The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Dissolution for the Diversity
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In the comments of a recent post discussing support for breaking the US up into smaller countries, the familiar presumption about political dissolution being a means to the end of an ethnostate (or ethnostates). Here again is the graphic by region and by partisan affiliation:

The Heartland is the whitest of the three regions (78% as of 2012). It is also the least enthusiastic about the idea of political dissolution. The Heartland is followed by the Mountain (65% white) and the Northeast (66% white). The two regions with the strongest support for secession–the South (59%) and the Pacific (46%)–are also the least white ones. Democrat support is strongest in the minority-majority Pacific. To the extent they want an ethnostate, it’s a non-white one!

The regional differences aren’t large, but the whiter the region, the less inclined it is towards secession. This is not what we would expect if support for political dissolution was predominantly racial in motivation.

 
Hide 66 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The regional differences aren’t large, but the whiter the region, the less inclined it is towards secession.

    I would say the exact opposite. Think about it.

    • Agree: Ace, Joseph Doaks
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Paperback Writer

    It's not only hard to say if whiter regions are less inclined towards secession, it's hard even to say which regions are least and most inclined towards secession, because we don't know what portion of each region is Republican, Independent and Democrat.

    Then if knew that, we'd still need another column of ethnic numbers to say if it is the whiteness of the region that causes the inclination towards or away from secession.

    , @anon
    @Paperback Writer

    I would say the exact opposite. Think about it.

    Epigone's analysis is on real data. What data do you bring?

    , @turtlesallthewaydown
    @Paperback Writer

    That is what the survey said, not what the author thinks or what the people really want if you asked all of them.

  2. Separation is about separating normies from the woke. Some want it to be about race. It’s not.

    If the founding documents don’t guaranty a color blind government and freedom of association, It’s just not Redstan. It’s a waste of time.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @WorkingClass

    Among whites, I think cuck/noncuck is the more important distinction. A lot of people signal against wokeness, while fiercely cucking. The truly woke are only a small minority, while the majority are cucks.

    The woke have no real power but what they derive from cucks and bioleninists.

  3. anon[227] • Disclaimer says:

    In the case of the Mountain region (and to a lesser extent, in the Heartland) there is a confounding factor: the indigenous population, which already has a degree of sovereignty.

    That gives a segment of the red and brown states a sophisticated grasp of human rights and customary international law. They know how to use the institutional support of treaty bodies and charter bodies. They can go over the government’s head to the world.

    By contrast, whitey is still dicking around with CIA’s futile electoral pageantry, which screws them over more and more. Each time they throw the bums out, CIA puts in bigger bums, culminating in the comedy triumph of placing a vegetable in the presidential puppet ruler slot. (What’s next, fucking audio-animatronic Lincoln?) Of course these poor downtrodden chumps are trying to escape. They have no rights. They don’t know what rights are.

    • LOL: Dutch Boy
    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
    @anon

    The only difference is that real vegetables are good for you.

  4. @Paperback Writer

    The regional differences aren’t large, but the whiter the region, the less inclined it is towards secession.

     

    I would say the exact opposite. Think about it.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @anon, @turtlesallthewaydown

    It’s not only hard to say if whiter regions are less inclined towards secession, it’s hard even to say which regions are least and most inclined towards secession, because we don’t know what portion of each region is Republican, Independent and Democrat.

    Then if knew that, we’d still need another column of ethnic numbers to say if it is the whiteness of the region that causes the inclination towards or away from secession.

  5. Any plan for division would have to create borders that leave the minimum number of people on the “wrong side of the line”. Instead of artificial regions, the split would have to be:
    • MAGA Populist Red
    • Authoritarian SJW Corporate Blue

    The U.S. House Election results provide a good starting point for a dissolution map that would respect the actual distribution of the irreconcilable Red & Blue populations.

      

    The question becomes, “Is the Authoritarian side capable of respecting MAGA Red freedom and prosperity?” If not, any succession will create the Civil War that dissolution is supposed to avoid.
    _____

    Sanctuary Cities and non-prosecution of Antifa insurrection does give us the precedent for the next phase of disengagement. (1)

    It’s time for Red States to [Create Sanctuaries] that nullify federal law

    It is time our side use this tactic as a way of protecting our constitutional rights. Here are some of the issues that could be affected by the concept of Sanctuary States / Counties / Towns (a.k.a. nullification):

    -1- Nullify all 1st Amendment [Church & Synagogue] Restrictions. States should refuse to enforce all federal edicts and Supreme Court rulings that impinge upon the 1st Amendment protections of our religious freedom, such as efforts by radical gays to force churches, faith based adopting agencies, religious schools, colleges, and businesses to carry out a radical gay and transexual agenda.
    -2- Nullify all federal efforts to undermine the 2nd Amendment. States should nullify all federal laws that compromise the 2nd Amendment such as those being proposed by the Biden team.
    ….
    -3- Nullify open border policies.
    -4- Nullify the anti-police agenda.
    -5- Nullify all federal efforts to preserve fraudulent voting procedures.

    Using Eminent Domain to take over 100% of digital distribution in the Sanctuary Regions would eliminate ate the ability of the Fake Stream Media to push fake propaganda on Sanctuary residents.

    After seizing Twitter’s network, there would be Red Checks for Populist posting. Evil Blue Check SJW Liars would be banned from social media in the Free Populist “Sanctuary” Regions.
    __________

    PEACE 😇

    (1) https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/03/its_time_for_red_states_to_start_nullifying_federal_law.html

  6. @WorkingClass
    Separation is about separating normies from the woke. Some want it to be about race. It's not.

    If the founding documents don't guaranty a color blind government and freedom of association, It's just not Redstan. It's a waste of time.

    Replies: @songbird

    Among whites, I think cuck/noncuck is the more important distinction. A lot of people signal against wokeness, while fiercely cucking. The truly woke are only a small minority, while the majority are cucks.

    The woke have no real power but what they derive from cucks and bioleninists.

    • Agree: Joseph Doaks
  7. @Paperback Writer

    The regional differences aren’t large, but the whiter the region, the less inclined it is towards secession.

     

    I would say the exact opposite. Think about it.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @anon, @turtlesallthewaydown

    I would say the exact opposite. Think about it.

    Epigone’s analysis is on real data. What data do you bring?

  8. The regional differences aren’t large, but the whiter the region, the less inclined it is towards secession.

    I don’t actually find that particularly surprising. Whites who live in the Whitest areas still think Whites control the country, or at least their amygdala still thinks so, and that’s all that matters.

    By the way, had anyone heard about this? Apparently, Seattle SWPLs are getting tired of liberalism, and realizing that it’s not particularly compassionate. Indeed, the more I see of liberalism, the more it looks like Social Darwinism to me.

    • Agree: Some Guy, Ace
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Rosie

    I haven't just heard about this, Rosie, I've lived it. Walk underneath the I-5 in Seattle: you have to watch your step for discarded heroin needles.

    , @Twinkie
    @Rosie

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/defeating-the-drug-war/#comment-4326461

  9. Separation is about separating normies from the woke. Some want it to be about race. It’s not.

    Yes, but the definition of normal has a lot to do with race. Non-blacks and blacks have a very different idea of normal in personal behavior.
    Support in the South for separation is rooted in disgust for Woke culture and riots which includes disgust with black criminal behavior.
    Portland Wokesters want separation because they are disgusted with Southern disgust with black criminals.
    Heartland whites are cool to the idea of separation because they want the problems to just go away. They don’t have the problem of black behavior in their face every day like Southern whites. Heartland whites are on the fence and therefore that is where the battleground might be. Once again, Bleeding Kansas.
    Black crime (and overall bad black behavior) looms large as a cause of political opinions on all sides at all levels in America.

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @rebel yell


    Black crime (and overall bad black behavior) looms large as a cause of political opinions on all sides at all levels in America.
     
    Rather than geographical, the division in the U.S. is between productive and non-productive people. Blacks, with their high crime and welfare rates, are largely in the non-productive class.

    Productive people are not necessarily the same as high income people. For example, you can have someone who works for the government or someone in the private sector who benefits from particular government policies who has a high income but is producing little of real value. On the other hand, you can have someone with an average income like a auto mechanic, plumber or electrician who are of great value in keeping everything we need running.

    Productive people are usually not woke liberals. Sometimes they may pay lip service to woke liberalism and publicly announce their agreement with it but that is to keep themselves out of trouble in this era of witch hunts for non-believers in the reigning ideology. These same people, when they are alone with people they trust, will be more honest and say what they really think.

    Replies: @Expletive Deleted

  10. You might want to believe in miracles, but that’s so childish.
    Amicable divorces are so rare there’s an industry that makes billions off of it.

    Its gonna come to War and extreme violence.
    People are just so unreasonable nowadays.

    Mantras and memes. Blah blah blah…
    Civil War II has already started. Only one side is doing anything right now.

    Everything has become about race. Economic inequality points to the nose goblins.
    They push the annoying blacks on you to hide behind them.

    You can hide a lot behind a loud annoying fat black woman.
    Not an economic collapse or a Fall of the Zion Empire, but a lot.

    They just can’t get anyone to fight Israel’s neighbors anymore.
    So now they are recruiting freaks and wimmen.

    That’s not a brilliant plan at all.
    Do not expect brilliance. Expect hubris and doubling down.

    When )))they((( get in trouble they act like bad gamblers.
    Doubling down hoping to stay even. )))They((( will LOSE IT ALL.

  11. There are 50 states, not these made up regions. No one has to do anything overt should the Fed Gov disappear. Life will go on. The property controlled by the Fed Gov will revert back to the states it resides in, including all the military hardware. The Fed Gov employees will just be unemployed for the states to deal with. One useless layer of gov’t gone does not end the world.

    The US military disappears, in theory, but since they currently are the Fed Gov IMO, they may object and turn their current soft dictatorship into a real one. Dismantling the 3 branches of gov’t does not get rid of the primary controlling entity. The military has been sucking money out of the US economy for decades and has never passed an audit. That should prove to anyone that they have been in control since at least the mid 60’s.

    The question becomes how to dismantle the true owners of the country – the military, intel agencies, major corporations that supply them, etc.

    Think of it this way – draw a detailed tree diagram of the Fed Gov that includes the military, corporations, media, higher education, etc, maybe hundreds of boxes. This would normally show 3 boxes at the top, the Executive, Congress and Supreme Court with the military somewhere below. Now mentally grab that military box and shake the tree to bring it to the top and that might provide a clearer picture of where the real power lies.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @RoatanBill


    The question becomes how to dismantle the true owners of the country – the military, intel agencies, major corporations that supply them, etc.
     
    I agree that those groups are the biggest single problem.
  12. Russian’s used to joke that the two greatest generals in the American military were General Atlantic and General Pacific. Your new two countries are going to loose both generals and the source of international security.

    After greater New York (or greater California) goes broke and “Road Warrior” as a result of their policies, their entire population would start to stream over the border (as East Germany tried to move to West Germany). Then the border wall goes up and foreign nations start to bail out the failed state. Soon you have Russian forces and missile bases in upstate, a Vichy government happy for a foreign rulers in order to keep their privilege relative to the rest of the people, and immediate need for the other nation sharing the North American continent to team up with its own foreign power (China?) to match the military power and money of the other.

    • Replies: @rebel yell
    @scrivener3

    Agreed - it is naive to think newly separated nations aren't going to plot and intrigue against each other and that foreign powers won't be involved. The Monroe Doctrine is still the most important foundation stone of our foreign policy. Separate nations puts that at risk.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Audacious Epigone

    , @Paperback Writer
    @scrivener3

    Nice movie treatment you have there.

    The French used to joke that the great Russian general was General Winter.

  13. What happens to social security? The us dollar is accepted almost world wide but what about 5 mini dollars? The US is taking care of it’s elderly by printing dollars to pay the health care bill.

    A dollar collapse means that problem is not a problem for dissolution. That will happen probably soon.

  14. @Rosie

    The regional differences aren’t large, but the whiter the region, the less inclined it is towards secession.
     
    I don't actually find that particularly surprising. Whites who live in the Whitest areas still think Whites control the country, or at least their amygdala still thinks so, and that's all that matters.

    By the way, had anyone heard about this? Apparently, Seattle SWPLs are getting tired of liberalism, and realizing that it's not particularly compassionate. Indeed, the more I see of liberalism, the more it looks like Social Darwinism to me.

    https://youtu.be/bpAi70WWBlw

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Twinkie

    I haven’t just heard about this, Rosie, I’ve lived it. Walk underneath the I-5 in Seattle: you have to watch your step for discarded heroin needles.

  15. Speaking as someone who understands this from personal experience: if you want to help homeless people, give them the social connections. Help them get jobs: my pet idea is gyms employing high-functioning homeless people, because free showers, floor access, and opportunities for re-socialization (and subtly, a feeling of dignity and worth for people often dealing with some severe mental scars) can easily be part of the package. Or help them the medical treatment and/or counseling they need in order to hold down a job. Stop rentier housing policies that make it ever more difficult for people with no initial capital to get off the street. Zero-tolerance policies for drug peddlers, combined with light-to-no penalties for users on the condition that they undergo detox and stay clean.

    Just don’t pretend emoting about grand abstract theories is helping anyone. And turning cities into open-air tent camps only makes everybody else miserable so that rich lefties who don’t have to deal with the realities they create can feel good about themselves. All while doing squat for the homeless.

    • LOL: iffen
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @nebulafox


    Zero-tolerance policies for drug peddlers, combined with light-to-no penalties for users on the condition that they undergo detox and stay clean.
     
    Right. Seattle needs to revise their personal use rules, though, because as of now, dealers are gaming the system by carrying only what has effectively been decriminalized, while still carrying enough to do a good business.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    , @usNthem
    @nebulafox

    Frankly, institutionalization needs to be brought back as well. There’s a certain segment of the homeless population, due to their mental state, that have no business wandering among the local population. Is it more humane to let them scratch out some pathetic subsistence and turning a blind eye, or put them someplace where they’d at least have a clean bed, three squares a day as well as heating in the winter and cooling in the summer? Ken Kesey (although he may not have been all that far off the mark back then) has a lot to answer for.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    , @RSDB
    @nebulafox


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9OO0S5w2k

  16. @nebulafox
    Speaking as someone who understands this from personal experience: if you want to help homeless people, give them the social connections. Help them get jobs: my pet idea is gyms employing high-functioning homeless people, because free showers, floor access, and opportunities for re-socialization (and subtly, a feeling of dignity and worth for people often dealing with some severe mental scars) can easily be part of the package. Or help them the medical treatment and/or counseling they need in order to hold down a job. Stop rentier housing policies that make it ever more difficult for people with no initial capital to get off the street. Zero-tolerance policies for drug peddlers, combined with light-to-no penalties for users on the condition that they undergo detox and stay clean.

    Just don't pretend emoting about grand abstract theories is helping anyone. And turning cities into open-air tent camps only makes everybody else miserable so that rich lefties who don't have to deal with the realities they create can feel good about themselves. All while doing squat for the homeless.

    Replies: @Rosie, @usNthem, @RSDB

    Zero-tolerance policies for drug peddlers, combined with light-to-no penalties for users on the condition that they undergo detox and stay clean.

    Right. Seattle needs to revise their personal use rules, though, because as of now, dealers are gaming the system by carrying only what has effectively been decriminalized, while still carrying enough to do a good business.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Rosie

    Right. Which is why criminal penalties should be less about how much you have and more about whether you are dealing or buying.

    The thing about addicts is: they are only going to get clean if they themselves are ready to do so. You can lead a horse to water and all that. The job of the system is to subtly help them reach that decision sooner.

    Replies: @anon, @dfordoom

  17. @scrivener3
    Russian's used to joke that the two greatest generals in the American military were General Atlantic and General Pacific. Your new two countries are going to loose both generals and the source of international security.

    After greater New York (or greater California) goes broke and "Road Warrior" as a result of their policies, their entire population would start to stream over the border (as East Germany tried to move to West Germany). Then the border wall goes up and foreign nations start to bail out the failed state. Soon you have Russian forces and missile bases in upstate, a Vichy government happy for a foreign rulers in order to keep their privilege relative to the rest of the people, and immediate need for the other nation sharing the North American continent to team up with its own foreign power (China?) to match the military power and money of the other.

    Replies: @rebel yell, @Paperback Writer

    Agreed – it is naive to think newly separated nations aren’t going to plot and intrigue against each other and that foreign powers won’t be involved. The Monroe Doctrine is still the most important foundation stone of our foreign policy. Separate nations puts that at risk.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @rebel yell

    Separate nations reactivates the Monroe Doctrine, which has been moribund for a hundred years.

    If Blumerica starts inviting China or whomever to intervene militarily in North America, that is a casus belli for Redmerica. (And vice versa, though I don't foresee that happening.) We can do both sides a favor by reminding them of the fact before the hot war starts.

    As Canada lived peacefully next to the US for a couple of centuries provided it didn't sponsor foreign invasions, Blumerica is welcome to live peacefully next to Redmerica on the same terms.

    Replies: @scrivener3

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @rebel yell

    Like the US and Canada are always plotting and intriguing against each other?

  18. The regional differences aren’t large, but the whiter the region, the less inclined it is towards secession. This is not what we would expect if support for political dissolution was predominantly racial in motivation.

    I am open to being shown that U.S. dissolution is necessary. Wokeness is not persuading me, because I believe that wokeness though terrible is transitory. What other reasons?

    Are there sound reasons I might understand if I lived in a different county or different state? Are there sound reasons I might understand if I did something different for a living? Are there sound reasons I do not yet understand but would come to understand only after the chance to dissolve the Union had been missed?

    I see that several intelligent, reasonable, patriotic Americans here favor dissolution. What foresight have they that I lack? What am I missing, please?

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @V. K. Ovelund

    My view is not that dissolution is necessary. My view is that it is inevitable, for the same reason it became inevitable when the Soviet Union collapsed.

    The Fed Free Money Machine can palliate a lot of pathology. Once that Machine stops working, though, then all of those pathologies resurface in strength compounded from having been subsidized for decades.

    Replies: @Wency

    , @anonymous
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Dissolving the US into 4 parts would create the countries of Pacific, Northeast, South, and Mountain/Mid-West, the last newly created country would have 150 million people and the demographics of America in 1990. It would be big enough to influence North America (demand no objectionable entanglements by other countries with foreign countries) and conservative enough to keep the country's demographics from becoming any more non-white. Without independence, the Mountain West and Midwest will become majority non-white in 50 years. The only way to save classic America is to junk half of the country. Because even if wokeness fades and we return to America culturally in 2010, it will still mean non-white immigration at high rates.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @V. K. Ovelund

    It would effectively spell the end of the American global empire. That's good for everybody who doesn't profit from the military-industrial complex, Americans and non-Americans alike.

    There are big cultural differences, too. The Heartland will no longer have to subsidize the sanctuary city policies of the coasts. The coasts will no longer have to subsidize the agricultural production (and often intentional non-production) of the heartland.

  19. “This is not what we would expect if support for political dissolution was predominantly racial in motivation.”

    On the contrary. It’s exactly the pattern racialist blogs have seen over the past 20 years. The lower the proportion of whites, the more exposed people are to diversity, the more they realize they don’t like it and become radicalized. Low radicalization in non-diverse places is the norm. They haven’t seen the problem up close so aren’t reacting to it yet. But when they do, the cause and the motivation is always derived from race and its consequences, and wouldn’t have happened without the racial factor.

    This is basic stuff.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @vok3

    But will they ever? Be realistic and non-panicky. The Great Migration is over. Black Americans don't have a high birth rate. Look it up. I've already supplied links but no one reads them so look it up yourself. A few thousand Somalis in downtown Grand Rapids aren't going to make the Heartland into white nationalists.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Paperback Writer

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @vok3

    It's basic except the partisan affiliations don't make sense, unless it's that non-whites really start to want out when things get diverse.

    More importantly though is it dispels the notion that the left-dominant regions of the country don't want to let the right-flyover go but instead want to dominate them. Leftists in left-dominant places are willing to give up the union to be rid of right hindrances to their progessivism.

  20. @Rosie
    @nebulafox


    Zero-tolerance policies for drug peddlers, combined with light-to-no penalties for users on the condition that they undergo detox and stay clean.
     
    Right. Seattle needs to revise their personal use rules, though, because as of now, dealers are gaming the system by carrying only what has effectively been decriminalized, while still carrying enough to do a good business.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    Right. Which is why criminal penalties should be less about how much you have and more about whether you are dealing or buying.

    The thing about addicts is: they are only going to get clean if they themselves are ready to do so. You can lead a horse to water and all that. The job of the system is to subtly help them reach that decision sooner.

    • Replies: @anon
    @nebulafox

    The thing about addicts is: they are only going to get clean if they themselves are ready to do so. You can lead a horse to water and all that. The job of the system is to subtly help them reach that decision sooner.

    It is also necessary to accept the fact that not everyone is going to get there. Rules and boundaries are required when dealing with people in general, and very much required when dealing with people who are heavily self-medicating. But elites who tend to set policy are all about non-judgementalism. It's pretty easy for them to do that, since they don't live next to a tent city.

    The houses that I know of that actually work have some rigid rules: no smoking, no drugs, no alcohol. No exceptions. No "just this one time". Some guys get told to leave, and some of those wind up back in the same old gutter. But there's no legit alternative; one exception leads to another, and pretty soon the whole house is just full of trouble.

    Squshy elites setting fuzzy rules actually hurt people, but they don't see it that way.

    , @dfordoom
    @nebulafox


    The thing about addicts is: they are only going to get clean if they themselves are ready to do so. You can lead a horse to water and all that.
     
    Yep.

    The job of the system is to subtly help them reach that decision sooner.
     
    It's possible that making drugs illegal was a bad idea from the start since it encouraged drug users to regard themselves as outcasts, and it encouraged them to think of the government and the police as the enemy.

    The problem is not drugs. The problem is the drug culture. Anyone can stop using drugs. It's easy. What people find difficult (very difficult) is escaping from the drug culture. And making drugs illegal may well have been the factor that created the drug culture.

    Perhaps if drugs had been legally and safely available, without the problems of varying levels of purity and without the problems of drugs being adulterated with all manner of nasty things, the drug culture would never have established itself. Drugs might have been a relatively minor completely manageable social problem.

    The drug culture may be yet another disaster created by the Puritan mindset. It's rather amazing that after the disaster of Prohibition with alcohol the Puritans managed to persuade governments to adopt the exact same failed policy with drugs.

    And as with Prohibition of alcohol the other result was the growth of an enormous organised crime problem (which naturally led to massive police corruption). If drugs had been legally and safely available that organised crime problem would never have been created.

    I personally don't like drugs and I don't use them but I'm more and more inclined to think that making them illegal made the situation much much worse.
  21. Maybe the Heartland opposes dissolution because they already live in an ethnostate. They get all the benefits of that plus the benefits of a Federal system, and being part of a superpower. Duh.

  22. @vok3
    "This is not what we would expect if support for political dissolution was predominantly racial in motivation."

    On the contrary. It's exactly the pattern racialist blogs have seen over the past 20 years. The lower the proportion of whites, the more exposed people are to diversity, the more they realize they don't like it and become radicalized. Low radicalization in non-diverse places is the norm. They haven't seen the problem up close so aren't reacting to it yet. But when they do, the cause and the motivation is always derived from race and its consequences, and wouldn't have happened without the racial factor.

    This is basic stuff.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Audacious Epigone

    But will they ever? Be realistic and non-panicky. The Great Migration is over. Black Americans don’t have a high birth rate. Look it up. I’ve already supplied links but no one reads them so look it up yourself. A few thousand Somalis in downtown Grand Rapids aren’t going to make the Heartland into white nationalists.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Paperback Writer


    Black Americans don’t have a high birth rate.
     
    Depends how you define "high". High compared to antebellum? No. High compared to whites? Yes, definitely.

    Annual growth rate of US non-Hispanic white population as of the last census: 0.1%

    Annual growth rate of US black population as of the last census: 1.2%

    Black pop growing 10× faster than white pop. That's a big f'ing difference, as the guy in the White House might have said.

    As I keep saying, it is relative birthrates that matter, and blacks are doing very well there. And as AE has pointed out, the most dysgenic blacks are doing the best of all.

    As to whether this will or will not awaken Heartland whites to the demographic threat, I dunno.
    , @Paperback Writer
    @Paperback Writer

    That's how one lies with statistics. Black population growing 10x faster than white - while they are still one sixth of the white population and both percentages are tiny.

    Most black population growth in the US is from immigration. Again - look it up - African/American fertility is below replacement rate.

    But that wasn't my point, which you evaded. The white heartland is against breaking up the union.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

  23. @V. K. Ovelund

    The regional differences aren’t large, but the whiter the region, the less inclined it is towards secession. This is not what we would expect if support for political dissolution was predominantly racial in motivation.
     
    I am open to being shown that U.S. dissolution is necessary. Wokeness is not persuading me, because I believe that wokeness though terrible is transitory. What other reasons?

    Are there sound reasons I might understand if I lived in a different county or different state? Are there sound reasons I might understand if I did something different for a living? Are there sound reasons I do not yet understand but would come to understand only after the chance to dissolve the Union had been missed?

    I see that several intelligent, reasonable, patriotic Americans here favor dissolution. What foresight have they that I lack? What am I missing, please?

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @anonymous, @Audacious Epigone

    My view is not that dissolution is necessary. My view is that it is inevitable, for the same reason it became inevitable when the Soviet Union collapsed.

    The Fed Free Money Machine can palliate a lot of pathology. Once that Machine stops working, though, then all of those pathologies resurface in strength compounded from having been subsidized for decades.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Wency
    @Almost Missouri

    To the degree it was inevitable post-USSR, a lot of this had to do with the Soviet republics having a sense of distinct nationalities with distinct languages, and a sense that unlike the personal rule of the Romanovs or the Communist universalism of the Soviets, a Russian ethnostate had no basis for legitimate rule over them.

    In some ways, it could also be thought of as a delayed loss of empire. While the other European powers all lost their empires in the aftermath of the World Wars, the borders of the Russian Empire were frozen in time by Communism. A large part of what was lost had been held by Russia for around a century or less at the time of the October Revolution. Still, the Russian Federation held together, and it contained 60% of the USSR's population, and more than that of its GDP, territory, and natural resources.

    I don't think there's really an analogy for a place as culturally and linguistically unified, with as strong a sense of national identity as the US, falling apart. The closest I can think of is the Warlord Era after the Republic of China fell apart. Which still ended inevitably in unity, even though the forces pulling China apart were stronger, and the forces bringing it together weaker, than the present-day US. Fed or no Fed, as things look today it wouldn't be enough for the secessionists to win if the Federal Government's power contracted by 99%.

    Much more realistic: the Federal government is paralyzed in a crisis, and the Constitution is thrown out, for better or worse. Probably worse.

    Replies: @SafeNow, @Almost Missouri

  24. anon[386] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox
    @Rosie

    Right. Which is why criminal penalties should be less about how much you have and more about whether you are dealing or buying.

    The thing about addicts is: they are only going to get clean if they themselves are ready to do so. You can lead a horse to water and all that. The job of the system is to subtly help them reach that decision sooner.

    Replies: @anon, @dfordoom

    The thing about addicts is: they are only going to get clean if they themselves are ready to do so. You can lead a horse to water and all that. The job of the system is to subtly help them reach that decision sooner.

    It is also necessary to accept the fact that not everyone is going to get there. Rules and boundaries are required when dealing with people in general, and very much required when dealing with people who are heavily self-medicating. But elites who tend to set policy are all about non-judgementalism. It’s pretty easy for them to do that, since they don’t live next to a tent city.

    The houses that I know of that actually work have some rigid rules: no smoking, no drugs, no alcohol. No exceptions. No “just this one time”. Some guys get told to leave, and some of those wind up back in the same old gutter. But there’s no legit alternative; one exception leads to another, and pretty soon the whole house is just full of trouble.

    Squshy elites setting fuzzy rules actually hurt people, but they don’t see it that way.

  25. @rebel yell
    @scrivener3

    Agreed - it is naive to think newly separated nations aren't going to plot and intrigue against each other and that foreign powers won't be involved. The Monroe Doctrine is still the most important foundation stone of our foreign policy. Separate nations puts that at risk.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Audacious Epigone

    Separate nations reactivates the Monroe Doctrine, which has been moribund for a hundred years.

    If Blumerica starts inviting China or whomever to intervene militarily in North America, that is a casus belli for Redmerica. (And vice versa, though I don’t foresee that happening.) We can do both sides a favor by reminding them of the fact before the hot war starts.

    As Canada lived peacefully next to the US for a couple of centuries provided it didn’t sponsor foreign invasions, Blumerica is welcome to live peacefully next to Redmerica on the same terms.

    • Replies: @scrivener3
    @Almost Missouri

    Right now no nation invites in a near superpower to "assist" it in disputes with neighbors because the United States is the sole superpower and the US forbids it. We actually live in a fairly peaceful world because the US will not allow nations to take over their neighbors. When Russia put missiles in Cuba with Cuban approval, the US stopped it. Once the US policeman retreats there will be a lot of small nations playing off powerful nations by alignments. They will have no other protection.

    Canada and Mexico are not threatened by the United States so they don't need alliances for protection. Greater NY and Greater MidwestAmerica will be much closer matched.

    If the US splits, North America will be like Europe before WWI. Each nation will need powerful allies for protection because instead of a world under US hegemony there will be lots of room for bettering your position by force.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

  26. The first few red-state politicians or organizers with substantial power who organize or even advocate secession would meet the wrath of the new justice department. Domestic terrorism, insurrection, sedition. Pre-dawn raid, no bail, civil forfeiture of assets. Prison. This ends secession or separation. Productive half of the country, go back to your farm tractors and shut up. If you behave, you can barbecue; maybe; we’ll circle back to that. Remember, Korematsu group-internment is still the law of the land after Trump vs. Hawaii.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @A123
    @SafeNow


    The first few red-state politicians or organizers with substantial power who organize or even advocate secession would meet the wrath of the new justice department. Domestic terrorism, insurrection, sedition. Pre-dawn raid, no bail, civil forfeiture of assets. Prison. This ends secession or separation.
     
    The pro-Constitution Red side would need large state Governors onboard to resist the Nazi Blue Authoritarian federal government.

    Would the FBI obey Nazi orders and openly abrogate the Constitution? Kidnapping or assassinating a State Governor is a felony under both state & federal law. How would the Lt. Governor respond to the kidnap/assassination? Hint: Does the FBI have anything that can stand up to an Air National Guard Reaper MQ-9?

    The FBI specializes in taking on individuals and small groups that cannot fight back. It seems unlikely that they would attempt to overthrow the government of a large state. If the FBI starts an un-winnable fight, that might result in SJW Blue enclaves of fascism being isolated and ejected from the USA.

    PEACE 😇

     
    https://www.nationalsecurity.news/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2016/01/hellfire_missile_drone.jpg
  27. @Paperback Writer
    @vok3

    But will they ever? Be realistic and non-panicky. The Great Migration is over. Black Americans don't have a high birth rate. Look it up. I've already supplied links but no one reads them so look it up yourself. A few thousand Somalis in downtown Grand Rapids aren't going to make the Heartland into white nationalists.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Paperback Writer

    Black Americans don’t have a high birth rate.

    Depends how you define “high”. High compared to antebellum? No. High compared to whites? Yes, definitely.

    Annual growth rate of US non-Hispanic white population as of the last census: 0.1%

    Annual growth rate of US black population as of the last census: 1.2%

    Black pop growing 10× faster than white pop. That’s a big f’ing difference, as the guy in the White House might have said.

    As I keep saying, it is relative birthrates that matter, and blacks are doing very well there. And as AE has pointed out, the most dysgenic blacks are doing the best of all.

    As to whether this will or will not awaken Heartland whites to the demographic threat, I dunno.

    • Agree: songbird
  28. @SafeNow
    The first few red-state politicians or organizers with substantial power who organize or even advocate secession would meet the wrath of the new justice department. Domestic terrorism, insurrection, sedition. Pre-dawn raid, no bail, civil forfeiture of assets. Prison. This ends secession or separation. Productive half of the country, go back to your farm tractors and shut up. If you behave, you can barbecue; maybe; we’ll circle back to that. Remember, Korematsu group-internment is still the law of the land after Trump vs. Hawaii.

    Replies: @A123

    The first few red-state politicians or organizers with substantial power who organize or even advocate secession would meet the wrath of the new justice department. Domestic terrorism, insurrection, sedition. Pre-dawn raid, no bail, civil forfeiture of assets. Prison. This ends secession or separation.

    The pro-Constitution Red side would need large state Governors onboard to resist the Nazi Blue Authoritarian federal government.

    Would the FBI obey Nazi orders and openly abrogate the Constitution? Kidnapping or assassinating a State Governor is a felony under both state & federal law. How would the Lt. Governor respond to the kidnap/assassination? Hint: Does the FBI have anything that can stand up to an Air National Guard Reaper MQ-9?

    The FBI specializes in taking on individuals and small groups that cannot fight back. It seems unlikely that they would attempt to overthrow the government of a large state. If the FBI starts an un-winnable fight, that might result in SJW Blue enclaves of fascism being isolated and ejected from the USA.

    PEACE 😇

     

  29. @rebel yell

    Separation is about separating normies from the woke. Some want it to be about race. It’s not.
     
    Yes, but the definition of normal has a lot to do with race. Non-blacks and blacks have a very different idea of normal in personal behavior.
    Support in the South for separation is rooted in disgust for Woke culture and riots which includes disgust with black criminal behavior.
    Portland Wokesters want separation because they are disgusted with Southern disgust with black criminals.
    Heartland whites are cool to the idea of separation because they want the problems to just go away. They don't have the problem of black behavior in their face every day like Southern whites. Heartland whites are on the fence and therefore that is where the battleground might be. Once again, Bleeding Kansas.
    Black crime (and overall bad black behavior) looms large as a cause of political opinions on all sides at all levels in America.

    Replies: @Mark G.

    Black crime (and overall bad black behavior) looms large as a cause of political opinions on all sides at all levels in America.

    Rather than geographical, the division in the U.S. is between productive and non-productive people. Blacks, with their high crime and welfare rates, are largely in the non-productive class.

    Productive people are not necessarily the same as high income people. For example, you can have someone who works for the government or someone in the private sector who benefits from particular government policies who has a high income but is producing little of real value. On the other hand, you can have someone with an average income like a auto mechanic, plumber or electrician who are of great value in keeping everything we need running.

    Productive people are usually not woke liberals. Sometimes they may pay lip service to woke liberalism and publicly announce their agreement with it but that is to keep themselves out of trouble in this era of witch hunts for non-believers in the reigning ideology. These same people, when they are alone with people they trust, will be more honest and say what they really think.

    • Agree: SafeNow
    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
    @Mark G.

    You people have to start again. From before.
    First secure the Carolinas, and Virginia. Then stick a fuckload of blessedly higgnerant religious Scottish and Irish peasants in the Appalachians, Alleghenies and the lumpy offshore bits going up to Canada.
    After that get a bunch of less lazy and intoxicated (by religion or spirits), hard-working, stubborn and resilient Germans and English to follow in behind their more martially-inclined but easily-spooked Celtic neighbours.

    And breed proper horses or ponies, Fell Galloways and the like that can do well without special feeding, particularly in snow..
    Don't care about your gas-guzzler off-roader trucks. When the asphalt is gone due to bad winters, and the gas is not in town, your massive hog of a bike or 4WD is just a boat-anchor. Better off bending some snowshoes, or a flatbow. Proper boots, too, and the little horses do beat boots over rough ground, I know. Broken leg's a bad thing, generally.
    But not as deadly as bad teeth (Yes I am a Brit, how'd ye guess?). So get any dodgy ones pulled right now. You can thank me later. With your smashing smile.

  30. @Almost Missouri
    @rebel yell

    Separate nations reactivates the Monroe Doctrine, which has been moribund for a hundred years.

    If Blumerica starts inviting China or whomever to intervene militarily in North America, that is a casus belli for Redmerica. (And vice versa, though I don't foresee that happening.) We can do both sides a favor by reminding them of the fact before the hot war starts.

    As Canada lived peacefully next to the US for a couple of centuries provided it didn't sponsor foreign invasions, Blumerica is welcome to live peacefully next to Redmerica on the same terms.

    Replies: @scrivener3

    Right now no nation invites in a near superpower to “assist” it in disputes with neighbors because the United States is the sole superpower and the US forbids it. We actually live in a fairly peaceful world because the US will not allow nations to take over their neighbors. When Russia put missiles in Cuba with Cuban approval, the US stopped it. Once the US policeman retreats there will be a lot of small nations playing off powerful nations by alignments. They will have no other protection.

    Canada and Mexico are not threatened by the United States so they don’t need alliances for protection. Greater NY and Greater MidwestAmerica will be much closer matched.

    If the US splits, North America will be like Europe before WWI. Each nation will need powerful allies for protection because instead of a world under US hegemony there will be lots of room for bettering your position by force.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @scrivener3


    Right now no nation invites in a near superpower to “assist” it in disputes with neighbors because the United States is the sole superpower and the US forbids it.
     
    From Russia:
    Crimea, the Donbass, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Central Asian Republics

    From China:
    Ceylon, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, Central Asian Republics, Iran, a bunch of African countries

    I'm probably missing some, maybe Turkey.

    Not that this matters particularly, since I don't think the underlying argument, that the US is the world's policeman, matters. I don't want us to have that job, and a lot of the rest of the world doesn't want us to have that job either. Was/is the US doing that job well? I dunno. Maybe. It's arguable, but I don't want to argue about it because I, like George Washington and John Adams, don't want it to be our problem in the first place.

    Somehow the world got along without US hegemony and somehow it will do so again one day. And the effect of US hegemony today is overstated anyway. Certainly the beneficial effect is.

    Canada and Mexico are not threatened by the United States so they don’t need alliances for protection.
     
    The US invaded both countries in past. Today neither does much different than it would under direct US control, so there not much point in invading again.

    Greater NY and Greater MidwestAmerica will be much closer matched.
     
    As I've been hinting at in other comments, those regions described in AE's original post are just arbitrary inventions of a random pollster. They don't make much sense as genuine political entities, and are IMHO extremely unlikely to be the result of an actual breakup. So there is no particular reason for Greater NY and MidwestAmerica to exist, nevermind go to war with each other.
  31. @nebulafox
    Speaking as someone who understands this from personal experience: if you want to help homeless people, give them the social connections. Help them get jobs: my pet idea is gyms employing high-functioning homeless people, because free showers, floor access, and opportunities for re-socialization (and subtly, a feeling of dignity and worth for people often dealing with some severe mental scars) can easily be part of the package. Or help them the medical treatment and/or counseling they need in order to hold down a job. Stop rentier housing policies that make it ever more difficult for people with no initial capital to get off the street. Zero-tolerance policies for drug peddlers, combined with light-to-no penalties for users on the condition that they undergo detox and stay clean.

    Just don't pretend emoting about grand abstract theories is helping anyone. And turning cities into open-air tent camps only makes everybody else miserable so that rich lefties who don't have to deal with the realities they create can feel good about themselves. All while doing squat for the homeless.

    Replies: @Rosie, @usNthem, @RSDB

    Frankly, institutionalization needs to be brought back as well. There’s a certain segment of the homeless population, due to their mental state, that have no business wandering among the local population. Is it more humane to let them scratch out some pathetic subsistence and turning a blind eye, or put them someplace where they’d at least have a clean bed, three squares a day as well as heating in the winter and cooling in the summer? Ken Kesey (although he may not have been all that far off the mark back then) has a lot to answer for.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @usNthem

    Agree. And not just Ken Kesey, but also Jerry Rivera ("Geraldo Riviera") whose fake and ghey "exposé" of Willowbrook led to cascading "deinstitutionalization" (i.e., turning everyone out onto the streets) even before Miloš Forman and Jack Nicholson persuaded everyone that what was already underway was right.

    The underlying problem, I think, is that the post-"Enlightenment" West has a peculiar vulnerability to letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Institutionalization was never perfect and never will be. But then alternative was never perfection. The alternative was, and is, what we have now: massive street populations of addicts and lunatics. What kind of improvement was that, Geraldo?

  32. @Paperback Writer
    @vok3

    But will they ever? Be realistic and non-panicky. The Great Migration is over. Black Americans don't have a high birth rate. Look it up. I've already supplied links but no one reads them so look it up yourself. A few thousand Somalis in downtown Grand Rapids aren't going to make the Heartland into white nationalists.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Paperback Writer

    That’s how one lies with statistics. Black population growing 10x faster than white – while they are still one sixth of the white population and both percentages are tiny.

    Most black population growth in the US is from immigration. Again – look it up – African/American fertility is below replacement rate.

    But that wasn’t my point, which you evaded. The white heartland is against breaking up the union.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Paperback Writer


    both percentages are tiny.
     
    "Tiny" is relative. "10×" is not. And white growth is falling and will probably fall through zero at the next census. Black growth is the same as it was in the 1980s, and is probably understated now. So at the next comparison, the differential won't be 10×, it will be infinite: black growth vs. white shrinkage.

    Also note that 1.2% compounded annually (which is what population growth is) is not too shabby: it means doubling in two generations. So one population shrinking, while the other doubles in two generations ... where does that go?

    Most black population growth in the US is from immigration. Again – look it up
     
    Ok, I did. It is surprisingly hard to find good numbers on black immigration (if you've got numbers, I'd love to see them), but even the most generous estimates I could find don't come close to even half of US black population growth. So no, this does not appear to be the result of immigration, but even if it were, in practical terms does it matter that we're importing African babies rather than growing our own? The end result is about the same.

    But that wasn’t my point, which you evaded. [A few thousand Somalis in downtown Grand Rapids aren’t going to make the Heartland into white nationalists.]
     
    Well, I was only responding to the hard factual, verifiable aspects of your comment, but from what I've seen of Grand Rapiders under the emblackening, they're becoming either SJW supercucks or white nationalists. Which faction will predominate? I dunno.

    The white heartland is against breaking up the union.
     
    A majority of everyone is against breaking up the union ... for the moment.

    Will that still be true after the FedGov runs out of soma?

    Indeed, at that point will it even matter how many are for or against? Why assume that democracy will determine outcome?

    [On a personal note, I'm not replying to your comments (or anyone else's for that matter ... well, maybe Corvinus's) to shoot down the commenting. I'm replying to harden them up or to add information I happen have. There are too many comments to reply to everything I would like to, so I just reply to the ones that I find most interesting.]
  33. @scrivener3
    Russian's used to joke that the two greatest generals in the American military were General Atlantic and General Pacific. Your new two countries are going to loose both generals and the source of international security.

    After greater New York (or greater California) goes broke and "Road Warrior" as a result of their policies, their entire population would start to stream over the border (as East Germany tried to move to West Germany). Then the border wall goes up and foreign nations start to bail out the failed state. Soon you have Russian forces and missile bases in upstate, a Vichy government happy for a foreign rulers in order to keep their privilege relative to the rest of the people, and immediate need for the other nation sharing the North American continent to team up with its own foreign power (China?) to match the military power and money of the other.

    Replies: @rebel yell, @Paperback Writer

    Nice movie treatment you have there.

    The French used to joke that the great Russian general was General Winter.

  34. @Almost Missouri
    @V. K. Ovelund

    My view is not that dissolution is necessary. My view is that it is inevitable, for the same reason it became inevitable when the Soviet Union collapsed.

    The Fed Free Money Machine can palliate a lot of pathology. Once that Machine stops working, though, then all of those pathologies resurface in strength compounded from having been subsidized for decades.

    Replies: @Wency

    To the degree it was inevitable post-USSR, a lot of this had to do with the Soviet republics having a sense of distinct nationalities with distinct languages, and a sense that unlike the personal rule of the Romanovs or the Communist universalism of the Soviets, a Russian ethnostate had no basis for legitimate rule over them.

    In some ways, it could also be thought of as a delayed loss of empire. While the other European powers all lost their empires in the aftermath of the World Wars, the borders of the Russian Empire were frozen in time by Communism. A large part of what was lost had been held by Russia for around a century or less at the time of the October Revolution. Still, the Russian Federation held together, and it contained 60% of the USSR’s population, and more than that of its GDP, territory, and natural resources.

    I don’t think there’s really an analogy for a place as culturally and linguistically unified, with as strong a sense of national identity as the US, falling apart. The closest I can think of is the Warlord Era after the Republic of China fell apart. Which still ended inevitably in unity, even though the forces pulling China apart were stronger, and the forces bringing it together weaker, than the present-day US. Fed or no Fed, as things look today it wouldn’t be enough for the secessionists to win if the Federal Government’s power contracted by 99%.

    Much more realistic: the Federal government is paralyzed in a crisis, and the Constitution is thrown out, for better or worse. Probably worse.

    • Replies: @SafeNow
    @Wency

    Regarding possible historical analogies, I recall that Christopher Caldwell wrote about the 1860’s. He said that in the 1860’s, there were three wars in which the more “dynamic” part of a country subjugated the more bucolic and traditional part: Italy, Germany, and the U.S. (I posted this once before, elsewhere, and a commenter who seemed to know his history disputed the analogy.)

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Wency

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Wency


    a Russian ethnostate had no basis for legitimate rule over them.
     
    Yes, but that puts the cart before the horse. They seceded from the universalist Soviet Union. It was their secession that created the Russian ethnostate as a byproduct/leftover. (Not that this matters terribly much. I largely agree with your first two paragraphs.)

    I don’t think there’s really an analogy for a place as culturally and linguistically unified, with as strong a sense of national identity as the US, falling apart.
     
    Well, 1861-1865 and the worst war ever in US history. So there's that. And the original secession of the Thirteen Colonies from Great Britain. And even the (peaceful and somewhat gradual) secession of Canada and Australia, for example, from Britain. Indeed, fissiparousness and self-determination seem to be hallmarks of Anglo politics. (Cecil Rhodes weeps.) The extreme centralization of recent history is what is most unnatural and unprecedented, and is only held in place by enormous force and cash.

    The closest I can think of is the Warlord Era
     
    Interesting analogy.

    after the Republic of China fell apart.
     
    I admit I don't know much Chinese history, but didn't the Warlord Era follow the collapse of Manchu Dynasty? My impression is that the Republic of China was mostly a legal/political fiction.

    Which still ended inevitably in unity
     
    Maybe "inevitable". OTOH, large parts of Chinese history seem to consist of non-unified states. Of course, with its unprecedented prosperity and surveillance technology, the current government may well succeed in creating a new normal from the current situation.

    the forces pulling China apart were stronger, and the forces bringing it together weaker, than the present-day US.
     
    Were they? China has a long (if of mixed success) history of imperial rule, while the Anglo world has a long (if also of mixed success) history of decentralized rule by consent.

    Fed or no Fed, as things look today it wouldn’t be enough for the secessionists to win if the Federal Government’s power contracted by 99%.
     
    Why? Secessions, peaceful and violent, have succeeded frequently in the Anglo world. Besides a few wokesheviks (and then only when they are in power), does anyone actually like the Federal government? At the moment most everyone tolerates it because in one way or another it keeps sending them money. But if its ability to do $trillion-scale bribery dissipated, would anyone care anymore what some jumped-up panjandrums in DC were saying?

    Much more realistic: the Federal government is paralyzed in a crisis
     
    Yes, probably a currency crisis.

    and the Constitution is thrown out, for better or worse. Probably worse.
     
    That part has mostly already happened.

    Replies: @Wency

  35. No, secession cannot work.

    The only possible option is parallelism. Create two parallel nations within the US. So, instead of DC as capital of whole nation, let there be two capitals. One bunch of people pay taxes to USA 1 and another bunch of people pay taxes to USA 2. Also, people of USA 1 must abide by its rules, and people of USA 2 must abide by its rules. So, if USA 1 allows free speech and gun rights, those of USA 1 can own guns and not be prosecuted for free speech. But if USA 2 bans guns and doesn’t allow free speech, those of USA 2 can be prosecuted for having guns or saying ‘wrong’ things.

    Now, there are things of common interests and common values. Murder for instance would be wrong regardless of which USA one belongs to. And people of both USA’s would pay taxes to take care of stuff like National Parks.

    But funds for education would go separate ways. Let USA 1 fund its own schools with its curriculum, and let USA 2 fund its own schools with its own curriculum.

  36. @Rosie

    The regional differences aren’t large, but the whiter the region, the less inclined it is towards secession.
     
    I don't actually find that particularly surprising. Whites who live in the Whitest areas still think Whites control the country, or at least their amygdala still thinks so, and that's all that matters.

    By the way, had anyone heard about this? Apparently, Seattle SWPLs are getting tired of liberalism, and realizing that it's not particularly compassionate. Indeed, the more I see of liberalism, the more it looks like Social Darwinism to me.

    https://youtu.be/bpAi70WWBlw

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Twinkie

  37. @anon
    In the case of the Mountain region (and to a lesser extent, in the Heartland) there is a confounding factor: the indigenous population, which already has a degree of sovereignty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Native_Americans_Race.png

    That gives a segment of the red and brown states a sophisticated grasp of human rights and customary international law. They know how to use the institutional support of treaty bodies and charter bodies. They can go over the government's head to the world.

    By contrast, whitey is still dicking around with CIA's futile electoral pageantry, which screws them over more and more. Each time they throw the bums out, CIA puts in bigger bums, culminating in the comedy triumph of placing a vegetable in the presidential puppet ruler slot. (What's next, fucking audio-animatronic Lincoln?) Of course these poor downtrodden chumps are trying to escape. They have no rights. They don't know what rights are.

    Replies: @Dutch Boy

    The only difference is that real vegetables are good for you.

  38. @Wency
    @Almost Missouri

    To the degree it was inevitable post-USSR, a lot of this had to do with the Soviet republics having a sense of distinct nationalities with distinct languages, and a sense that unlike the personal rule of the Romanovs or the Communist universalism of the Soviets, a Russian ethnostate had no basis for legitimate rule over them.

    In some ways, it could also be thought of as a delayed loss of empire. While the other European powers all lost their empires in the aftermath of the World Wars, the borders of the Russian Empire were frozen in time by Communism. A large part of what was lost had been held by Russia for around a century or less at the time of the October Revolution. Still, the Russian Federation held together, and it contained 60% of the USSR's population, and more than that of its GDP, territory, and natural resources.

    I don't think there's really an analogy for a place as culturally and linguistically unified, with as strong a sense of national identity as the US, falling apart. The closest I can think of is the Warlord Era after the Republic of China fell apart. Which still ended inevitably in unity, even though the forces pulling China apart were stronger, and the forces bringing it together weaker, than the present-day US. Fed or no Fed, as things look today it wouldn't be enough for the secessionists to win if the Federal Government's power contracted by 99%.

    Much more realistic: the Federal government is paralyzed in a crisis, and the Constitution is thrown out, for better or worse. Probably worse.

    Replies: @SafeNow, @Almost Missouri

    Regarding possible historical analogies, I recall that Christopher Caldwell wrote about the 1860’s. He said that in the 1860’s, there were three wars in which the more “dynamic” part of a country subjugated the more bucolic and traditional part: Italy, Germany, and the U.S. (I posted this once before, elsewhere, and a commenter who seemed to know his history disputed the analogy.)

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @SafeNow


    Regarding possible historical analogies, I recall that Christopher Caldwell wrote about the 1860’s. He said that in the 1860’s, there were three wars in which the more “dynamic” part of a country subjugated the more bucolic and traditional part: Italy, Germany, and the U.S.
     
    It's an interesting trend.

    So, just to be contrary, what about Spain in the 1930's?

    Replies: @Wency

    , @Wency
    @SafeNow

    Yeah, it's an interesting thought, but important differences in each country. More generally, it's apt to say it was a huge decade for the forces of centralization.

  39. anonymous[386] • Disclaimer says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    The regional differences aren’t large, but the whiter the region, the less inclined it is towards secession. This is not what we would expect if support for political dissolution was predominantly racial in motivation.
     
    I am open to being shown that U.S. dissolution is necessary. Wokeness is not persuading me, because I believe that wokeness though terrible is transitory. What other reasons?

    Are there sound reasons I might understand if I lived in a different county or different state? Are there sound reasons I might understand if I did something different for a living? Are there sound reasons I do not yet understand but would come to understand only after the chance to dissolve the Union had been missed?

    I see that several intelligent, reasonable, patriotic Americans here favor dissolution. What foresight have they that I lack? What am I missing, please?

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @anonymous, @Audacious Epigone

    Dissolving the US into 4 parts would create the countries of Pacific, Northeast, South, and Mountain/Mid-West, the last newly created country would have 150 million people and the demographics of America in 1990. It would be big enough to influence North America (demand no objectionable entanglements by other countries with foreign countries) and conservative enough to keep the country’s demographics from becoming any more non-white. Without independence, the Mountain West and Midwest will become majority non-white in 50 years. The only way to save classic America is to junk half of the country. Because even if wokeness fades and we return to America culturally in 2010, it will still mean non-white immigration at high rates.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  40. @SafeNow
    @Wency

    Regarding possible historical analogies, I recall that Christopher Caldwell wrote about the 1860’s. He said that in the 1860’s, there were three wars in which the more “dynamic” part of a country subjugated the more bucolic and traditional part: Italy, Germany, and the U.S. (I posted this once before, elsewhere, and a commenter who seemed to know his history disputed the analogy.)

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Wency

    Regarding possible historical analogies, I recall that Christopher Caldwell wrote about the 1860’s. He said that in the 1860’s, there were three wars in which the more “dynamic” part of a country subjugated the more bucolic and traditional part: Italy, Germany, and the U.S.

    It’s an interesting trend.

    So, just to be contrary, what about Spain in the 1930’s?

    • Replies: @Wency
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Another way to frame it (and I'm half-joking) is that all of those countries, besides the US, were unified by the work of Prussia.

    But really the Spanish Civil War was an ideological conflict, and this is a key point in all these examples of peaceful partition I'm seeing people bring up, which I was trying to make in my point upthread. Ideological partitions invariably lead to civil war and reunification. The only persistent national divisions are some combination of national/religious/linguistic. And no, Red and Blue aren't different enough nations to qualify. If they were, they might hate each other a little less.

    German and Italian unification probably weren't inevitable. At least not in their complete forms -- Sicily or Bavaria could have remained independent, just as Austria and Switzerland did. But there was no way to peacefully split the Spanish Republic in two, or to end the Spanish Civil War in anything less than total victory for one side, given the nature of the conflict.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  41. @SafeNow
    @Wency

    Regarding possible historical analogies, I recall that Christopher Caldwell wrote about the 1860’s. He said that in the 1860’s, there were three wars in which the more “dynamic” part of a country subjugated the more bucolic and traditional part: Italy, Germany, and the U.S. (I posted this once before, elsewhere, and a commenter who seemed to know his history disputed the analogy.)

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Wency

    Yeah, it’s an interesting thought, but important differences in each country. More generally, it’s apt to say it was a huge decade for the forces of centralization.

  42. @Mark G.
    @rebel yell


    Black crime (and overall bad black behavior) looms large as a cause of political opinions on all sides at all levels in America.
     
    Rather than geographical, the division in the U.S. is between productive and non-productive people. Blacks, with their high crime and welfare rates, are largely in the non-productive class.

    Productive people are not necessarily the same as high income people. For example, you can have someone who works for the government or someone in the private sector who benefits from particular government policies who has a high income but is producing little of real value. On the other hand, you can have someone with an average income like a auto mechanic, plumber or electrician who are of great value in keeping everything we need running.

    Productive people are usually not woke liberals. Sometimes they may pay lip service to woke liberalism and publicly announce their agreement with it but that is to keep themselves out of trouble in this era of witch hunts for non-believers in the reigning ideology. These same people, when they are alone with people they trust, will be more honest and say what they really think.

    Replies: @Expletive Deleted

    You people have to start again. From before.
    First secure the Carolinas, and Virginia. Then stick a fuckload of blessedly higgnerant religious Scottish and Irish peasants in the Appalachians, Alleghenies and the lumpy offshore bits going up to Canada.
    After that get a bunch of less lazy and intoxicated (by religion or spirits), hard-working, stubborn and resilient Germans and English to follow in behind their more martially-inclined but easily-spooked Celtic neighbours.

    And breed proper horses or ponies, Fell Galloways and the like that can do well without special feeding, particularly in snow..
    Don’t care about your gas-guzzler off-roader trucks. When the asphalt is gone due to bad winters, and the gas is not in town, your massive hog of a bike or 4WD is just a boat-anchor. Better off bending some snowshoes, or a flatbow. Proper boots, too, and the little horses do beat boots over rough ground, I know. Broken leg’s a bad thing, generally.
    But not as deadly as bad teeth (Yes I am a Brit, how’d ye guess?). So get any dodgy ones pulled right now. You can thank me later. With your smashing smile.

  43. anonymous[406] • Disclaimer says:

    V.K. Overlund, Kennan, the X of the seminal US theory of containment, changed his mind later in life. He was for dissolution of the union, to preserve the regional virtues of America and make it less of a threat to peace.

    You will never get your rights, or know peace or development until the US is broken up into 30 Costa Ricas with Costa Rican armies (armies of 0.)

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @anonymous


    V.K. Ovelund, Kennan, the X of the seminal US theory of containment, changed his mind later in life. He was for dissolution of the union, to preserve the regional virtues of America and make it less of a threat to peace.
     
    Did he? That's interesting. I think that Kennan is great.

    If you wish to recommend a specific article or book of Kennan's to this end, I'd be glad to look into it.
  44. @V. K. Ovelund
    @SafeNow


    Regarding possible historical analogies, I recall that Christopher Caldwell wrote about the 1860’s. He said that in the 1860’s, there were three wars in which the more “dynamic” part of a country subjugated the more bucolic and traditional part: Italy, Germany, and the U.S.
     
    It's an interesting trend.

    So, just to be contrary, what about Spain in the 1930's?

    Replies: @Wency

    Another way to frame it (and I’m half-joking) is that all of those countries, besides the US, were unified by the work of Prussia.

    But really the Spanish Civil War was an ideological conflict, and this is a key point in all these examples of peaceful partition I’m seeing people bring up, which I was trying to make in my point upthread. Ideological partitions invariably lead to civil war and reunification. The only persistent national divisions are some combination of national/religious/linguistic. And no, Red and Blue aren’t different enough nations to qualify. If they were, they might hate each other a little less.

    German and Italian unification probably weren’t inevitable. At least not in their complete forms — Sicily or Bavaria could have remained independent, just as Austria and Switzerland did. But there was no way to peacefully split the Spanish Republic in two, or to end the Spanish Civil War in anything less than total victory for one side, given the nature of the conflict.

    • Agree: iffen, dfordoom
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Wency

    AE, you respond to commenters more than most authors do, so one doubts that anyone would think the less of you if you chose not to respond to this particular group of commenters on the present topic. However, if you do choose to respond, I think that Wency's comment is worth responding to. Wency gets straight to the point.

    Spain, Italy and 19th-century Germany have been given as examples. That counterexamples exist is not denied, of course. For instance, you have 20th-century East Germany and North Korea, plus 19th-century Norway. Each has its own circumstances.

    My own view is probably that your own, interesting conservatism-is-liberalism's-shadow series suggests that the present alignment of political forces is too transitory to justify disunion. I grasp your point regarding the dollar, but remain unpersuaded that enough of the American problem is tied to imprudent monetary policy to break the Union up.

    At any rate, Wency has teed the ball up. Take a swing at it if you like.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  45. @anonymous
    V.K. Overlund, Kennan, the X of the seminal US theory of containment, changed his mind later in life. He was for dissolution of the union, to preserve the regional virtues of America and make it less of a threat to peace.

    You will never get your rights, or know peace or development until the US is broken up into 30 Costa Ricas with Costa Rican armies (armies of 0.)

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    V.K. Ovelund, Kennan, the X of the seminal US theory of containment, changed his mind later in life. He was for dissolution of the union, to preserve the regional virtues of America and make it less of a threat to peace.

    Did he? That’s interesting. I think that Kennan is great.

    If you wish to recommend a specific article or book of Kennan’s to this end, I’d be glad to look into it.

  46. @Wency
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Another way to frame it (and I'm half-joking) is that all of those countries, besides the US, were unified by the work of Prussia.

    But really the Spanish Civil War was an ideological conflict, and this is a key point in all these examples of peaceful partition I'm seeing people bring up, which I was trying to make in my point upthread. Ideological partitions invariably lead to civil war and reunification. The only persistent national divisions are some combination of national/religious/linguistic. And no, Red and Blue aren't different enough nations to qualify. If they were, they might hate each other a little less.

    German and Italian unification probably weren't inevitable. At least not in their complete forms -- Sicily or Bavaria could have remained independent, just as Austria and Switzerland did. But there was no way to peacefully split the Spanish Republic in two, or to end the Spanish Civil War in anything less than total victory for one side, given the nature of the conflict.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    AE, you respond to commenters more than most authors do, so one doubts that anyone would think the less of you if you chose not to respond to this particular group of commenters on the present topic. However, if you do choose to respond, I think that Wency’s comment is worth responding to. Wency gets straight to the point.

    Spain, Italy and 19th-century Germany have been given as examples. That counterexamples exist is not denied, of course. For instance, you have 20th-century East Germany and North Korea, plus 19th-century Norway. Each has its own circumstances.

    My own view is probably that your own, interesting conservatism-is-liberalism’s-shadow series suggests that the present alignment of political forces is too transitory to justify disunion. I grasp your point regarding the dollar, but remain unpersuaded that enough of the American problem is tied to imprudent monetary policy to break the Union up.

    At any rate, Wency has teed the ball up. Take a swing at it if you like.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @V. K. Ovelund

    The relevance of historical comparisons are limited because things are different now than then.

    Populations are declining or about to be declining almost everywhere in the world. That wasn't the case in the 20th century. Without the population growth dynamic, concerns about maintaining physical territory become less important. Relatedly, productive capacity comes less and less from real estate than it did in the past. This trend seems inexorable.

    There is much less tolerance for military violence than there was in the 20th century. I hated the Iraq Attaq as much as anyone, but it's worth keeping in mind that over our nearly two decades there, we've lost fewer people than we did in a few days in WWII.

    More recent and examples of dissolution, all from the 21st century, are South Sudan, Timor-Leste, and Brexit.

  47. @RoatanBill
    There are 50 states, not these made up regions. No one has to do anything overt should the Fed Gov disappear. Life will go on. The property controlled by the Fed Gov will revert back to the states it resides in, including all the military hardware. The Fed Gov employees will just be unemployed for the states to deal with. One useless layer of gov't gone does not end the world.

    The US military disappears, in theory, but since they currently are the Fed Gov IMO, they may object and turn their current soft dictatorship into a real one. Dismantling the 3 branches of gov't does not get rid of the primary controlling entity. The military has been sucking money out of the US economy for decades and has never passed an audit. That should prove to anyone that they have been in control since at least the mid 60's.

    The question becomes how to dismantle the true owners of the country - the military, intel agencies, major corporations that supply them, etc.

    Think of it this way - draw a detailed tree diagram of the Fed Gov that includes the military, corporations, media, higher education, etc, maybe hundreds of boxes. This would normally show 3 boxes at the top, the Executive, Congress and Supreme Court with the military somewhere below. Now mentally grab that military box and shake the tree to bring it to the top and that might provide a clearer picture of where the real power lies.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The question becomes how to dismantle the true owners of the country – the military, intel agencies, major corporations that supply them, etc.

    I agree that those groups are the biggest single problem.

  48. @Wency
    @Almost Missouri

    To the degree it was inevitable post-USSR, a lot of this had to do with the Soviet republics having a sense of distinct nationalities with distinct languages, and a sense that unlike the personal rule of the Romanovs or the Communist universalism of the Soviets, a Russian ethnostate had no basis for legitimate rule over them.

    In some ways, it could also be thought of as a delayed loss of empire. While the other European powers all lost their empires in the aftermath of the World Wars, the borders of the Russian Empire were frozen in time by Communism. A large part of what was lost had been held by Russia for around a century or less at the time of the October Revolution. Still, the Russian Federation held together, and it contained 60% of the USSR's population, and more than that of its GDP, territory, and natural resources.

    I don't think there's really an analogy for a place as culturally and linguistically unified, with as strong a sense of national identity as the US, falling apart. The closest I can think of is the Warlord Era after the Republic of China fell apart. Which still ended inevitably in unity, even though the forces pulling China apart were stronger, and the forces bringing it together weaker, than the present-day US. Fed or no Fed, as things look today it wouldn't be enough for the secessionists to win if the Federal Government's power contracted by 99%.

    Much more realistic: the Federal government is paralyzed in a crisis, and the Constitution is thrown out, for better or worse. Probably worse.

    Replies: @SafeNow, @Almost Missouri

    a Russian ethnostate had no basis for legitimate rule over them.

    Yes, but that puts the cart before the horse. They seceded from the universalist Soviet Union. It was their secession that created the Russian ethnostate as a byproduct/leftover. (Not that this matters terribly much. I largely agree with your first two paragraphs.)

    I don’t think there’s really an analogy for a place as culturally and linguistically unified, with as strong a sense of national identity as the US, falling apart.

    Well, 1861-1865 and the worst war ever in US history. So there’s that. And the original secession of the Thirteen Colonies from Great Britain. And even the (peaceful and somewhat gradual) secession of Canada and Australia, for example, from Britain. Indeed, fissiparousness and self-determination seem to be hallmarks of Anglo politics. (Cecil Rhodes weeps.) The extreme centralization of recent history is what is most unnatural and unprecedented, and is only held in place by enormous force and cash.

    The closest I can think of is the Warlord Era

    Interesting analogy.

    after the Republic of China fell apart.

    I admit I don’t know much Chinese history, but didn’t the Warlord Era follow the collapse of Manchu Dynasty? My impression is that the Republic of China was mostly a legal/political fiction.

    Which still ended inevitably in unity

    Maybe “inevitable”. OTOH, large parts of Chinese history seem to consist of non-unified states. Of course, with its unprecedented prosperity and surveillance technology, the current government may well succeed in creating a new normal from the current situation.

    the forces pulling China apart were stronger, and the forces bringing it together weaker, than the present-day US.

    Were they? China has a long (if of mixed success) history of imperial rule, while the Anglo world has a long (if also of mixed success) history of decentralized rule by consent.

    Fed or no Fed, as things look today it wouldn’t be enough for the secessionists to win if the Federal Government’s power contracted by 99%.

    Why? Secessions, peaceful and violent, have succeeded frequently in the Anglo world. Besides a few wokesheviks (and then only when they are in power), does anyone actually like the Federal government? At the moment most everyone tolerates it because in one way or another it keeps sending them money. But if its ability to do $trillion-scale bribery dissipated, would anyone care anymore what some jumped-up panjandrums in DC were saying?

    Much more realistic: the Federal government is paralyzed in a crisis

    Yes, probably a currency crisis.

    and the Constitution is thrown out, for better or worse. Probably worse.

    That part has mostly already happened.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @Almost Missouri


    Well, 1861-1865 and the worst war ever in US history. So there’s that. And the original secession of the Thirteen Colonies from Great Britain.
     
    Part of my point is that the US is more culturally unified today than it was in 1861. We're a single media market. Regional accents are fading away. People move more frequently for school and work. And I just don't think that the secession of distant overseas colonial possessions is relevant when we're talking about the partition of places with a shared border. The colonial/imperial model has broken down everywhere except for tiny islands and enclaves.

    The extreme centralization of recent history is what is most unnatural and unprecedented, and is only held in place by enormous force and cash.
     
    I think this is the crux of where we differ. Centralization is maintained with very little force. I point again to Catalonian independence. In the West, no one is prepared to use force to resist the central government. The result is the authorities can keep everyone in line with very little force. Now, you might say they have the implicit threat of force, but that's not the same thing as force. The US fields around 2 million in the armed forces (if you include reserves), but when it come to dealing with secessionists, 10,000 men would be more than enough. There is no one who is standing down because the government can field 2 million and not 10,000.

    At the moment most everyone tolerates it because in one way or another it keeps sending them money. But if its ability to do $trillion-scale bribery dissipated, would anyone care anymore what some jumped-up panjandrums in DC were saying?
     
    Also, when it comes to the Fed: yes, the government gets free money as a result of the fact that, unlike just about any government in history, it can engage in de facto seigniorage without any noticeable effect on inflation and it can borrow forever at very low rates. And what's more, consumers can borrow at very low rates. When this is lost (and it will be lost) the budget will become more constrained by reality. But the US government won't cease to exist; it will just have to become a government more like any other. It can still tax the world's largest economy.

    And again, if the Catalonians care what Madrid says, then I assure you, everyone in the US will still care what DC says, even a somewhat poorer DC.

    As for the Republic of China -- it was mostly a fiction (or an ideal), but there's a few years there before the Warlord Era is said to have commenced. But it's close enough to say that the Warlord Era followed the collapse of the Qing.

    China split up a number of times, but it always came back together, and in fact it tended to come back together quicker and quicker as the dynasties passed. A big reason is that it had a self-perception as a whole, a single people and nation, which only strengthened over time. And America still has this as well. It has plenty of internal divisions, sure, China has had plenty of those over the years as well, and sometimes the national identity is weaker than others. But importantly, unless you can forge an alternative regional identity that's a lot stronger than the national identity (and political ideology alone can't do this), then the nation ultimately holds together, and any partitions are temporary.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  49. @scrivener3
    @Almost Missouri

    Right now no nation invites in a near superpower to "assist" it in disputes with neighbors because the United States is the sole superpower and the US forbids it. We actually live in a fairly peaceful world because the US will not allow nations to take over their neighbors. When Russia put missiles in Cuba with Cuban approval, the US stopped it. Once the US policeman retreats there will be a lot of small nations playing off powerful nations by alignments. They will have no other protection.

    Canada and Mexico are not threatened by the United States so they don't need alliances for protection. Greater NY and Greater MidwestAmerica will be much closer matched.

    If the US splits, North America will be like Europe before WWI. Each nation will need powerful allies for protection because instead of a world under US hegemony there will be lots of room for bettering your position by force.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Right now no nation invites in a near superpower to “assist” it in disputes with neighbors because the United States is the sole superpower and the US forbids it.

    From Russia:
    Crimea, the Donbass, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Central Asian Republics

    From China:
    Ceylon, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, Central Asian Republics, Iran, a bunch of African countries

    I’m probably missing some, maybe Turkey.

    Not that this matters particularly, since I don’t think the underlying argument, that the US is the world’s policeman, matters. I don’t want us to have that job, and a lot of the rest of the world doesn’t want us to have that job either. Was/is the US doing that job well? I dunno. Maybe. It’s arguable, but I don’t want to argue about it because I, like George Washington and John Adams, don’t want it to be our problem in the first place.

    Somehow the world got along without US hegemony and somehow it will do so again one day. And the effect of US hegemony today is overstated anyway. Certainly the beneficial effect is.

    Canada and Mexico are not threatened by the United States so they don’t need alliances for protection.

    The US invaded both countries in past. Today neither does much different than it would under direct US control, so there not much point in invading again.

    Greater NY and Greater MidwestAmerica will be much closer matched.

    As I’ve been hinting at in other comments, those regions described in AE’s original post are just arbitrary inventions of a random pollster. They don’t make much sense as genuine political entities, and are IMHO extremely unlikely to be the result of an actual breakup. So there is no particular reason for Greater NY and MidwestAmerica to exist, nevermind go to war with each other.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  50. @usNthem
    @nebulafox

    Frankly, institutionalization needs to be brought back as well. There’s a certain segment of the homeless population, due to their mental state, that have no business wandering among the local population. Is it more humane to let them scratch out some pathetic subsistence and turning a blind eye, or put them someplace where they’d at least have a clean bed, three squares a day as well as heating in the winter and cooling in the summer? Ken Kesey (although he may not have been all that far off the mark back then) has a lot to answer for.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Agree. And not just Ken Kesey, but also Jerry Rivera (“Geraldo Riviera”) whose fake and ghey “exposé” of Willowbrook led to cascading “deinstitutionalization” (i.e., turning everyone out onto the streets) even before Miloš Forman and Jack Nicholson persuaded everyone that what was already underway was right.

    The underlying problem, I think, is that the post-“Enlightenment” West has a peculiar vulnerability to letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Institutionalization was never perfect and never will be. But then alternative was never perfection. The alternative was, and is, what we have now: massive street populations of addicts and lunatics. What kind of improvement was that, Geraldo?

  51. Dissolution for the Diversity

    Ruling Class Decapitation is the way to go and the German-Americans in the Great Lakes states are the key cohort.

    White Core America will take the whole cake when they dislodge the JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire from power and the Krauts and the electronics are key.

    I wrote this in November of 2019:

    The German Americans are honorary Southerners, whether they want to be or not. Wisconsin has a lot of German Americans and I guess they don’t like what happened to Milwaukee when all the Blacks showed up.

    Cincinnati is another city in a German American area that has problems with Black criminality and Black riotousness.

    There are a lot of Americans with both Southern Anglo-Celtic and Anglo-Saxon ancestry who also have colonial American German ancestry.

    My favorite cross cultural story is the German American gun makers who made the Kentucky long rifle made famous by Scotch-Irish and English pioneers.

    The Southern Anglo-Celts and Anglo-Saxons have to get together with the northern Catholics and the Great Lakes states German Americans to dislodge the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire from power.

    Blacks don’t have the ultimate power in the USA, the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire has the power. The JEW/WASP ruling class is out of gas and heading for the boneyard like the dodos they are.

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/average-black-iq-by-state-2019/#comment-3572578

  52. @Paperback Writer
    @Paperback Writer

    That's how one lies with statistics. Black population growing 10x faster than white - while they are still one sixth of the white population and both percentages are tiny.

    Most black population growth in the US is from immigration. Again - look it up - African/American fertility is below replacement rate.

    But that wasn't my point, which you evaded. The white heartland is against breaking up the union.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    both percentages are tiny.

    “Tiny” is relative. “10×” is not. And white growth is falling and will probably fall through zero at the next census. Black growth is the same as it was in the 1980s, and is probably understated now. So at the next comparison, the differential won’t be 10×, it will be infinite: black growth vs. white shrinkage.

    Also note that 1.2% compounded annually (which is what population growth is) is not too shabby: it means doubling in two generations. So one population shrinking, while the other doubles in two generations … where does that go?

    Most black population growth in the US is from immigration. Again – look it up

    Ok, I did. It is surprisingly hard to find good numbers on black immigration (if you’ve got numbers, I’d love to see them), but even the most generous estimates I could find don’t come close to even half of US black population growth. So no, this does not appear to be the result of immigration, but even if it were, in practical terms does it matter that we’re importing African babies rather than growing our own? The end result is about the same.

    But that wasn’t my point, which you evaded. [A few thousand Somalis in downtown Grand Rapids aren’t going to make the Heartland into white nationalists.]

    Well, I was only responding to the hard factual, verifiable aspects of your comment, but from what I’ve seen of Grand Rapiders under the emblackening, they’re becoming either SJW supercucks or white nationalists. Which faction will predominate? I dunno.

    The white heartland is against breaking up the union.

    A majority of everyone is against breaking up the union … for the moment.

    Will that still be true after the FedGov runs out of soma?

    Indeed, at that point will it even matter how many are for or against? Why assume that democracy will determine outcome?

    [On a personal note, I’m not replying to your comments (or anyone else’s for that matter … well, maybe Corvinus’s) to shoot down the commenting. I’m replying to harden them up or to add information I happen have. There are too many comments to reply to everything I would like to, so I just reply to the ones that I find most interesting.]

  53. @nebulafox
    @Rosie

    Right. Which is why criminal penalties should be less about how much you have and more about whether you are dealing or buying.

    The thing about addicts is: they are only going to get clean if they themselves are ready to do so. You can lead a horse to water and all that. The job of the system is to subtly help them reach that decision sooner.

    Replies: @anon, @dfordoom

    The thing about addicts is: they are only going to get clean if they themselves are ready to do so. You can lead a horse to water and all that.

    Yep.

    The job of the system is to subtly help them reach that decision sooner.

    It’s possible that making drugs illegal was a bad idea from the start since it encouraged drug users to regard themselves as outcasts, and it encouraged them to think of the government and the police as the enemy.

    The problem is not drugs. The problem is the drug culture. Anyone can stop using drugs. It’s easy. What people find difficult (very difficult) is escaping from the drug culture. And making drugs illegal may well have been the factor that created the drug culture.

    Perhaps if drugs had been legally and safely available, without the problems of varying levels of purity and without the problems of drugs being adulterated with all manner of nasty things, the drug culture would never have established itself. Drugs might have been a relatively minor completely manageable social problem.

    The drug culture may be yet another disaster created by the Puritan mindset. It’s rather amazing that after the disaster of Prohibition with alcohol the Puritans managed to persuade governments to adopt the exact same failed policy with drugs.

    And as with Prohibition of alcohol the other result was the growth of an enormous organised crime problem (which naturally led to massive police corruption). If drugs had been legally and safely available that organised crime problem would never have been created.

    I personally don’t like drugs and I don’t use them but I’m more and more inclined to think that making them illegal made the situation much much worse.

  54. @Almost Missouri
    @Wency


    a Russian ethnostate had no basis for legitimate rule over them.
     
    Yes, but that puts the cart before the horse. They seceded from the universalist Soviet Union. It was their secession that created the Russian ethnostate as a byproduct/leftover. (Not that this matters terribly much. I largely agree with your first two paragraphs.)

    I don’t think there’s really an analogy for a place as culturally and linguistically unified, with as strong a sense of national identity as the US, falling apart.
     
    Well, 1861-1865 and the worst war ever in US history. So there's that. And the original secession of the Thirteen Colonies from Great Britain. And even the (peaceful and somewhat gradual) secession of Canada and Australia, for example, from Britain. Indeed, fissiparousness and self-determination seem to be hallmarks of Anglo politics. (Cecil Rhodes weeps.) The extreme centralization of recent history is what is most unnatural and unprecedented, and is only held in place by enormous force and cash.

    The closest I can think of is the Warlord Era
     
    Interesting analogy.

    after the Republic of China fell apart.
     
    I admit I don't know much Chinese history, but didn't the Warlord Era follow the collapse of Manchu Dynasty? My impression is that the Republic of China was mostly a legal/political fiction.

    Which still ended inevitably in unity
     
    Maybe "inevitable". OTOH, large parts of Chinese history seem to consist of non-unified states. Of course, with its unprecedented prosperity and surveillance technology, the current government may well succeed in creating a new normal from the current situation.

    the forces pulling China apart were stronger, and the forces bringing it together weaker, than the present-day US.
     
    Were they? China has a long (if of mixed success) history of imperial rule, while the Anglo world has a long (if also of mixed success) history of decentralized rule by consent.

    Fed or no Fed, as things look today it wouldn’t be enough for the secessionists to win if the Federal Government’s power contracted by 99%.
     
    Why? Secessions, peaceful and violent, have succeeded frequently in the Anglo world. Besides a few wokesheviks (and then only when they are in power), does anyone actually like the Federal government? At the moment most everyone tolerates it because in one way or another it keeps sending them money. But if its ability to do $trillion-scale bribery dissipated, would anyone care anymore what some jumped-up panjandrums in DC were saying?

    Much more realistic: the Federal government is paralyzed in a crisis
     
    Yes, probably a currency crisis.

    and the Constitution is thrown out, for better or worse. Probably worse.
     
    That part has mostly already happened.

    Replies: @Wency

    Well, 1861-1865 and the worst war ever in US history. So there’s that. And the original secession of the Thirteen Colonies from Great Britain.

    Part of my point is that the US is more culturally unified today than it was in 1861. We’re a single media market. Regional accents are fading away. People move more frequently for school and work. And I just don’t think that the secession of distant overseas colonial possessions is relevant when we’re talking about the partition of places with a shared border. The colonial/imperial model has broken down everywhere except for tiny islands and enclaves.

    The extreme centralization of recent history is what is most unnatural and unprecedented, and is only held in place by enormous force and cash.

    I think this is the crux of where we differ. Centralization is maintained with very little force. I point again to Catalonian independence. In the West, no one is prepared to use force to resist the central government. The result is the authorities can keep everyone in line with very little force. Now, you might say they have the implicit threat of force, but that’s not the same thing as force. The US fields around 2 million in the armed forces (if you include reserves), but when it come to dealing with secessionists, 10,000 men would be more than enough. There is no one who is standing down because the government can field 2 million and not 10,000.

    At the moment most everyone tolerates it because in one way or another it keeps sending them money. But if its ability to do $trillion-scale bribery dissipated, would anyone care anymore what some jumped-up panjandrums in DC were saying?

    Also, when it comes to the Fed: yes, the government gets free money as a result of the fact that, unlike just about any government in history, it can engage in de facto seigniorage without any noticeable effect on inflation and it can borrow forever at very low rates. And what’s more, consumers can borrow at very low rates. When this is lost (and it will be lost) the budget will become more constrained by reality. But the US government won’t cease to exist; it will just have to become a government more like any other. It can still tax the world’s largest economy.

    And again, if the Catalonians care what Madrid says, then I assure you, everyone in the US will still care what DC says, even a somewhat poorer DC.

    As for the Republic of China — it was mostly a fiction (or an ideal), but there’s a few years there before the Warlord Era is said to have commenced. But it’s close enough to say that the Warlord Era followed the collapse of the Qing.

    China split up a number of times, but it always came back together, and in fact it tended to come back together quicker and quicker as the dynasties passed. A big reason is that it had a self-perception as a whole, a single people and nation, which only strengthened over time. And America still has this as well. It has plenty of internal divisions, sure, China has had plenty of those over the years as well, and sometimes the national identity is weaker than others. But importantly, unless you can forge an alternative regional identity that’s a lot stronger than the national identity (and political ideology alone can’t do this), then the nation ultimately holds together, and any partitions are temporary.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Wency

    The authorities are able to keep people in line with minimal force because the people still want to be kept in line, albeit less so by the day. If 75% of Californians voted for independence tomorrow, would the US military intervene to stop it? I doubt it. What we've yet to see is a clear democratic expression of a desire for separation. When we do, it'll be clarifying. I think the US as currently constituted will go out with a whimper more than with a bang.

    Replies: @Wency

  55. The two regions with the strongest support for secession–the South (59%) and the Pacific (46%)

    Where exactly did you get these figures from?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Mr. XYZ

    Those are the non-Hispanic white percentages of those regions.

  56. The Heartland is the whitest of the three regions (78% as of 2012). It is also the least enthusiastic about the idea of political dissolution.

    I can believe that. We frequently (and correctly) comment that the east and left coasts have little knowledge of the way things are in flyover country, but the converse is also often true. Many Midwestern conservatives still haven’t been able to process (or maybe “internalize” is a better word) the dramatic changes our country has experienced over the last half century because things don’t look that different in Hays, Kansas or Rapid City. I speak as a Midwesterner who often takes solace in the relative whiteness of our region.

    Incidentally, I have to laugh at the white nationalists of ten years ago who were loudly proclaiming that the Pacific Northwest was the most logical place for a so-called “homeland” in the US. The perpetual riots and CHAZ have hopefully revealed a truth to those morons that should’ve been obvious a long time ago.

  57. @nebulafox
    Speaking as someone who understands this from personal experience: if you want to help homeless people, give them the social connections. Help them get jobs: my pet idea is gyms employing high-functioning homeless people, because free showers, floor access, and opportunities for re-socialization (and subtly, a feeling of dignity and worth for people often dealing with some severe mental scars) can easily be part of the package. Or help them the medical treatment and/or counseling they need in order to hold down a job. Stop rentier housing policies that make it ever more difficult for people with no initial capital to get off the street. Zero-tolerance policies for drug peddlers, combined with light-to-no penalties for users on the condition that they undergo detox and stay clean.

    Just don't pretend emoting about grand abstract theories is helping anyone. And turning cities into open-air tent camps only makes everybody else miserable so that rich lefties who don't have to deal with the realities they create can feel good about themselves. All while doing squat for the homeless.

    Replies: @Rosie, @usNthem, @RSDB

    [MORE]

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
  58. @Paperback Writer

    The regional differences aren’t large, but the whiter the region, the less inclined it is towards secession.

     

    I would say the exact opposite. Think about it.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @anon, @turtlesallthewaydown

    That is what the survey said, not what the author thinks or what the people really want if you asked all of them.

  59. The Heartland is the whitest of the three regions (78% as of 2012). It is also the least enthusiastic about the idea of political dissolution.

    The Heartland is followed by the Mountain (65% white) and the Northeast (66% white). The two regions with the strongest support for secession–the South (59%) and the Pacific (46%)–are also the least white ones. Democrat support is strongest in the minority-majority Pacific. To the extent they want an ethnostate, it’s a non-white one!

    The regional differences aren’t large, but the whiter the region, the less inclined it is towards secession.

    1. The Heartland is the most German of all the USA and shows the consequences of immigration whether illegal or legal.

    German-ancestry US citizens almost certainly are descendants of immigrants. Thus they are not Americans (descendants born of British subjects, and truly, English, living in British North America on the eve of the War for Independence).

    see:
    2. The people most pushing for secession (Pacific and South) live where there is the greatest racial diversity and hence the greatest racial tension.

    see:

    The Audacious Epigone often gets stuff right, but today, he is oh-so wrong.

  60. @rebel yell
    @scrivener3

    Agreed - it is naive to think newly separated nations aren't going to plot and intrigue against each other and that foreign powers won't be involved. The Monroe Doctrine is still the most important foundation stone of our foreign policy. Separate nations puts that at risk.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Audacious Epigone

    Like the US and Canada are always plotting and intriguing against each other?

  61. @V. K. Ovelund

    The regional differences aren’t large, but the whiter the region, the less inclined it is towards secession. This is not what we would expect if support for political dissolution was predominantly racial in motivation.
     
    I am open to being shown that U.S. dissolution is necessary. Wokeness is not persuading me, because I believe that wokeness though terrible is transitory. What other reasons?

    Are there sound reasons I might understand if I lived in a different county or different state? Are there sound reasons I might understand if I did something different for a living? Are there sound reasons I do not yet understand but would come to understand only after the chance to dissolve the Union had been missed?

    I see that several intelligent, reasonable, patriotic Americans here favor dissolution. What foresight have they that I lack? What am I missing, please?

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @anonymous, @Audacious Epigone

    It would effectively spell the end of the American global empire. That’s good for everybody who doesn’t profit from the military-industrial complex, Americans and non-Americans alike.

    There are big cultural differences, too. The Heartland will no longer have to subsidize the sanctuary city policies of the coasts. The coasts will no longer have to subsidize the agricultural production (and often intentional non-production) of the heartland.

  62. @vok3
    "This is not what we would expect if support for political dissolution was predominantly racial in motivation."

    On the contrary. It's exactly the pattern racialist blogs have seen over the past 20 years. The lower the proportion of whites, the more exposed people are to diversity, the more they realize they don't like it and become radicalized. Low radicalization in non-diverse places is the norm. They haven't seen the problem up close so aren't reacting to it yet. But when they do, the cause and the motivation is always derived from race and its consequences, and wouldn't have happened without the racial factor.

    This is basic stuff.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Audacious Epigone

    It’s basic except the partisan affiliations don’t make sense, unless it’s that non-whites really start to want out when things get diverse.

    More importantly though is it dispels the notion that the left-dominant regions of the country don’t want to let the right-flyover go but instead want to dominate them. Leftists in left-dominant places are willing to give up the union to be rid of right hindrances to their progessivism.

  63. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Wency

    AE, you respond to commenters more than most authors do, so one doubts that anyone would think the less of you if you chose not to respond to this particular group of commenters on the present topic. However, if you do choose to respond, I think that Wency's comment is worth responding to. Wency gets straight to the point.

    Spain, Italy and 19th-century Germany have been given as examples. That counterexamples exist is not denied, of course. For instance, you have 20th-century East Germany and North Korea, plus 19th-century Norway. Each has its own circumstances.

    My own view is probably that your own, interesting conservatism-is-liberalism's-shadow series suggests that the present alignment of political forces is too transitory to justify disunion. I grasp your point regarding the dollar, but remain unpersuaded that enough of the American problem is tied to imprudent monetary policy to break the Union up.

    At any rate, Wency has teed the ball up. Take a swing at it if you like.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    The relevance of historical comparisons are limited because things are different now than then.

    Populations are declining or about to be declining almost everywhere in the world. That wasn’t the case in the 20th century. Without the population growth dynamic, concerns about maintaining physical territory become less important. Relatedly, productive capacity comes less and less from real estate than it did in the past. This trend seems inexorable.

    There is much less tolerance for military violence than there was in the 20th century. I hated the Iraq Attaq as much as anyone, but it’s worth keeping in mind that over our nearly two decades there, we’ve lost fewer people than we did in a few days in WWII.

    More recent and examples of dissolution, all from the 21st century, are South Sudan, Timor-Leste, and Brexit.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  64. @Wency
    @Almost Missouri


    Well, 1861-1865 and the worst war ever in US history. So there’s that. And the original secession of the Thirteen Colonies from Great Britain.
     
    Part of my point is that the US is more culturally unified today than it was in 1861. We're a single media market. Regional accents are fading away. People move more frequently for school and work. And I just don't think that the secession of distant overseas colonial possessions is relevant when we're talking about the partition of places with a shared border. The colonial/imperial model has broken down everywhere except for tiny islands and enclaves.

    The extreme centralization of recent history is what is most unnatural and unprecedented, and is only held in place by enormous force and cash.
     
    I think this is the crux of where we differ. Centralization is maintained with very little force. I point again to Catalonian independence. In the West, no one is prepared to use force to resist the central government. The result is the authorities can keep everyone in line with very little force. Now, you might say they have the implicit threat of force, but that's not the same thing as force. The US fields around 2 million in the armed forces (if you include reserves), but when it come to dealing with secessionists, 10,000 men would be more than enough. There is no one who is standing down because the government can field 2 million and not 10,000.

    At the moment most everyone tolerates it because in one way or another it keeps sending them money. But if its ability to do $trillion-scale bribery dissipated, would anyone care anymore what some jumped-up panjandrums in DC were saying?
     
    Also, when it comes to the Fed: yes, the government gets free money as a result of the fact that, unlike just about any government in history, it can engage in de facto seigniorage without any noticeable effect on inflation and it can borrow forever at very low rates. And what's more, consumers can borrow at very low rates. When this is lost (and it will be lost) the budget will become more constrained by reality. But the US government won't cease to exist; it will just have to become a government more like any other. It can still tax the world's largest economy.

    And again, if the Catalonians care what Madrid says, then I assure you, everyone in the US will still care what DC says, even a somewhat poorer DC.

    As for the Republic of China -- it was mostly a fiction (or an ideal), but there's a few years there before the Warlord Era is said to have commenced. But it's close enough to say that the Warlord Era followed the collapse of the Qing.

    China split up a number of times, but it always came back together, and in fact it tended to come back together quicker and quicker as the dynasties passed. A big reason is that it had a self-perception as a whole, a single people and nation, which only strengthened over time. And America still has this as well. It has plenty of internal divisions, sure, China has had plenty of those over the years as well, and sometimes the national identity is weaker than others. But importantly, unless you can forge an alternative regional identity that's a lot stronger than the national identity (and political ideology alone can't do this), then the nation ultimately holds together, and any partitions are temporary.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    The authorities are able to keep people in line with minimal force because the people still want to be kept in line, albeit less so by the day. If 75% of Californians voted for independence tomorrow, would the US military intervene to stop it? I doubt it. What we’ve yet to see is a clear democratic expression of a desire for separation. When we do, it’ll be clarifying. I think the US as currently constituted will go out with a whimper more than with a bang.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @Audacious Epigone

    I'm positing that you wouldn't even need the military -- the President would have repeatedly warned CA not to secede and already established the legal framework for declaring it illegal, and have FBI agents in place at the Sacramento Federal building. Then, when secession happened, the FBI would move and arrest the politicians responsible within the hour, without shots fired.

    If 75% were possible, or even 50%, the vast majority would be hoping for Brexit -- as soon as the guns come out, they're out. It's not even that the majority wants to be kept in line. The vast majority just doesn't want to fight and die for political causes and doesn't really care that much about seceding or not seceding.

    So to make that sort of secession happen, you need people who are prepared to kill and perhaps die to prevent that FBI scenario from playing out. And they would probably have to be something like a well-organized grassroots militia that is prepared to besiege and, if necessary, storm every Federal installation in the state, including military bases. They would have to have either entirely infiltrated the local National Guard, or be prepared to disarm them.

    But I also don't think you'll ever get close to 75% support, in any state. It would be a much more close-fought thing than secession in the 1860s. There are too many people who benefit materially from the union, and our culture is too much a national culture, too many transplants across state lines, too many people with family in other states, or who work for companies based in other states. Also, note that the "opposed" column is disproportionately going to include the megacorps, the MSM, the military (and the rest of FedGov's employees and politicians), all of whom have more to lose than gain from secession in terms of personal wealth and power. So that even if the secessionists had a majority of support, they wouldn't have anything close to a majority of force and funds.

  65. @Mr. XYZ

    The two regions with the strongest support for secession–the South (59%) and the Pacific (46%)
     
    Where exactly did you get these figures from?

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Those are the non-Hispanic white percentages of those regions.

  66. @Audacious Epigone
    @Wency

    The authorities are able to keep people in line with minimal force because the people still want to be kept in line, albeit less so by the day. If 75% of Californians voted for independence tomorrow, would the US military intervene to stop it? I doubt it. What we've yet to see is a clear democratic expression of a desire for separation. When we do, it'll be clarifying. I think the US as currently constituted will go out with a whimper more than with a bang.

    Replies: @Wency

    I’m positing that you wouldn’t even need the military — the President would have repeatedly warned CA not to secede and already established the legal framework for declaring it illegal, and have FBI agents in place at the Sacramento Federal building. Then, when secession happened, the FBI would move and arrest the politicians responsible within the hour, without shots fired.

    If 75% were possible, or even 50%, the vast majority would be hoping for Brexit — as soon as the guns come out, they’re out. It’s not even that the majority wants to be kept in line. The vast majority just doesn’t want to fight and die for political causes and doesn’t really care that much about seceding or not seceding.

    So to make that sort of secession happen, you need people who are prepared to kill and perhaps die to prevent that FBI scenario from playing out. And they would probably have to be something like a well-organized grassroots militia that is prepared to besiege and, if necessary, storm every Federal installation in the state, including military bases. They would have to have either entirely infiltrated the local National Guard, or be prepared to disarm them.

    But I also don’t think you’ll ever get close to 75% support, in any state. It would be a much more close-fought thing than secession in the 1860s. There are too many people who benefit materially from the union, and our culture is too much a national culture, too many transplants across state lines, too many people with family in other states, or who work for companies based in other states. Also, note that the “opposed” column is disproportionately going to include the megacorps, the MSM, the military (and the rest of FedGov’s employees and politicians), all of whom have more to lose than gain from secession in terms of personal wealth and power. So that even if the secessionists had a majority of support, they wouldn’t have anything close to a majority of force and funds.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS