of north-south dividing lines, the coasts will break off from the middle of the country. Both the east coast and the west coast are bastions of liberalism, whereas the middle of the country is much, much more conservative. More likely divisions would be east of the Appalachians, West of the Rockies, and everything in between, if it is going to be as simple as only three parts.
I also agree with VA that there is some degree of regional coherence in the old South, although I'm not sure that this is nearly as strong as it was even a decade ago. Massive migration of both whites and other races into the South have diluted its solidarity in most unfortunate ways.
With real regret, I have to say that I think Texas is a completely lost cause. Again, the massive influx of people from the outside, both from elsewhere in the US and also from Latin America, have watered down the Texas heritage to the point where few know of the War for Texas Independence any more. If you mention the atrocity at Goliad, nobody knows what you are talking about. Speak of General Cos and nobody knows who he was. Most folks spell Santa Ana with two n's because they don't know any better and just assume it must by like it would be in English. Texas history has been lost, and with it all the will to ever think of fighting for an independent Texas again. Most people living in Texas today have little connection to the old Texas, to the battle for the Republic and for making the state what it is. They are carpetbaggers and wetbacks, and they simply want to go along to get along. They will not fight to protect that which came to them so easily.
I would just like to say, it's quite funny. I never would imagine recently as five years ago talking about the possible dissolution of America in my lifetime. My prediction could be wrong but I think it could dissolve, if we don't eject the illegals in the country and place a moratorium on legal immigration for a while (years). With regards to our lack of participation by our electorate in our national elections, keep in mind that most people weren't even originally willing to break with the United Kingdom. So, I wouldn't count our country toast just because people don't participate, although as a student of political science it is sad to see our republic in this state.
"I suppose for some people, it isn't happening unless it's reported in the so-called 'mainstream media', so they only notice it now that the WSJ reports it." This sentiment would accurately describe how some of my friends feel. I rarely rely on the MSM anymore, only to get a basic idea of what is going on and then going to blogs to find out the real story (by people who were actually on the scene, you know).
I think a breakup, while not impossible, would be bad news for our country. Whether we want to admit it or not, one of the reasons we are so self-sufficient (or were, till recent years) is because of our large land mass. I think the Texans would fight against an annexation by Mexico. I wish the entire country would have that mentality: Mexico is not our friend.
First of all, let's recognize a little-mentioned issue: through most of our history, most of our political, business, media, and education elites have been patriotic Americans who were recognizable as such. It is only within the last 40 years or so that we have seen the situation develop where our elites are actually hostile and antagonistic to regular, everyday Americans.
To the rest of the world, this is nothing new. I would suggest that throughout history, in most places and times, the ruling elites have despised the people they govern, and have sought to make them subordinate to them, in order to have manpower to fight wars, or subjects to pay taxes. The USA for 200 years was unique in that it was different. No longer.
I used to dismiss as foolishness talk of the USA breaking apart. I no longer think it's so far-fetched, and wonder if it might happen within my lifetime - I'm 51.
The most likely scenario I see is that as we become more "diverse," the different ethnic factions will self-segregate, with Hispanics to the southwest and south Florida, Blacks to the south, Asians to the SF Bay area and northwest, and Anglos to the south and midwest. There WILL be a problem with internal Hispanic migration, because the areas they control will score high when it comes to corruption and dysfunction, and generally fare poorly economically.
At some point, the realization will occur that the differing parts of the USA have nothing really in common, maybe not even a flag or a currency by then. Some sort of breakup will occur - whether it takes the form of a region seceding, or 2 or more regions getting togther and deciding to, let's say, kick California out of the union is open to speculation I suppose. In any event, like the old USSR, I am afraid we're destined to go out with a whimper rather than a bang.
I think the professor who proposed the breakup of the US in 2010 doesn't understand the country well enough. Any kind of breakup is still far in the future barring an extrordinary event. Moreover, Americans have already passively relinquished their major cities and there's no sign of any rebellious movement
that desires secession for ethnic and cultural protection. So long as the economy continues to function
and people can buy food at the supermarket there, don't hold your breath for a breakup unless an explicit nationalist voice arises that can garner commited supporters in the millions - and not just halfhearted internet patriots. So far that has not happened even as late as now when several southern states no longer have a white majority.
Great discussion!
I like the idea mentioned by Sgt. Joe Friday above of what I would call a "reverse secession", or kicking out the most dysfunctional states from the union.
I read a few weeks ago at Vdare that we are only two states away from approval of a new Constitutional Convention. This could prove to be an ideal venue for something like this. The author, Chuck Baldwin, is not so thrilled with the idea. He's afraid the Liberals would take such a convention over and we could wind up with something much worse than what we have now.
http://www.vdare.com/baldwin/
081..._convention.htm
I agree with AndyK - this is another good discussion.
I agree with Chuck Baldwin's viewpoint as expressed in the VDare article linked in AndyK's comment -- although it might be that a Constitutional Convention which proposed to abolish our existing Constitution could provide a catalyst for a needed showdown, I think. If we just passively drift along as things get worse, we will be less likely to do anything constructive about it. Western Critique's post speaks to that; we certainly haven't done much to express our displeasure with what is being done to us.
Dr. D - I've heard the same bleak assessment of Texas from others recently and although I hope otherwise, I fear you may be right. Maybe things look worse or better depending on where in Texas you look. Certainly South Texas seems to have been re-annexed at least in a de facto sense.
I just think that the longer we leave it, the worse things will be, as intermarriage proceeds apace and people just get inured to the situation.
This is true everywhere, not only in Texas.
OA - you make some good points. I like the part about how little plans have ''no magic to stir men's blood." Once people realize what is at stake and what we are trying to reclaim or defend, perhaps we will see more coming to our side.
Sgt. Joe Friday's assessment seems pretty sound to me, also.
-VA
After reviewing my post I would like to add that I recognise the valuable work done by activists on the internet in stimulating thought and discussion. This blog is one fine example.
As America is changing gradually I think the masses will continue to
adjust to it rather than coalesce together in a co-ordinated movement. There is no mainstream nationalist
party in America like there is in Europe (examples being the BNP, Front Nationale, SDP, etc) so I
don't forsee any imminent breakup unless such an organisation gains strength or an extraordinary person
rises up. If we look back in history, revolutions and even ideas almost always originate from indivualas
than large groups of people. The there is the issue too of love of ones heritage and form. From what I can see most whites don't have much love of their own kind and therefore will not be roused to do something to preserve their group heritage in spite of their demographic decline.
The following is so important that I bolded the text:
I would suggest that throughout history, in most places and times, the ruling elites have despised the people they govern, and have sought to make them subordinate to them, in order to have manpower to fight wars, or subjects to pay taxes. The USA for 200 years was unique in that it was different. No longer.
One of the great revolutions that came out of the 18th century was the idea of citizenship, that the ruled had just as much stake in the country as the rulers, maybe even more. But citizenship has been a rare thing in the history of the world, which has been largely a history of rulers dominating largely passive populations. Most revolutions led to the replacement of one ruling class with another ruling class, not a material change in the state of affairs.
One analogy I would make is the Roman Empire at about the time of Diocletian: the replacement of the principate with the dominate, the establishment of the all-powerful bureaucratic state, the freezing of social classes into castes by law. Fittingly enough, this was done to rule over a multicultural empire faced with mass migrations from the "third world" of its day.
The result was the destruction of civic spirit among the people and, in the end, growing passivity in the face of barbarian invasions. We know the historical outcome, at least in the Western Empire.
[continued in next post]
[continued]
Most Americans grew up in a time when the ruling elites in this country -- politicians, Wall Street, university administrations, union leaders, whatever -- were militantly patriotic. We might look at Henry Ford setting up his factories such that every worker made enough money to buy a car and participate in the general wealth. Today, of course, the big capitalists are working against the interests of the American people: illegal alien workers, outsourcing, NAFTA, etc. And I need not tell anyone how the universities, media, and so forth actively promote anti-American ideologies.
What happened?
Somewhere along the line I think the elites figured out that they no longer needed the citizenry. Perhaps with the end of the Cold War there were no more big enemies and so they no longer needed citizen armies such as those which fought the World Wars and fended off the Soviet empire.
So now the elites are replacing the old citizenry with a demoralized mass of serfs. We obviously have the European and North American populations which are being replaced with third and fourth world immigrants. More generally, we have the extreme passivity created by the spectacle of consumer society and the media. The general populace seem to be no longer living their own lives. Rather, they live the lives presented to them on their telescreens, I mean, televisions.
At the same time, the elites are extending their own power globally via interlocked multinational corporations, via foreign interventions which are thinly disguised power grabs, via non-governmental organizations which penetrate into even darkest Africa. Even law enforcement gets in on the act: the FBI-DEA-ICE have opened up offices globally.
At the same time, we see the average citizen being subjected to the lock-down state. Thus, while corporations can freely move jobs and money and illegal aliens across international borders, John or Jane Q. Citizen who tries to get on an airplane to Europe will be treated as a criminal suspect by the minions of the TSA. Call it anarcho-tyranny carried out on a global scale.
I suspect that we are at a historical turning point here. Future historians will see these decades at the point in which the political system made the great sea change similar to that of Rome under Diocletian. They will no doubt ask "why" did people surrender their liberties.
And that is a good question.
Californian - good points.
But when the Roman Empire 'fell', the people continued under another system, with the centralized government in Rome losing sway, local authorities filled the vacuum and things devolved to a smaller, more localized system, under which life and the human race went on.
However our situation is not exactly the same; there was no mass demographic transformation of the people then into some new hybrid race, such as seems to be looming ahead for us. I think that's the tragedy, not the loss of our ''Republic' or our economic system or even our ''freedoms'' because those things might still exist potentially, but once a people is undone, and mixed beyond recognition, that people is gone forever.
That troubles me more than anything. Even the American Indians had it better than we stand to have it; they were allowed (not forced) to live on reservations and to keep their identity. We will not be allowed that luxury if the ''elites'' have their way.
-VA
I am definitely in the "it can't happen" camp for the simple reason that not even whites want it to happen. The vast majority of us consider racism to be the most wicked sin imaginable, on the same level as incest, rape, and pedophilia, and considerably worse than murder. Public opinion can and does change, but generally only in one direction: to the left. The press, the education system, and the popular media are all firmly in the hands of the progressives, and will remain so. Mencius Moldbug's latest post about "Cthulu" is spot-on.
At the moment, we are seeing a brief, tiny flowering of internet reactionism, but our betters will find a way to squelch it soon enough. I think they'll just make high speed internet access a "free" public utility, and then they can censor anything they like without raising free speech concerns. As long as they're smart enough to let the porn keep flowing and leave the left-wing dissenters alone, only a minuscule percentage of the population would shell out for unfiltered private net access.
Commenting by HaloScan
