Monday, February 28, 2011

The United States is so over

Photobucket

It's no longer the view only of a cranky fringe. Longstanding patriotic conditioning is giving way to a dry-eyed, realistic assessment of a country that is becoming less of a country every day.

Third World America is here, now. What's left of the middle class is squeezed in a pincer movement: one one side, a federal government that believes it is entitled to regulate everything for the benefit of professional politicians, the permanent bureaucracy, and globalist corporations; on the other side, a campaign of population replacement.

In a guest post at Zero Hedge, a writer with the nom de blog Free Radical writes:
The first, most fundamental, and most necessary step in the transition to a free society is the demise of the modern “monster state.” And the first, most fundamental, and most necessary step in this process is the demise of the monstrous American state, its erstwhile role as a beacon to the world having long ago given way to a superpower that brings not light but heat, pulling a shroud over its own people in the process. ...
It is increasingly clear, moreover, that the American welfare-warfare state is on its last legs and that its use of the present crisis to extend its reach both at home and abroad is an act of desperation, its towering inferno of debt being inextinguishable for the simple reason that desperation is what fuels it.
The United States Government isn’t fighting fire with fire, in other words; the American Empire is setting the world aflame with domestic overindulgence and foreign overextension, the difference being that it won’t merely become the latest victim of “imperial overstretch”; instead, it will become the last victim, its collapse igniting a worldwide devolution of power the likes of which the world has never known.  For while it might be assumed that Russia or China will rush in to fill the resulting power vacuum, it is far more likely that the collapse of the American Empire will precipitate a worldwide devolution revolution that no state – least of all the “monster states” – will be able to withstand, as emboldened bodies politic and sympathetic international spectators frustrate central government efforts to suppress secessionist uprisings.
Devolution of nations and empires looks to be very much part of our Zeitgeist.  The Soviet Union was the first, but certainly not the last, to crack. Then it was Yugoslavia's turn. Czechoslovakia is now divided into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Quebec is Canadian in name only. Scotland is distancing itself from the U.K. and has its own parliament. Do you really believe no such thing could ever happen in the un-United States?

It's significant that some state politicians, such as the governor of Wisconsin and many attorneys general, have decided it is politically beneficial to themselves to challenge the Washington Politburo.

Free Radical again:
No matter that their central government no longer recognizes this principle, the fact is that is no law against – i.e., no Constitutional prohibition of – secession.  On the contrary, "The procedure for joining the Union also applied to withdrawing from the Union. And the Tenth Amendment, which reserved to the states powers not delegated to the federal government, would seem to put the matter of secession with the states and the people."
So, too, would the fact that the delegations of three states, in ratifying the Constitution, specifically reserved not only each state’s right to withdraw from the Union but the people’s right to do so. For example, "The People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whosoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression … ."
Talking about secession of states, groups of states, or parts of states is not a counsel of defeat for traditionalist conservatism. It's a sensible strategy in a "country" that is permanently divided about basic values and being infused with large-scale Third World immigration to prevent any effective counter-force to Washington's lords, according to the age-old principle of "divide and conquer."

The Leftist Establishment gleefully insists that we can't turn back the clock, that statism and multi-culturalism are now a fait accompli. They are partly right. There can never again be a United States with reasonably congruent values from sea to shining sea.

But while much has been lost, much remains. There is a substantial bloc of conservative Americans who want limited government, an end to mass immigration, and a constitutional republic. As long as they spend their political capital trying to "convince" the other side of their beliefs, though, they are wasting their time. The Left's long march through the institutions and its helping hand to reconquista have seen off any possibility of reunification.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: We need a constitutional amendment spelling out how legal, peaceful secession can take place. How can such an amendment (written very carefully to prohibit judicial nullification) create any problem? If, as some people insist, secession is impractical or impossible, then the issue will never arise and separation per the amendment will not happen.

The alternative is to carry on, for a while, as a house divided against itself, with parts of the country eventually going their own way regardless. And then a federal attempt to suppress them, quite possibly giving the world a picture much like that of the Soviets sending their armies and tanks into Budapest and Prague.

Free Radical believes the response won't get to that point, or it if it does, it won't work: "Imagine the spectacle, say, of a few thousand secessionists gathered in the same nonviolent civil disobedience that Gandhi, following Thoreau, used to liquefy the British Empire, to say nothing of the  media onslaught that brought down the monstrous Mubarak regime in a matter of days. That is, imagine U.S. Government troops rolling in and dragging off American citizens, each clutching a copy of the Declaration of Independence, with cable news, Google, Facebook, and Twitter providing real-time worldwide coverage. Can one possibly believe that in light of such a blatant act of hypocrisy the American state could weather the resultant loss of whatever moral authority it still pretended to have?"

American history leaves no doubt that the Constitution was meant to create an association of states bound together for protection and trade, not an empire ruled by caesars and apparatchiks from Washington. That a mentally ill president in the 1860s was willing to send more than half a million Americans to their graves for "the Union" did not create a morally binding precedent. Let us do what is needed to insure that no one must ever again be prosecuted or killed for the crime of living in a republic rather than a centralized soft dictatorship.

Photobucket

8 comments:

YIH said...

Whenever the subject of ''the breakup of the USA'' comes up I wonder how? Take Michigan, likely 3/4 of the state is a livable (though cold) place. Detroit? Google ''ruins of Detroit'' and you'll likely see enough sad images to trigger depression. You could argue that LA has become a de facto part of Mexico.
The ''two Americas'' have split over urban vs. suburban/rural areas.
Even if regions split off into 'independent' countries if one or many become bankrupt will they go begging the regions that are relatively healthy. Perhaps using force of arms to take what they want, with the heavily 'race replaced' (like Detroit) demanding resources from the less so. Look at the issues Ireland v. EU for example.
BTW stuck a 'Revolver Map' on my own blog. Even when it shows a lot of hits it doesn't get ugly (unlike Clutsrmaps, which gets uglier over time)

Rick Darby said...

YIH,

The practical aspects of devolution are tough to work out. But I'm not convinced it's impossible.

First, though, we need to establish a legal mechanism that will avoid a federal suppression and possible civil violence in the event of secession.

Sebastian said...

As the world attempts to throw off ancient shackles (and feed itself), we seem intent on forging into something like a Techno Dark Age. After reading about some designer named John Galliano and his drunken, anti-Jewish rant in Paris, I find this comment in the NYT:

1.
Amy Ahlert
Philipse Manor, N.Y.
March 1st, 2011
12:05 pm
Condemnation by an Academy Award winning, Harvard educated actress (Natalie Portman)or ethnic slurs by an overrated bigoted buffoon. Dior had no choice. Too bad we don't have laws like France in this country. Against the law to make anti-Semitic inciting remarks in a public place? Trouble is our government would have to build more jails were this the case. Something to consider..............Freedom of speech notwithstanding.

This is a liberal and no doubt progressive; an educated American. EVERYTHING has become political - a sure sign of decay and impending civil strife.

Personally, I gave up on this country's grotesque, obese, uneducated, flag-waving, militarized "conservative" base long ago. I can side with neither tribe in this fight.

Like so many before me, I vote with people who are more alien to me culturally than the urban internationalists I live among and socialize with. Just because the top-tier people have been infected does not mean the bottom-tier, Glenn Beck crowd is desirable. This has always been a problem. Do you really want to live in Indiana?

From a coffee house in Soho, NYC, I remain, yours truly, conflicted.

Rick Darby said...

Sebastian,

I don't get Amy Ahlert's point, unless it is "a plague on both your houses." But while anti-Semitic rants are deplorable, I certainly disagree with her saying, "Too bad we don't have laws like France in this country." The law should protect people from unwarranted, tangible harm (including libel), not insults or prejudice.

"Do you really want to live in Indiana?" strikes me as coming from the same kind of mentality that makes crude anti-Semitic remarks. No, I don't want to live in Indiana, but some people do, and what's wrong with that?

Sebastian said...

My point was simply that more people favor illiberal, totalitarian-type restrictions on speech than I first thought, and this strikes me as very bad. I always thought freedom of speech was held in high regard in this country. I don't think it is anymore. While China moves to greater liberty, we are clearly moving in the other direction.

My point about Indiana was simply that I don't see cultured people wanting to live anywhere in this country outside of the big cities where liberalism is strongest, and this creates a strange tension. Bill Buckley and Taki wrote a few pieces about this phenomenon. I lived in Indiana for six months and grew to detest the place and the people like any liberal would - though I continue voting like a resident of Indiana, not NY.

That's all I meant. I cannot get sentimental about the Heartland and supposed yeomen who dwell there. Except for the real farmers (a tiny number), there's nothing there. Lew Rockwell has an excellent piece on "The Reality of Red State Fascism" that explains this well. But perhaps I assumed too much.

Stogie said...

That a mentally ill president in the 1860s was willing to send more than half a million Americans to their graves for "the Union" did not create a morally binding precedent.

Very well said! Actually, the number was more like 620,000.

It is a chilling realization you have come to, i.e. that we Americans are being replaced, and by design.

Maria said...

It is a chilling realization you have come to, i.e. that we Americans are being replaced, and by design.

And what's added insult to injury, the replacers don't even realize that the U.S. will not be the same place when their replacement project is finished. They assume we will always be a First World nation.

I get this attitude all the time from arguing with Hispanics who want open borders. They automatically assume that the US will remain "the land of opportunity" with unlimited immigration from Latin America (which is what nearly all of them want.) They never seem to realize that their countries are not nice places to live in for a reason. Magic thinking all around.

Anonymous said...

View from the Right blog has some serious albeit tentative proposals and associated discussion about how to divide America... An expanded proposal to divide America into two countries.